Creation science

FatM...
by "divulges" maybe you meant "vulgarize", ie to put complex matter into simple terms for the general public to understand?

Well, when I was young, the vulgarisations by Asimov (he didn't write only fiction!), Bronowski (The Ascent of Man) and Sagan (Cosmos) did inspire me to ask questions and seek answers for those interesting questions of science...
Had they used complex words, I would have lost interest.
In vulgarisation, one must make compromises to simplify.

Later in my life, THEN I could get into Popper, Lakatos, Feyeraband... well, almost...
These authors would be too much for me when I was 16!

juntel, let me first say I really respect you and the way you lay out your arguments. It's an honor to be able to debate this with you, and I'll try to stop hiding behin my age.

About the tree. Unless Fr. Damascene desided to put this in his book (and I don't think he did) you won't find it in one, you'll find it in Alaska There are other instances of this all over the world, and, though I haven't looked this up for myself (I will though) he tells me (I know, don't trust others, I'm just telling you what I've heard) that the evolutionists have never been able to explain this. I think the model of a flood is highly effective in explaining the fossil record, especially since something like that can only really be created by a catastrophic event. BTW, if you don't believe in the flood and think it's just examples of small floods from different areas (I've even read writings by Christians who believe this) I offer you the fact that the arc has been found on top of Mount Ararat.

You say God is outside of his Creation. Why? God is Omnipresent, he is within it as well as outside of it. He created Man in his own image, and took on human form to save us (has no baring on the argument really, just wanted to mention that small theological error {boy, I'm starting to sound like an evolutionist! })

I do not totally say that evolution is wrong. I do believe in change within species and (correct me if I'm wrong) that's all there is any evidence of (Darth ATAT, I'll use that word instead of "proof". Happy? ) juntel, a personal question you won't find the answer to in a book (hey, I can do that! ): Why, other then that you've heard the reports of evolutionists, do you believe man came from a more primitive species, an ape? How does it make you feel to think that our whole race is an accident? I couldn't believe that, if I did I'd probably go jump off a building. I'm not saying the universe revolves around the earth (interestingly enough, the Orthodox church never believed this. They were all scientists and astronomers, which is why the Orthodox liturgical calendar makes sense while the Catholic calendar doesn't. I can go into that more if I ever start a theology thread.), but look at how inteligent our race is. Look at the extreme difference between us and the apes. Sure, there are types of monkeys with human trates, but there aren't any monkeys that get embarrassed when they're naked. It's not the best human trate per se, but it does seperate us from them.

Darth ATAT, what bothers me about your post is that you give no evidence one way or another. You're just arguing (sp) not debating.

BTW, I'll expand more in a later post, or a later thread, on the fact that the church fathers were the most brilliant scientists and astronomers of their day.

PS: juntel, you say there is no scientific proof that God exists. Aside from, well everything (though that won't work for you) I have read in "Orthodox Apologetic Theology" a PERFECT proof of God's existance using logic, and another one using very simple science (the first being an early chapter in that brilliant book, the second being the "bee apendix")

"Why (...) do you believe man came from a more primitive
species, an ape?"

Is it stranger than to believe man was formed out of the
soil, as told in Genesis?
Or even, why can't you believe that your god could have
made man from evolving from more primitive species?
Maybe your god just set things in place (at creationists proclaim)
and intervened sometimes in the odds of mutations?
Of course, I don't believe that really, but is it so
far for christians to believe? Some christians believe
what I just said (eg P.Teillhard-deChardin).


"I couldn't believe that, if I did I'd probably go jump
off a building"

Why? What shame is there in this? Why this reaction?
Anyways, whatever is the truth, it's not what we want to
be the truth that makes the truth.


As for "church fathers were the most brilliant
scientists and astronomers", i can't comment on church
fathers, but one must say that Copernicus and Kepler
were pretty religious guys themselves!
So was Newton.
Being religious does not make one stupid. There's nothing
related between the two.
The importance is to recognize when one belief comes from
faith (religious faith), and another belief that comes
from reason and observation and method (sc. belief).

I've read (a bit) from this French-Vietnamese astronomer,
Trin Thuan (I think that's his name!), who wrote a book
on cosmology (a vulgarisation) called "The Secret Melody".
In it he describes the universe as we know it, some of the
method used, what we think about its cosmic evolution, etc...
In one of the last chapters, he discusses the origin of
the universe, and the usual questions attached to it.
One by one he takes the usual logical arguments against the
non-supernatural origin of the universe, mostly given by
religious people, and one by one he destroys those arguments.
Then, for closing that chapter, after doing all this, he
reveals that his personal opinion is for a
divinely created universe... (but of course, "divinely" for
him may not be the same as for a christian, since he's
Budhist). He does point out however that this opinion
is one of faith, not science. He believes this not as
a scientist, but as a religious man.
He knows (as I do, as I believe) that science doesn't give
absolute answers, and knows where to draw the line between
a religious and a scientific stand. He doesn't try to take his
position as an astrophysicist to prove his point... because he
knows that he can't...
...just as a true scientist knows that he can't make a religion
out of his theories, because we can't predict future discoveries that
will be made, and thus cannot predict future theories that will
come out to try to explain those evercoming observations.

Sciences are the knowledge of our world that we gather and digest.
They are the questions that we cannot cease to ask ourselves, even
when we think we have THE answer, even when we are told that the
truth is already there and that we don't have to look for it.

Sciences come from what makes us abhor dogma.
Science is not religion.


I do not know if my very remote ancestors were primates, or if I share
a very very remote ancestor with a bacteria (for ultimately, evolutionists
do propose that all forms of life today share a common ancestry; why
do creationists insist on this "descending from ape" thing?! Why don't
they use the more provocative "descending from a bacteria"!!!???
Very interesting question I think...).
But one thing I can say: I can't make emotionnal decisions as to wheter
something is true or not, or believable or not.
I can't say: "Me and that ape can't share a common ancestor" just because
I would feel ashamed or debased to be compared to a less intelligent
form of life.

ya, ya, i have nothing against Asimov, Sagan et al. i said Sagan did very well his job, that you have so perfectly described

i said that the problem is when Hawkins take their job and cover a vulgarization with the habits of his usual rigor. Right?

anyway, this is going to deep in physics for me...

I do find Hawkins a bit more dry.
Maybe he thinks the smooth stuff has been said before him, and that he can take on from there...

Does anyone see anything comic about this:

www.icr.org/museum/hall.htm


(I swear! I didn't hack their site!)

Evil-Ution?!!!
And some want to take religion out of this discussion?

www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-140a.htm

From that article:
"As evolutionism has become the dominant teaching in our schools and colleges, those evil doctrines and practices whose rationale is based on evolution have inevitably followed" (emphasis mine)

Do you think i'm a follower of evil, QB?

From that same article again:

"Not only in the area of morals, but also in the wide-ranging philosophies of communism, Nazism, racism, imperialism, and human greed in general (all of which have their pseudo-scientific rationales in evolution) has the evolutionary fable deceived men into the ultimate sin of rejecting God as Creator and the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and coming King."


Is there any need to comment?
You believe this QB? That evolution as an idea is to be put side by side to "Nazism, racism, imperialism, and human greed in general"?

Maybe it is not your personal opinion; if you tell me this i'll believe you.
But it is from these people that you take most of your resources given in this thread.
Reading from this site you gave the link for, the site for the Institure for Creation Science, I just can't believe that someone wise as you could think evolutionists as people doing evil, people that are beleiving in a doctrine to be put in the same category of "Nazism, racism, imperialism, and human greed in general"...
Am I wrong?

juntel, what I'm asking you to do is hard, I know that. As a matter of fact, I shouldn't ask just you, I should ask everybody. I'm willing to say what my personal beliefs, based on faith and just simply me are. It's hard, I know, not being able to hind behind a book someone else wrote. It may take a while, I can wait. But when there's a discussion about something that touches even remotely on religion I think it's really important to look inside yourself, and ask "what do I believe?" Quite frankly, I think that's more important then all the scientific evidence in the world.

If you read my post carefully Tater, you'll notice that most of the time I'm correcting misinterpretations of what evolutionists, physicists, biologists, etc... say.

If you read carefully, you can see my views on science are not dogmatic. I don't see science as the ultimate tool for living!

My deepest concern is that at least one knows what he/she is talking about, and has at least viewed more than one side of the question (and only reading quotes from the other side doesn't count!).

But the most important right now is that I want to know who I'm debating with: people with understandable beliefs that are open to discussions, or mind-washed brains that couldn't see a bug on their nose if their minister said it wasn't there.

I want to know if ANY of you agree with the quotes I've given above, and other such inane opinions that comes out of ICR.
I, and others who come here read these opinions, are entitled I think to know where the debaters stand.


(btw Tater, here's a link that may interest you:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments . It's a bit dry, but you might have fun. I'm sure it's easier than that Apologetic book!)

Whoooaaa, this thread is incredible!

I never questionned myself on this concern before, always accepted evolutionism theory cause it seemed right. But then, could we really survive in a world without GOD? Hum, that's an interesting question.

My personnal opinion is a little like Juntel said earlier (I think it was him...), I think that God created the universe, created the first couple bacteria then let it evolve to see what it would bring forth. Maybe giving a hand here and there to get the things going like he'd wanted them to.

But the worst misconception as far as I'm concerned is the "God created man to his image" thinge. Wha ha ha ha! Everyone believed (and many still believe) that this sentence means he created us to his image physically!
Darn! What are they thinking. Bible is a big, BIG, métaphore (sorry don't know the word for it in english) and it should be viewed that way. God created us to his image spiritually and intellectually. We think like he does and are able to have faith (like HE must do). Those two caracteristics are what make us like him and differency us from apes.

I think that the best compromise I've seen here today, I mean that both side should agree with much I've said, no?

Anyway, good discussion but still be respectful everyone. It's easy to get cought by the emotion and resort to unrespectful comments, but that's for the weaks.

Have a nice day!!

OK, first one point to Darth ATAT:

My point is that the probability of you existing exactly as you are, Darth Tater, is virtually nil. Yet you exist. The probability of the world being exactly as it is now is virtually nil, yet it is.

EXACTLY! That's why you need something that is capable of overriding those probabilities to explain why we're all here. I hope you can see what I'M saying.

Well, once again we can't get away from the non-argument arguments used by committed evolutionists like you, Juntel (I don't care what you SAY you are, you argue EXACTLY the way every other committed evolutionist I've ever discussed these things with does).
Obviously I'm not going to change your mind about anything, but I want to point some things out to the other people reading this thread who may not so sure about everything.
Juntel tries, as all evolutionists do in these debates, to paint a picture of the evolutionist as the objective, open-minded scientist honestly searching for the truth, in contrast to the Creationist, who is a religious zealot seeking only to establish the veracity of the Bible (never mind that some Creationists don't even believe in the God of the Bible, or in the case of people like Fred Hoyle, in any specific deity at all).
Yes, Creationists begin with the assumption that there is a supernatural Creator. According to the evolutionist, THIS ALONE disqualifies Creation as scientific, regardless of what the evidence is. The evolutionist insists that only naturalism can qualify as 'science'. But what I've pointed out already, and Juntel chooses to ignore, is that 'science' means 'KNOWLEDGE', not naturalism. If it can be true, if there is at least SOME basis for it in the physical evidence, it IS scientific.
What about evolution and evolutionists? Do they begin with any assumptions? Absolutely! Evolutionists are just as dogmatic about the truth of their basic theory as Creationists are about the existence of a Creator. How do I know? Because the anti-Creation bias is everywhere. It's very difficult for a Creationist to get hired into any science department at any major university, and virtually impossible for one to get tenure. You must toe the evolutionary party line, or face the consequences. It is absolutely impossible to get an openly Creationist article published in any major scientific journal. They are rejected without regard to content. And then evolutionists have the audacity to cite the fact that Creationists don't get published as 'evidence' that Creation is not really science. No, there is no open-mindedness in the evolution camp when it comes to Creation, just as there is none toward evolution among Creationists. BOTH groups have fixed underlying assumptions that are nonnegotiable, unprovable and unfalsifiable, and both do research aimed at developing more evidence in support of their basic theory. Yes, a Creation Scientist WILL continue to believe in a Creator no matter what happens, just as an evolutionist will continue to believe in evolution no matter what happens (except, of course, for the thousands who have become Creationists ). The only difference in the attitude and methodology of the two groups is their starting points.
Yet evolutionists persist in trying to exclude Creation from science altogether. Why? Because the real facts of science fit the Creation model far better, and it galls them. Creationists advocate a two-model approach for the teaching of origins, and letting the learners decide for themselves. It has been proven in studies that students who are taught with the two-model approach actually learn the principles of evolution significantly better than those who are taught evolution alone. The reason should be obvious: when such an important choice is placed squarely in your hands, you're going to WANT to learn all you can about both sides so you CAN intelligently decide. When there's only one point of view taught as fact, the stakes are far lower, and so is the attention. Yet in spite of this, evolutionists crusade to exclude Creation science (I'm NOT talking here about Biblical Creation, which is a separate subject NOT suitable for science classes). From their position, of course, it makes sense for them to do so.
Think about it: If you are convinced that what you believe is right, and the preponderance of the evidence supports you, you want BOTH sides of the argument to be heard, so the hearers can clearly see that yours is the better position. On the other hand, if you are convinced that what you believe is right, but the preponderance of the evidence seems to support the OTHER side, the best strategy is to do everything you can to exclude the other side from being heard at all, so the evidence that IS consistent with your side is all that is heard. So it's no coincidence that Creationists want BOTH views taught on equal ground, while evolutionists only want THEIR side to have standing as science.
So don't be surprised at how Juntel continues to pound away about how only evolution is science and Creation is religion. It's what people like him have been trained to do. I believe most of the rest of you here are smart enough to see through this, given that here both sides ARE being heard.

And, QB, evolution doesn't go against the first or second laws
of TD in any way... Why do you try to say (or rather quote)
these things over and over again?!!!
In a universe that has evolutionary changes, 2nd law still is
there (and even necessary!). 2nd law doesn't forbid in any way
the conitinual of more complex forms of life in any way!
Geez! Just because entropy decreases somewhere doesn't imply
that the 2nd law is broken!

I believe I carefully explained about that in my last post. Your attitude reminds me of Finagle's Creed, something I read in a 'Murphy's Law' book years before I became a Creationist: "Science is true; don't be misled by facts." The Second Law is NEVER broken. It's effects can be locally overcome, but always at the expense of an even greater gain in entropy somewhere else. Life can only exist when the relentless onslaught of the Second Law is constantly being counteracted. I explained all this before; go back and read it again if you don't understand it yet. The Second Law ALWAYS has a negative effect, and there are no mechanisms to facilitate the kind of long-term reversals of those effects necessary for evolution into higher forms. The lack of transitional fossils confirms this.

Wait, wait! Hehe... First law: conservation of energy.
Not conservation of space-time continuum.

Once again, Juntel, you demonstrate your limited understanding of the big picture here. The universe is a space-time-matter continuum. None of those three can exist independently of the others. They had to have come into existence simultaneously. Your virtual particle generation, in addition to being ridiculously inadequate to explain the sheer AMOUNT of matter in the universe, is something that happens in the existing space-matter-time continuum. It is irrelevant to the question of where everything came from in the first place.

Natural selection can act on ANY SELF-REPLICATING
ENTITIES, including self-replicating inert molecules.

You're acting as if natural selection is some kind of supernatural, intelligent force in itself. Let me try to explain again: natural selection can only choose between what is there. It can choose between differing molecules, differing one-celled animals, differing invertebrates, differing fish, etc. BUT IT CANNOT DO ANYTHING TO TURN ONE THING INTO ANOTHER. The differing molecules, one-celled animals, invertebrates, fish, etc. have to be there first. Natural selection cannot do anything to turn inert molecules into living cells, or living cells into invertebrates, or invertebrates into fish, or anything else into something else. It can only choose between what other processes have already put there. There are many examples where natural selection doesn't work at all, when NO animal of a given kind is sufficiently equipped to survive. It's called 'extinction'. There is nothing magical about natural selection. You may continue to disagree if you wish, but you can't back it up with any facts, because you are dead wrong on this.
On your continuing inability to grasp the complexities of the probability argument: It doesn't matter HOW big you make the sandbox, and HOW many grains of sand and combinations there are. Although it is an incredible long shot, any selected arrangement of the sand is possible in that scenario. The 'forming of life' scenario is very different. Think of it this way: you start with an arrangement of the sand grains. Your target is a different arrangement. But instead of shaking the box, you have to change the arrangement ONE SHOVELFUL AT A TIME. If you have a sufficient amount of time, every possible arrangement is still available. But if you only have time for a few shovelsful, the chances of hitting the right combination become far, FAR less than the already minuscule chance that existed when you were changing the entire arrangement all at once. Mathematically, it is an absolute impossibility.
This is what faces the random formation of life. Only a tiny fraction of the time necessary to make all the possible combinations of particles available to happen has passed since the alleged formation of the universe. Even allowing extremely generous conditions as I did in Morris' example, the fraction is only slightly less tiny. Please think about this a bit more. I think you're smart enough to understand it if you give yourself the chance.
On other possible kinds of life: neither of us KNOWS whether other different kinds of life could exist. But there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to suggest that such a thing is possible. It is 100% speculation. What we do know is that living organisms operate at levels of complexity that we will never be able to fully comprehend. The amount of information contained in every cell is staggering. Everything has to be just right for life to be possible. Living systems have all the earmarks of intelligent design, exactly as we would expect if they had been created by a Supreme Being. Given the level of precision complexity in the life forms we DO see, it seems hard to believe that there could be any other basic way for life to exist.
But again, it's all speculation. You speculate that there could be other kinds of life; that life formed by chance; that that initial formation of life evolved into all the different forms we see; that this evolution was possible in spite of the Second Law; that countless billions of beneficial mutations have taken place to facilitate that evolution; that the universe somehow came into existence by purely naturalistic means in spite of the First Law.
I speculate that God exists, and created everything.
Every one of the above speculations is completely unsupported by any direct evidence whatsoever. All must ultimately be accepted on faith, or not accepted at all. But MY speculation agrees much better with the world we see around us.
Neither of us can either prove or disprove the possibility of alternate forms of life. And neither one of us can either prove or disprove the existence of a Creator God. Both are open questions; both are potentially true; both are legitimate subjects of scientific theory.
Please, Juntel, try to move past your ingrained biases, and face the real issues in this debate. We are both searching for a greater understanding of the truth. We can disagree about what truth is, but can't you at least see and acknowledge that my search and yours are both part of science?
One more thing: it has been intimated that I am doing copying of other sources in my posts here. My condensation of the Morris probability argument did contain some sentences and phrases from the original, but everything else I've posted here has been composed by me specifically for this debate, based on knowledge acquired from many sources over the past ten years. I have not and will not suggest that you've done copying; please extend me the same benefit of the doubt. Thank you.

That was my daily 'response to Juntel' post. Here's my answer to the recent posts.
No, I don't believe you are evil, Juntel, or that most evolutionists are inherently evil. But the SCIENCE of evolution does give rise to philosophies based on the evolutionary principles of 'no God' and 'survival of the fittest'. These philosohical offshoots of evolution are and often have been used to justify evil behavior. In some cases the philosophies actually pre-date modern evolutionism, but evolution gave those previously questionable philosophies a scientific basis. That's not even debatable, it's been well documented. But I don't hold all evolutionists accountable for this, and I don't think Morris was doing that either. Evil things have been done in the name of God too, after all.
One point that should be made is that this was not intended as a scientific article. ICR's website and publications address both scientific and Biblical Creationism. This was a personal opinion piece, not a scientific article. It has no bearing on the scientific issues we are discussing here.
Nonetheless, I encourage all of you who have not already done so to read it in its entirety.

Firstly, QB, since you tell me that the content of your posts are
original, I believe you. I must explain the doubt I had by the
fact that they echo the same song I always have heard from Creation
"Scientist" (and, I guess, you've heard mine at other places).


Secondly, you may call me an evolutionist if you want, that won't
make me one if I am not.
I have a liking of that theory for its beauty, its elegance, its
thoroughness, despite the fact that at first sight it is
inconceivable (as a round earth was inconceivable long ago),
despite the humility that it teaches us...
I do not know if human beings are the result of billions of years of
evolution. I do not know if the universe sprouted out from nothing
(and no god) 15 billions years ago.

I do not know these things. You can choose to call me a liar if you want.

But what I do know is the content of these theories (at least in part).
I know and comprehend most of the basic laws, and the conditions
under which they are valuable.
And especially I know as misunderstood, misinterpreted theory or law
when I see one.

For years and years "Scientific Creationism" has been pounding their
arguments, and all over these years they've been answered, over and over
and over and over again that they just don't grasp (or don't want to)
the uses and meanings (for example) of the 2nd law of TD, and even
the 1rst (conservation of energy).
They believe that by ignoring those replies and keeping pounding and
pounding again those same old arguments they will be believed.
They even went to court to try forcing their "teachings" in school...
and failed miserably.


Thirdly, I am glad you don't consider me INHERENTLY evil.

And I still invite people to go see the article (and others) as
well. Evolution (as an idea) did NOT give rise to evil idea, just
as Christianity did not give rise to the mass murder of American Indians.
In both cases, these two were misused by people with egotistic and
chauvinist intentions, as well as racist ones.


Any decent biologist and darwinist will tell you that "purity of race" is
a stupid concept that can lead to the disapearance of the concerned
species, because the genetic pool gets poorer and poorer, and eventually
adaptation can become difficult if not impossible to sharp changes of
the environment.

MrMorris article, even though is not specifically scientific, does
depict evolution (as a concept) as an evil-generator. And evil in
the strictest christian sense. And he does this with of so few subtlety!



Now lets me get to MrQB's post before his last one.

*I do not believe necessarilly that all scientists are all-over honest.
Some may try to slip one through sometimes, for fame and/or money.
But there IS a process for checking out theories put forward by scientists,
and they are subjecting each other to each others scrutiny.


"It's very difficult for a Creationist to get hired into any science
department at any major university"

As hard as a Hare-Krishna to be accepted as a Baptist minister...


"It is absolutely impossible to get an openly Creationist article
published in any major scientific journal"

As hard as geological thesis on the existence of Middle-Earht...


"And then evolutionists have the audacity to cite the fact that
Creationists don't get published as 'evidence' that Creation is
not really science"

I agree that a finding or a theory that is not published doesn't
mean that it isn't true.
But of course, something that isn't published doesn't mean that
it is true.
The article must be publishable first. And to get published an
article claiming the earth is only 5000 years old, you must have
a hell of a good paper!
You don't see article trying to prove that the earth is flat
published either in reputable scientific journals...
And maybe for you, QB, and others, that is unjust.
And maybe it is...


"No, there is no open-mindedness in the evolution camp when
it comes to Creation, just as there is none toward evolution
among Creationists"

So, admitedly Creation "Scientists" are NOT open-minded to evolution...
For the evolutionists, there is no such admitance.
Rejecting an idea doesn't mean one is not open-minded.
I would resent to be called closed-minded by a racist who told
me I would not consider that red-headed people are inferior...
The rejection of the Creation "Science"'s ideas have nothing to
do with close-mindedness. It has to do about how their ideas
about literary strictness to their bible just doesn't stick
with what we know about nature.

Does that mean that the universe wasn't created, and that a god
doesn't exist?
No.
It just means that their way at it is bad science, to the point of
being no science at all.
Other believers have reconciled their faith with what we know about
nature, without betraying their faith, nor their mind.


"BOTH groups have fixed underlying assumptions that are
nonnegotiable, unprovable and unfalsifiable"

What you think evolution has as unprovable assumptions are
most of the time conjectures supported by evidences.
*Are there transitional entities between species that we see in fossil
records? They are conjectured, based on the similarities of bone
structures, etc... If a transitional fossil is found, what will the
Creation "Scientists" say? They will ask: "And where are the
transitions between that one and the next? Ha! Gotcha!"
*How can the universe come from nothing without a god? We don't know.
We conjecture this or that etc... And what if something new is
found to explain "naturalistically" that begining? Then the
Creation "Scientists" will ask: "But how did those law come from?
Ha! Gotcha!" (Of course, they will never accept to really ask them-
selves where did their god came from, as adamently as they ask that
question of origin of laws from the scientists).
..
.
This attitude of Creation "Scientists" is well described by what would
amount to a game of "Heads, I win; Tails you lose."


"So don't be surprised at how Juntel continues to pound away about
how only evolution is science and Creation is religion"

Of the two, yes, evolution is a a scientific idea, whereas Creation
"Science" is a religious idea, depends on religious scriptures,
exists for religious intents.
Creation "Sciences"' manual is the Bible.
Sciences' manual is nature.


"It's what people like him have been trained to do"

Hehe... Now I'm a trained spy to wash the brain of ya all...
Scientists, evolutionists, darwinists, astronomers,
astrophysicists, physicists... we are all trained to "deceived men into
the ultimate sin of rejecting God as Creator and the Lord Jesus Christ
as Savior and coming King", as Mr QB's friend Mr Morris has said.


"Life can only exist when the relentless onslaught of the Second Law
is constantly being counteracted"

I didn't deny this. I deny your all too general "there are no
mechanisms to facilitate the kind of long-term reversals of those
effects necessary for evolution into higher forms"
A long time ago, chemists and scientists in general thought that
organic matter could only come from other organic matter. But then
one day a chemist synthesized urea (organic compound found in urine).
That was one big revolution. Another big revolution came much later,
in the 50's or 60's of our century, when amino acids were synthesized
from inorganic matter, by trying to simulate a possible environment
of early earth. Has a living cell been synthsized in the lab yet?
No... and it will be long until that is done (nature, if the
"establishment" is right, had hundreds of millions of years to do that).
But the point is: from very simple components, more complex components
were synthesized just by heating them, irradiating them with uv light
and putting an electric arc in that melange. So what if early earth
wasn't like what these scientists done: the point is, I repeat, that
from the simple the less simple was done, with very "naturalistic"
means.
And MrQB still tries to argue that the 2nd Law can prevent the rise
of complexity... I know, I know, you said "there are no mechanisms
to facilitate the kind of long-term reversals of those effects necessary
for evolution into higher forms", more exactly. But there are,
and those mechanisms are simply what is in nature herself: the sun,
heat, the physical forces that bind things together.
And time. Let's not forget the patience of time.
There is no absolute proof that this is how it happened; evolution and
science are not dogmatic like that.
Yes, in science there are assumptions, conjectures, some certainties
and other (lots!) uncertainties. Science can live with that.
Science really doesn't like postulating magical beings that solve
all the questions that are asked wihtout need of proof.
Science doesn't work like that. Real science I mean.
And I'll repeat it again, science isn't afraid of putting forward
theories that could be disproven by just one repeatable observation;
it is the risk one has to take to avoid dogmatic editcs controlling
our minds.

A scientific view of nature cannot be immobile, fixed in rigid dogmas.
That is because we never cease as humans to ask questions, we never cease
to inquire into mysteries of complexities, and we never cease to
find new things, new phenomena. And accordingly our view of nature
must change, our theories must adapt (no pun!).
So ALWAYS a scientific theory will have weaker points, and those points
are those that reflect our limitedness, the youth of our disciplines,
or errors of interpretations.
Those weak points are indeed prodded constantly by scientists who know
about them, who want to fortify them, even transform them to better suit
the image that nature has given to us through our experiments.

And because of these weak points, of these incompletenesses, of these
"works in progress", the C"S" call those theories falsities, they call
them "theories" with a snarl on their lips, meaning "imaginary futilities".
They even call them evil, as you have read at ICR.

No scientist, no human should be ashamed at the weak points of scientific
theories, because they represent what is still unknown.
They represent our starving for knowledge.
If scientists were dogmatic, as some are trying to suggest, then the earth
would still be the center of the universe, and the sun a shining disk
just a few miles above us, turning around a flat earth.


"Your virtual particle generation, in addition to being ridiculously
inadequate to explain the sheer AMOUNT of matter in the universe, is something
that happens in the existing space-matter-time continuum"

Ok. QB has spoken. Stephen Hawkins, Steven Weinberg, and all those astro-
physicists just throw up in the air ridiculous theories.
They are ridiculous because QB has said so.
He knows his business, and they don't.

Seriously QB, sarcasms aside...
When I brought up the virtual particles thing, it was simply to give an
example of energy "creation" that does violate the first law. I don't care if
you think it's not enough to create an universe, that's not the point.
The point is, virtual particle creation in vaccuum that violate 1st law for
a brief time was conjectured, then falsifiable predictions directly based on
this conjecture were verified.
So to the question: "Can the first law of TD be violated?" the answer now must
be: "Yes, it can, within a brief amount of time though."
So if someone says: "The universe cannot come out of nothing because the first
law prevents it", one has to reply: "The first law isn't that solid anymore, under
certain circumstances. Although one cannot prove that its 'quantum fragility' is
enough to let a universe come out from nothing, neither can one use its
now non-exitant 'absoluteness all circumstances' to prevent it".
Does that prove that the Universe came out of nothing just by natural means?
No. I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that your argument is flawed.
Flawed because not up to date with what is known of nature today.


"You're acting as if natural selection is some kind of supernatural, intelligent
force in itself"

Probably a bad choice of words on my part. When I say "natural selection
acts on self-replicating entities" I should really say "the process that
we call natural selection is also seen in colonies of self-replicating
entities".
Nothing is really "chosen" by natural selection. In fact, it is more the
effect that defines the term, rather than the term that creates the effect;
i.e. natural selection is not a force per se that acts on self-replicating
entities and "selects" them; it is rather the result of the "selection",
or sifting out of the non-adapted entities (by natural causes such as "famine",
or extinction through inadequate reproduction, etc...) that, globally,
we call natural selection.
But its long to word it, so there is the tendency to say: "natural selection
did this, or did that..." when one should say "natural selection happened".


"Natural selection cannot do anything to turn inert molecules into living cells..."

Well, isn't that one of the question?
I would indeed accept a sentence like:
"It has never been demonstrated that natural selection turned inert molecules
into living cells"
But I cannot accept the sentence:
"natural selection cannot turn inert molecules into living cells."
Neither could I accept the sentence:
"natural selection can indeed turn inert molecules into living cells."

In the present state of affairs, science says:
"It does seem possible, from what we know so far, that natural selection, and
random mutation in a genetic pool, and given enough time, can turn inert
molecules into living cells. We therefore make it a conjecture, and we will
continue to ask nature question with our experiments to see if our conjecture
is valid or not. In any event, we will learn more about nature and will not
weep our dead conjecture (if indeed it dies) and will celebrate our knew
knowledge. At least, we were honest, and will stay honest, to a good methodology
in our unending quest."


"On your continuing inability to grasp the complexities of the probability argument..."

Well, it is evident from your reasoning in there where is your flaw: you keep
thinking that there is only one admissible end result that we should concern
ourselves with...
And not only do I grasp the complexity, I even say that in the case of life in the
universe the problem is so complex as to be uncalculable!
I do understand why do didn't grasp my sandbox example, since you firmly believe
there should be exactly one end result, no other.
For you, life on earth as it is couldn't have been in any other way, because we see
only one kind (dna based).
This is as if I rolled a dice, a "3" came up, and I said "It couldn't have been
any other way". You then tell me: "Of course, there are the other faces!"
But there I would strangely reply: "Those faces exist, but were not allowable
in the throw I made, since the "3" came out."

...Again, are there any other combination of matter that can result in life?
Nobody knows.
...Is it impossible that any other combination of matter can result in life?
Nobody knows.
...Are there any forms of life possible other than the ones based on dna?
Nobody knows.
...Is it impossible that there are any other forms of life not based on dna?
Nobody knows.

Whatever QB will tell you, the above four questions are unanswerable in the
absolute by any scientific means of logic and experiments.
And because of that ignorance, the probability of the appearance of life in
the universe cannot be calculated.

[I want to point out something to you QB. A very important point about my
sandbox thought experiment.
That sandbox example wasn't made to prove evolution or anything like that.
The point of the sandbox experiment was to illustrate the important fact that
a tiny tiny tiny probability for an event does not by any means that that
event can't happen. It was absolutely not my purpose to say as if each
grain of sand was one molecule, etc...
My main point then with the sandbox thought experiment was to give you a
real life example of an event that was incredibly small, but that nevertheless
happened. You said you would prove me wrong if I showed you such a real-life
example, and you haven't done it yet.]


"But again, it's all speculation"

Let's see those "speculations"
* "that there could be other kinds of life"
All possibilities must be considered. I don't know if there are other kinds
of life, but you can't absolutely be sure that there never could
have been. In front of this common ignorance, I conclude that the
probability of life is incalculable (because we really don't have for
sure all the knowledge for that).
* "that life formed by chance"
For the thousandth time, a creationist forgets that evolutionists don't
take only chance into account, and that natural selection (or rather the
process described by it) is primordial in this.
* "that this evolution was possible in spite of the Second Law"
No. No need to break your dear 2nd law...
* "that countless billions of beneficial mutations have taken place to
facilitate that evolution"
That's not a speculation, nor a fact. It's a conjecture, supported by
myriads of observations, but not yet solid enough to be called an irrevocable
truth (in fact, in science, there are no irrevocable truths, for we
do not know what future observations will tell us about nature)
* "that the universe somehow came into existence by purely naturalistic
means in spite of the First Law"
Again, this is still at the stage of conjecture in science. Moreover, as stated
elsewhere, the 1st law itself is not that absolutely strict in the
quantum world...

...questions?...



"All must ultimately be accepted on faith, or not accepted at all"

Not true. Creationists must accept their belief, as a matter of faith,
and unconditionally.
Evolutionists beliefs are conditional. Nature rulez!


"Neither of us can either prove or disprove the possibility of alternate
forms of life"

Thank you. My point exactly. So calculating the probability of the emergence
of life in the universe is therefore impossible, since we don't know
who the "actors" all are in the space of all possibilities...


"can't you at least see and acknowledge that my search and yours are both
part of science?"

You maybe can't believe me when I say this, but I don't disrespect you personally.
Please see my next post for my answer to your question.

=================Welcome to the Matrix==========================

I have decided to do something to explain why "Scientific Creationism" is
no valuable science.
Please my friends, bear with me with this one.
It will sound weird, but there IS a lesson in this.

Let's say I start my own religion. I'll call it the Matrix religion.
(indulge me for now, please!) This will not be a model of the creation
or the origin of the universe, but a theory of what the world IS right
now...

Now my hypothesis is this: the movie the Matrix represented well the world
we live in right now. We who are in front of the computer, and later sleeping
or at work, are really in cocoons, sleeping somewhat, but with our brains
connected to a big machine that make all we experience a reality.
Et cetera. You've seen the movie.
Except that contrary to the movie, the illusion is perfect! There's no
Morpheus nor Neo nor others to save the world.

So, this was my theory.

Now to some questions?

Is it compatible with what we know of the world?
Yes. The Matrix makes it so.

Does it contradict any law of nature, anything we know as fact?
No. The Matrix makes it so.

What are the predictions of your theory?
It predicts everything we already know, everything we already experienced
as facts.

How do you know such a thing, Mr JUntel?
It was revealed to me.

In what scientific publication can find your findings?
In none. I'm discriminated against even though my theory explains as
well as the establishment's theory what the world we experiment is.

What is the advantage of your theory over the other one?
The other theory say that what we are living is the real reality.
But it can't explain such phenomenons as "deja-vu", dreaming,
and such things as "collective consciousness" that a certain
CG Jung talked about. My theory does, since those things are
just by-products of the Matrix's influence.
.
.
.
.

Well, I could go on (or not) on that series of questions, but I
should make my point at this point.

My point is: this kind of theory of the world that I exposed above
is impossible to prove wrong! You throw anything at such a theory,
and it bounces back.
Why?
Because it contains a CENTRAL element that makes it unverifiable,
thus completely unacceptable in the eyes of honest science.
That element is the Perfect Matrix.

That strange theory above is indestructible.
And unscientific.
It doesn't mean it isn't true, of course.
Unscientific doesn't mean untrue.
It just means that's not what scientist want to explain the world.
Scientist don't want theories so well built that they can't be
attained and be stained by difficult questions.
True science is about building theories to explain the world in such
a way that these theories are subject to criticism, scrutiny and
improvements by peers.

So why would I compare the Matrix religion to Creation "Science"?
I don't see alot of difference.

In both cases they invoke some kind of Super-Power not subject to
our reality to explain our reality.

In both cases, that reality was created as it is by the will of
the Super-Power, in every of its details, even those we haven't
discovered yet. The complexity of reality is only in fact created
as such; we shouldn't bang our heads on the wall all our lives
trying to figure out how they came to be: they always were like that.
Let's stop thinking too much.

...and I'll let you complete the analogy (although imperfect it is).

Why doesn't the scientific community take Morris et al seriously?
Because Creation "Science" is absolutely unprovable nor provable as
an explanation for our world.
Just as the Matrix scenario above isn't.

That doesn't mean that creation didn't happen, that a god doesn't
exist!
It only means that the creation as literaly read in the bible didn't
happen.

QB mentioned non-believers (Hoyle) who did believe in creation.
Are there evolutionists who believe in a god?
Yes.
I've mentionned at least two in this thread (Pierre Teillhard-deChardin
and Trin Tuan, both name that may have been mangled by my memory!)
They faith didn't block their mind from believing in their god.

Except that that's not what the Creation "Scientist" believe.
Creation "Scientists" are not simply people believing that their god
created the world etc... They are people who believe that the world
was created EXACTLY the way their bible says. To the letter.
Six days and all.
They believe that the universe is something like 5000 years old.

So, what about the stars, who's light coming to us is estimated to
have travelled millions of years for most of them to come to us?
Last I checked, a Creation "scientist" said that his god had created
the light in mid-travel, just so that it arrived to us at the moment
of observation... but of course the star and its light were just created
about 5000 years ago...

So you see, everything for them was created almost just as we see it.
Isn't that magical!!?
Problem is, is that it is magical.
It doesn't mean that it isn't true... just don't expect to find such
a theory in a scientific journal.
Unless you vote for Bush Jr. in the next elections... (sorry, couldn't resist!)




JUntel

I was just adding my 2 pence . I don't have the time nor the energy to read through the posts and debate them properly, just wanted to put in quick points about the things I noticed.

I don't think juntel needs any help at the moment, so I'll just stay out of this from now on.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaah!
I'm aaaaallll alooooooooone!
Oh well...

Before I post, my fellow admins are quite worried that an admin is taking part in this dusccusion. They fear I'm gonna start flamming or take advantage of my power or something. So, time for me to be the admin: You may critique each others views, you may dissagree with each others views or even find them rediculious, but you can't tell others they are stoopid because of their ideas. QB and juntel, you've both moved dangeriously close to this, and I don't wanna get in trouble with the other admins

Ok, on to the post

Why would I jump off a building if great great great etc grandpa was an ape? Why did the characters in the Matrix like jumping from building to building? (couldn't resist) Because they could. If I was desended from an ape that would mean there was no God, no heaven, no hell. So who gives a damn if I go splat, I don't matter anyways.
Some of you think that evolution and religion can co-exist and even agree with each other. Only in this age of easy religion. Shanamir, you said that God could create something and "let it evolve to see what it would bring forth." That goes against the basic principles of Judeo-Christian religion and most other religions as well. If you believe in a religion then you believe God's hand is in EVERYTHING. He doesn't let anything go. Sure, he gave us free will, but he didn't do this to see what would happen. He knew what would happen. That's the way God works. You either believe in God or evolution, the two CANNOT co-exist, no matter what evolutionists who claim they believe in God say.
Going back to the idea that if I'm desended from an ape I don't matter. Juntel, you said "In front of this common ignorance, I conclude that the
probability of life is incalculable (because we really don't have for
sure all the knowledge for that)." Are you a Nihilist?

juntel, you linked to an article that makes me sick. I hate it when creation scientists accuse evolution of starting the world wars and other bs like that (the Nazi's thought they were doing God's work). Some people whose views and reports on creation science I really respect believe this. Doesn't mean I don't agree with other stuff they say. Hey, Darwin believed in God, and on his death bed he denied evolution! Doesn't stop you from following it.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. There is a lot of evidence of change within species, but there is no evidence that we came from bacteria, apes, etc. When Darwin took what he had gathered and came up with this idea he was making a leap of faith Yes, I know he wasn't the first to come up with evolution, but they all did this, and they still do.

I've been told that evolution is not science. You believe creation science isn't science. Can we PLEASE move beyond this? The Bible is considered by many to be the ultimate history book. There is so much evidence that what it says is true, archeological and the like. How can you say it's a metaphor? And how can we have a debate if you won't accept that I am discussing a science? Listen to what QB has to say about science and knowledge. It used to be science was there to explain vague areas in faith. This is necessary in some less defined religions and helpfull to those who are in love with logic when it comes to Orthodoxy. Science accompanies religion and compliments it, real science anyways.

You're Matrix idea is flawed. Only you believe in it. Plus, you're religion states that no one knows about the Matrix, so how'd you come up with you're religion? It's illogical, my religion isn't.

So, where is God from? God is Omnipresent, not only in space but also in time. He is not there to explain things we don't understand, He created these things! I truely believe that denial of God's existance comes from insecurity, not from science.

Juntel, thanks for the little article on Ontology. I printed it out and will read it later, though a number of times I have pointed you to the ultimate ontological work. I did notice it mentioned Kant. Any of you formiliar with this clown? He tried to deny the existance of God and prove that Ontology didn't work, yet he couldn't grasp even a basic understanding of the Christian dogma and theology he denied, so he was always making a fool out of himself, yet he's considered the best at what he did. Makes me laugh.

Actually I liked juntel's Matrix thing a lot, it was very clever

Oh man!

I should've gotten involved in this thread when it was first started. I have so much to say on this subject it's not even funny. But it's going to take me forever to catch up... could someone please summarize what the viewpoints and major statements on this thread have been so far?