This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Why do we let this happen in the world?
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/646137-south-korea-surrenders-to-creationist-demands
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Peter Law 30+
" HOWEVER, anyone who develops their ideas in a fashion where they only seek to prove their own beliefs, and not simply the truth, limits themself in a way which will put them far behind a scientifically developed understanding of the truth. "
I agree entirely. The creationist stance is that the EVIDENCE for the biblical account is more persuasive than the EVIDENCE for evolution. This is, of course, debatable; but if you put yourself in that mindset for a moment it will help you understand the dilemma . From the creationist viewpoint science class should expose the evidence without reference to any aspects which cannot be supported by direct scientific evidence.
Not so long ago scientific mainstream was creationist, today it is evolutionist, but with a growing number questioning this stance. Science will progress either way, & the truth will out . Hopefully.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The world could be flattened, or extra water created to flood the entire surface etc.
God could have ensured the first humans could interbreed without genetic defects etc
Nearly every point can be twisted. E.g. the similarities between vertibra or all life with DNA can be twisted to be design efficiency. The fact that several types of eyes - compound, camera etc evolved can also fit.
You also distrust or question dating technigues etc. Ignore other bits e.g. no rabbits along side dinosaur fossils because they hadn' t evolved.
Its an amazingly flexible and ingenious approach. If you believe the book is literally true you will find a way to rationalise and interpret the data. I guess some YEC think there is a huge conspiracy. Seriously I don't care if it is 13.5 billion or 6,000. Science is not trying to disprove literal religious beliefs. It is just following the evidence. If someone found compelling evidence that knocked down evolution, geology, and cosmology etc there would be a nobel prize in it.
I can't see that happening as my understanding is the evidence for evolution and a world about 4 billion years old is compelling. I note there was a paper recently that picked up some improvements in dating the Earth. Peer reviewed. Science is not perfect but it continually improves.
In a way they could say the same about those of us who accept mainstream science as the best explanation we have so far. We start of with the assumption that there will be a natural explanation rather than a supernatural one. Science interprets some data based on assumptions. But not all assumptions are equal.
Then you have a supreme being that drowned everyone except Noah and his family. But thats okay because Noah warned the people around him for years. This is the Noah who killed a son for seeing him naked
Peter Law 30+
This is where I get deleted by admin for beig off-topic.
The most obvious place to look for me is the geologic column.
For fossils to exist they must be buried rapidly; As far as I know that is agreed.
We have millions of them at all levels throughout the world. These would include polystrate fossils passing through many layers. Evolutionists normally agree with this, but say that in general the layers are slowly laid down. Why would layers with fossils be laid down quicker than regular layers?
In general there is no sign of weathering or erosion between the layers. Why not, if millions of years have passed?
In places like the Grand Canyon & the American Badlands we see delicate pillars of layered rock. In my scenario, floodwater comes in depositing layer upon layer; after a time the land uplifts & the water rushes out again taking much of the land with it, but leaving these pillars, canyons, etc. The layers wouldstill be soft at this stage. Evolutionists normally attribute this to wind/sand erosion. Ok, but wouldn't this tend to round things off? Also where did all the dirt go?
I don't expect you to agree, but don't you think these things warrant some consideration?
:-)
robert hensley
So, where the creationist are out to prove the creator; scientist are just asking questions, looking for answers-- these answers have brought us all of the technologies we have to day.
Does that mean that ultimately there is no god? No, it does not mean that. It only means that we have not found that result yet, and if there is a god we are more likely to find him through science than through creationism. So, I invite creationists to believe whatever they want, but it is not science. And in turn, if someday science does prove god, creationist might then say, “ok now I get it, and oh btw the way I told you so.” But, their “pseudoscience” will have never proven anything without the help of actual science.
In conclusion, Evolution is science and as such should be taught as science (as was decided by the courts through a separation of church and state, provided by the “lemon” test-- this is relevant because in the article they said South Korea may have looked to the U.S. when they made their choice). Creationism is not science, and should not be taught as science. So by not teaching evolution, you are choosing to not teach proven facts which have led us to many of the advancements that we enjoy today (like the beef we consume, the wheat in our bread, and mass produced insulin for diabetics).
robert hensley
Through science we have not only been able to define these things, but we have also been able to use the knowledge to guide our future exploration and discoveries. Erosion can be seen everywhere there are particles that interact with the environment (this includes the Grand Canyon). Not only can that result be predicted, but it can also be repeated. Still, it is completely understandable for someone to not fully grasp this concept- and this does not make them dumb (I want to make sure it is understood that I am not implying that, and am instead saying that it is normal). Why do you think people still go to the Grand Canyon? Often, it’s because it truly brings a sense of awe and wonderment to very many people. This is partly because; the larger the number, the harder the human mind has to work to understand it.
This concept is something that is well known in science. Your biological tools (eyes, nose, brain, etc..) are not always capable of directly understanding what is being observed. In short, this is why we have developed other tools, like math, and a process in which to use them- a process that seeks to make the result observable, predictable, and repeatable.
The creationist argument is not science, because it starts with: “god does exist and there are no other possibilities”, then it looks for something to mold to that belief. Science: looks at the evidence, then they look at more evidence somewhere else, then they compare the evidence, then they ask “what does this mean”, then they show the evidence to other people and ask them what they think it means, then they develop an experiment to try and test what it “might” mean, then they ask other people to review the experiment for errors and in turn do the experiment themselves, then they see what they can predictably do with the results of the experiment, and so on.
robert hensley
Second, don’t be afraid to express your ideas. This is an educated forum and I’m sure we can have a respectful conversation about this topic.
There is no evidence for creationism beyond what people who want to believe in god have created. This can be seen in the fact that: to believe in Creationism you must believe in a creator, but Evolution has no bearing on a creator- that is to say it neither proves or disproves a creator (it does however push the debate back for billions of years). I also understand that this may not be an acceptable argument for you.
God has been an explanation for the unexplainable for thousands of years, an explanation which has been removed every time the real cause was found. The people who found these explanations sat down and reviewed a situation, collected information (in an unbiased manner), then realized that something else actually did explain what they saw (and when they could no longer explain it, they often went back to god).
I don’t know how far your religious beliefs have come, and at no time would I presume to attempt to deprive you of them. But, depending on how far along your personal beliefs have come, there are only certain things that they may allow you to accept, and I will respect that. I will however say that, there are many people who believe in many things that have been proven false. Genetics has proven that there is no Aryan race, but people not only still believe in one, they would also kill for one. There are also people who do not believe that time is relative, yet they use their GPS every day.
robert hensley
robert hensley
Peter Law 30+
I have listened to many hours of Ken Miller; he is a very good speaker & scientist. I watched half an hour of the link. I have no interest in trials in the US; I am in Scotland. I am interested in the science. I want to know the evolutionist explanation of the geologic column as outlined above.
We probably don't have time for much more on this topic? I have researched this subject, & I am trying to educate you. There is nothing out there which gives a reasonable evolutionary explanation for all these fossils. Prove me wrong.
:-)
Stewart Gault 30+
robert hensley
I believe the genetic proof starts about 30min :-( so you probably stopped before he presented it.
Basically, fossils and erosion are nice and I'm sure a geologist could help with that, but evolution has actually been proven genetically now. Unfortunately, to really understand it and not just trust the end result (which is evolution), you have to have a strong understanding of biology and genetics (which is where more of my education lies). You should watch the next 30 min of the lecture (and actually if you go to about 45 min you might catch it too-- if you don't have the time).
Evolution has happened, and does happen, and genetics uses that information all of the time.
robert hensley
As a side note, after reading the article that Stewart posted, I'm thinking that your side (the opposing side to the article) is presenting that all of the geological layers were laid down in a year? How could that be when decay-- which I know a little about from my knowledge of math and chemistry-- happens at such a regular rate (a rate which yield time spans much longer than a year)?
I read something on creationism.org, but it wasn't very compelling because it didn't specifically address radiocarbon dating. Do you happen to have an article I could read, so I can better understand the issue?
Peter Law 30+
Will try & get time for some more tonight, although as I said I have listened to a lot of Ken's stuff. Also many debates.
The genetics are a bit deep for me I must admit. However if evolution was taking place at all, I would expect to see it in flesh & blood in the world around me, but that's another topic. My field is mechanical/electrical engineering . In the workings of cells etc. I see nano technology of the highest order. we can sort of understand some of it, but it is light years ahead of any technology we have. Whoever made it is far far smarter than us, & the possibility it made itself is non-existent .
EDIT
Listened to the rest of the vid. Ken cites the fact that you can take a bunch of parts from the flagellum & still have a functioning secretory system. Someone else stated that in evolutionary terms the flagellum predates the secretory system. I don't know. On the blood clotting cascade, it's the same sort of argument. Sure you can live without a couple of items; if you're a puffer fish. He wins the argument by proving Behe was incorrect in what he said, because he never added "in humans".
To me it was a political speech to the faithful with very little science. Good entertainment if you like that sort of stuff.
What I do to try to get a balance is to bob back & forward between answersingenesis.com & TalkOrigins.com . They critique each others stuff, so if you need to know the arguments, just search at both sites & form your opinion.
Btw this probably won't go down well with your lecturers, I'd keep quiet about it.
:-)
robert hensley
Here are some problems I have with the earlier stuff about erosion and the Grand Canyon:
“In general there is no sign of weathering or erosion between the layers.”
The layers are not exposed, therefor see no erosion. And the layers that are exposed do see erosion.
“floodwater comes in depositing layer upon layer; after a time the land uplifts & the water rushes out again taking much of the land with it, but leaving these pillars, canyons, etc.”
The volume of Grand Canyon is 4.17x10^12 cubic meters of rock. To give an Idea of that volume, If you were to stack copies of the roman coliseum one on another, this volume would go more than 36% of the way to the moon. Someone else did a similar analogy to the volume of the Grand Canyon and found that: you can fit the entire world’s population in a 1/10 of a mile long segment of the Grand Canyon (the Grand Canyon is 277 miles long).
The fact is: it takes a long time for that much rock to be displaced naturally. As a matter of fact: if you took the amount of water it takes to do that and condensed it down to 1 year (not even 40 days and 40 nights, but 1 full year strait), it would take more than 6 times all of the water in the world’s oceans focused on the grand canyon alone. To put that in perspective, if you stacked km^3 containers of water on top of each other, it would go from the earth to the moon, over 16 million times.
**edit, btw, creating the grand canyon in a year with a flood is even more impossible then even I originally thought.
robert hensley
“Evolutionists normally attribute this to wind/sand erosion. Ok, but wouldn't this tend to round things off? “
You are not accounting for the force of gravity in this statement. Erosion functions just that way, it erodes the exposed area of the land. Not only is erosion occurring, but the force of gravity is also pulling on the object. So, over time the structure erodes to the point where gravity is able to overcome and break it off, causing jagged edges. However, it’s not all jagged edges, there are some smooth areas too.
robert hensley
It is so beautiful because you see the evolution of the earlier forms into the current forms. The genes for the puffer fish’s system are just less evolved version of our genes, and that is why it is so beautiful.
You can see this in much of what you look at in genetics, and it is a beauty beyond description to see the story of how everything evolved, and it being told in our very own genes. Some of the genes they have identified are genes that have been “turned off” that are old versions of the genes for sense of smell. At one time we had the sense of smell of a primate.
robert hensley
Obey No1kinobe 50+
matter and living things are made from atoms so of course nano
Our senses didn't evolve to see nano (or even beyond the visible spectrum)
We don't have all the answers but have come a long well in 2000 years
Peter Law 30+
Re. The Grand Canyon. In my scenario the mud layers would still be soft when they were eroded. For a long time it was assumed that the Colorado River cut the canyon, but I think now that theory is out of favour. What do you think caused it ?
There has been interesting stuff happening at Mt. St. Helen's. Here is a nice photo :-
http://njbiblescience.org/presentations/christian_atheist/img42.html
And here more in-depth :-
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/
You still haven't given me your take on how the fossils formed over the millions of years suggested by evolution. What do you think ?
:-)
robert hensley
This goes back to what I said in the essay I posted above (lol, sorry again about that length). As scientists we have learned to not trust our senses for many reasons, one of which being: our brains can’t always conceive really big numbers without help. Everything about the Grand Canyon is a REALLY big number, and when you see the big numbers you’re like, “meh, ok whatever”, but when you sit down and really put it into perspective it’s beautifully elegant how everything fits together (when we look at just how many things could have affected the Grand Canyon over billions of years).
When I started doing this problem I considered the flood method “plausible”, but “not likely”. The first problem I saw with it was the amount of water it might take to do such a thing. So I looked at data on how much sediment the river could move per year, the volume of water the river can move through the Grand Canyon per year, the density of the material, and the total volume of the Grand Canyon itself. I did this to find out how long it might take for water to erode this volume naturally. It took those conditions 8.8 million years for water to complete that volume. Then I looked to see what people were saying about the Grand Canyon, and what time frames they have come to believe. I found that 8.8 million year was consistent with the other time frames and therefor plausible (this is not saying a river did this, just that it now needs to be looked at closer and other factors need to be considered). So, now that I had shown that water could do this given time, I changed the time frame to a year, to find if it could be done that quickly with water.
robert hensley
By this point I am hooked on this problem. Now that it can’t be done, I want to do it even more. So, I set out to try and make this happen. But the fact is: water is just not capable of doing this with in a year without alternate delivery methods. And, the numbers are so large that I would say if creation did this, it would have had little to do with water.
But, this did bring me to a different understanding, the understanding about just how big the numbers dealing with the Grand Canyon really are. The world is old, as is the Grand Canyon, and a lot has happened to it over that time period. So much has happened, that I realized the world isn’t just going to hang around and watch the Colorado River have all the fun; it’s going to have its own say.
I don’t believe that water created the Grand Canyon alone, not because it is not “possible”, but because it is “not likely”. Over the time period required for water to do this, the world would have gone through: ice ages, massive volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, tectonic movement, and all of the other things that happen to something when you leave it lying around in space for billions of years. And indeed, the Grand Canyon isn’t millions of years old, it’s billions of years old, with everything dropping in on occasion to have a little bit of the fun.
robert hensley
This is a good question, but what you have to remember is: I was only looking at waters ability given a constant rate of flow and removal in order to find a “ball park” figure of how much water was needed to create the Grand Canyon with a flood over the span of a year.
This scenario is not possible either, because water does not flow through the Grand Canyon at the highest rate of flow naturally possible for millions of years. And in turn would not carry out a constant amount of sediment. In other words: I was trying to force it to be possible, by creating a scenario in a manner that would attempt to prove it. By doing this I ignored the things I mentioned earlier: ice ages (might slow it down), massive volcanic eruptions (might slow it down, or speed it up), meteor strikes (might slow it down, speed it up, or completely erase it), tectonic movement (might slow it down, or speed it up), and all of the other things that happen to something when you leave it lying around in space for billions of years (aliens, god, and any other unknowns yet to be discovered). All, of these things bring significant variables of their own, and all of which are initially “plausible” to have affected the Grand Canyon under a large time span of exposure, but you have to consider the rates of occurrences for the area in question (unless of course you just want to say god did it and just move on).
robert hensley
I am very interested to see the video talked about in this clip:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/video/ondemand/foundations/in-six-days-clip-time
The person in this clip (who I think might be ken ham?) sums up a core problem with creationist thinking in this video when he says, “the reason I’m so passionate about the age of the earth is because I’m zealous about god”. This statement is like saying, “god is the answer and there are no other possibilities” which is blinding when it comes to facts that contradict his beliefs. I’m not going to suggest how he should live his life, but this problem will prevent him from ever finding the truth. He will only ever find what he believes.
Another argument I have seen surfacing here is the “error coding chance” of DNA, but what they have not mentioned yet is that the 1 billion error chance is across 3.2 billion base pairs. So their 1 billion “improbability” is actually a 33% “probability”. This doesn’t take into account many other things either, like the fact that that replication doesn’t happen once, but 10^16 times over ones life span (that’s 10,000 trillion times). Now, it would be a major problem if there weren’t mechanism to combat this, because the mutations are entirely random and can have unforeseen consequences (there are mechanisms that check this btw). But the fact remains that errors do occur, and on occasion those errors give rise to mutations. Not to mention that coding errors are not the only way that mutations can occur.
robert hensley
So for fossils I will just have to trust that there might be a problem there and that people much more qualified than me are probably working on it. But I say this knowing the track record of this conversation, and as with everything I come in contact with, I am inherently skeptical.
robert hensley
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r04/
creationists would like to propose that the age of the earth is “young” because, “Geomorphologists have learned that the time scale they have been trained to attach to landform development may be misleading.” (Am I stating the issue correctly? and am I missing anything?)
At this point there is something I need to know, namely: What is "young"? how old do they think it is? I ask this question because I have heard the current ranges of 6000yrs to 200,000 years.
robert hensley
If god is omnipotent, everlasting, and all powerful, then: why is religion even trying to use science to prove god, when god is capable of functioning outside the laws of physics?
Here is a reason why I don't understand this:
Science explains stuff without god all the time. And when asked about it they often say, I didn’t include god, because I can explain it without him. So, why not the convers? Why does religion need the laws of physics, when they can just explain it with god?
Stewart Gault 30+
robert hensley