Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Creationist here
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Hawks
SFN Regular

Canada
1383 Posts

Posted - 12/11/2008 :  22:43:38   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Hawks's Homepage Send Hawks a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by derek
for instance babel gives a reason for such a difference in cultures and language. thats the only one off the top of my head.

I'm sure that if we put our heads together, we could come up with quite a few (far-fetched) reasons for differences in cultures and languages. But why not realise that languages and cultures evolve over time instead. It's happening right now.

and the comments on immaterial and ideas and God. i wanted to pose something. in dna there are actg codes that tell cells how and what to produce so they can function. how do you explain the "message" forming from natural processes?

Who explains to the oxygen and hydrogen molecules that they are supposed to exchange electrons so that they can form water?

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden!
Go to Top of Page

BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard

3192 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  06:00:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send BigPapaSmurf a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Its amazing what can happen with enough simple peices, this whole place is just 1s and 0s, nature has 80+ numbers(elements) to work with.

"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History

"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini
Go to Top of Page

perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend

275 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  06:05:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send perrodetokio a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by derek

psalms and isaiah are poems. i don't expect logical people to look for scientific fact in song lyrics.

Why not? scientific facts can be found in the most unusual places.
But as for songs, why not have a look at the lyrics from the They Might Be Giants-song "Why Does the Sun Shine?"

The Sun is a mass
of incandescent gas;
a gigantic nuclear furnace,
where Hydrogen in built into Helium
at temperatures of millions of degrees.


Did I mention that I really like They Might Be Giants?
They may not be elite musicians, but they sure know how to write music that inspires.



Yeah! TMBG are a very interesting band! They have a very witty humour!

You´re the second person I know who likes TMBG.

Cheers!

"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott

"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott

"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  10:01:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by derek
i think as far as what you call "religion" its more explanatory than any other belief. for instance babel gives a reason for such a difference in cultures and language. thats the only one off the top of my head.


Well; anthropologist like E. B. Tylor would tell you that myths are an attempt to explain puzzling phenomenon, in the absence of another, more objective, explanation.

The idea has somewhat fallen out of flavour, but I think it probably still hold true in some case.

Of course, a bit like in Science, this explanation is only valid until a better one comes along.


Few people now believes that the sun is a big ball of dung being pushed across the sky; even if the explanation certainly appeared to make sense, at the time.

Few Japanese would truly believe that there is a giant catfish under their capital. But, it was believable then.

Despite them being noisy and smoky and hot volcanoes are probably not forges but hell if it was not a valid assumption!

And it might seems like it but Clochán na bhFómharach was no act of giant civil engineering.


So, people observe patterns and, in the absence of other explanations, make up their own. Plus, it gave them cool comic-book style stories to tell at night around the camp-fire.


The tower of Babel was a nice story to explain why people had so many different language.
But, in fact, if you imagine people separating and living in relative isolation from each others for thousands of years, it make sense that languages would evolve and become more and more divergent through time.
Just look at the English and American language, it has not been very long and the two remained in close contact and yet, many differences can be observed between the two...
No imagine the same phenomenon over many more generations, for people that never met again and you would see a branching pattern, like a tree which branch when groups split and each language starts to evolve on its own... Which is precisely what linguists observe.


Similarly, the Creation account(s) in Genesis was a nice way to explain the origin of the world and one that made sense.
But, it is now contradicted in just about every point with what we know happened.
One would expect people to consider it like they do the Roman of Babylonian of what have you creation story. A mythological account to answer the nagging question: where does it all come from.
And, indeed, many people do. It is even the position of the Vatican.
Probably, the main reason is that people are not objective when it comes to tenets of their own faith.

Another, more sinister, reason is that, a lot of people want the Bible to be the 'unadulterated word of God'.
The thing is, if I agree that the creation account (or any part of the Bible for that matter) is not factually true, why stop there. What prevents me from considering other parts just as metaphorical?
In the end, you would have to choose which part of the Bible you want to believe and follow... But it would defeat a real use that some people have for the text; that of foregoing any responsibility to it.

For example, if I decide that the Creation account is a mistaken belief from people with only limited scientific understanding of their world... Then what about Leviticus? It might also contain mistakes views.
Then, maybe, teaching my 10 year old daughter to wear a 'God hates fags' T-shirt in front of somebody's funeral... maybe it's not God's will? Maybe it's just me being a biggoted bastard? Naaaaw, much more vomfortable to actually believe in the 6 days things...

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

derek
New Member

4 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  11:28:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send derek a Private Message  Reply with Quote
thank you for the greeting

in reference to ben franklin. i think one sees best with both of their eyes.

it's interesting that you would compare a cell to a clock. something that you say formed by chance functions like something that was created.

something about the laws of logic and reason. if all that is in existance is according to evolution constantly changing and nothing is set as the end or the truth. how do you perceive logic and reason through that perspective. shouldn't even the very laws of logic be open to evolve?
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  12:32:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
First of all, as a nit-pick, I need to point out that the science of the apparition of life is distinct from the theory of evolution. It is called abiogenesis.


The other thing is, a cell, especially the ones we can see now, are the results of 4.3 billion years of evolution and intense competition.

You can have a much more primitive organism that sill would perform the basic functions of life.
Indeed, it is possible to create a single RNA molecule that would be able to self reproduce and debatably qualify as a life-form. Similar RNA enzymes can also produce proteins and even attract lipids to form a primitive cell membrane around itself.
What's even more exciting, is that, according to what we know about the circumstance of life on earth at the time, such molecule would spontaneously appear through non biological chemical reaction.

Of course, this molecule would just be cut apart if send in the highly competitive world of today's microbes. But, back then, when there was no competition, it was doing pretty well for itself.


The point is, many IDist tend to say that life do not appear from non-life, as if life was so kind of magical property.
It is not, life in its simplest biological form is just a set of chemical reactions happening roughly at the same place, roughly at the same time.


As for the laws of logic and reason, one can imagine that they are dictated to us by the surrounding universe.
The laws of causality being universal during all the evolution of man, there would have be a direct fitness advantage for our brains to evolve to understand them.
Indeed, many animals display example of 'reasoning'. Dogs can learn to associate you taking their leash out with the coming of a walk. Fish can learn to associate you bending over the aquarium with the arrival of fish food.
Human are just very, very good at making such association. Sometime too good, even ('Yeah, your team won last time you were wearing that shirt, it still do not mean that it is a "lucky shirt"'or 'Yes, your kid was vaccinated, and later he was diagnosed with autism, but it is a coincidence and it does not mean that vaccines cause autism'.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  12:52:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Oh, cry me a river..... Again!!

Yet another piteous whine from ICR. If you've been subjected to as much of their nonsense as I have, don't bother to open the link -- you've seen it before, ad nauseum. What it boils down to is merely bitching about religion not being taught in science classes. What Mr. Dao fails to mention is that voodoo, hocus-pocus, numerology, astrology, and any other sort of unsupportable belief system are verboten as well. He begins thus:
Bush Believes that Creation and Evolution Are Compatible
by Christine Dao*

Recently, President George W. Bush stated that he believes that the concept of evolution does not conflict with a belief that God created the world.

In an interview with ABC's Cynthia McFadden at the White House that aired on Monday, December 8, 2008, on Nightline, Bush said that he isn't a literalist when it comes to reading the Bible, but he thinks “you can learn a lot from it.”1

When asked about creation and evolution, he said, “I think you can have both.” He clarified:
But happily, he manages to ends it on a low note:
Before the evolutionists turned to courts and political policy to dictate evolutionary science education in the public classrooms, scientific origins issues involving creation and evolution were explored and discussed in the places where they should be: in the lab, in the field, and in the proceedings of scientific societies. Today, advances in fields such as molecular biology5 and even paleontology6 are shedding new light on the complexity of life, debunking outdated uniformitarian concepts and providing more nails for Darwinism's coffin.

During his presidency, Bush has affirmed his faith in the Christian God a number of times. And like many professing Christians, he errs in placing human wisdom and what some call science over the authority of the living Word of God. He has believed the pervasive, yet fraudulent, claim that evolution is a fact and that the biblical account cannot be literally true. If Christians even in the highest places of governmental authority cannot trust in the accuracy and authority of God's Word, then how can we hope that they will lead our nation in “a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty”?7
I declare, I can't decide whether to call him an ignoramus or a fraud. Either will do, I think.




"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1884 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  13:53:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by derek

thank you for the greeting

in reference to ben franklin. i think one sees best with both of their eyes.
I don't believe you understood my point. What can I do to make it clearer?

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  13:55:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well technically; that is true:
Before the evolutionists turned to courts and political policy to dictate evolutionary science education in the public classrooms, scientific origins issues involving creation and evolution were explored and discussed in the places where they should be: in the lab, in the field, and in the proceedings of scientific societies. Today, advances in fields such as molecular biology5 and even paleontology6 are shedding new light on the complexity of life, debunking outdated uniformitarian concepts and providing more nails for Darwinism's coffin.



Indeed, at first Evolution and Creation were investigated by research. Then, it became a political and judicial matter. And, indeed, today, advance in molecular biology and paleontology contribute to debunk the concept of uniformitarism, which, indeed, is outdated, it has not been a major concept in evolutionary theory since Steven J. Gould.
As for Darwinism, well, one could argue it has been dead for a while considering that modern evolutionary theory has progressed quite a bit from Darwin's original work. Although, uniformitarism was not necessarily that major a concept for Darwin. Of course, I am not sure what Darwinism is supposed to be either, the term is vague and rarely used by evolutionary scientists.

And, of course, none of the preceding paragraph says anything about the modern incarnation of the theory of evolution, which is more robust than ever.


I am also wondering about what Busch's means by 'creation'. Obviously, he does not mean the literal Biblical account, as it is incompatible with the theory of evolution. I guess, he agrees with the idea that the universe was created and that an omniscient God, at this moment, tune the various variables and physical laws just so that the development of intelligent life as a necessary outcome. That'd be the vision that many Christian have, including the Vatican and the majority of Christian scientists (I am referring to scientists that happen to be Christians, not to Christians that pretend to be scientists which would be: Christian 'scientists').

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  14:14:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
About this quote:
The radicalism of natural selection lies in its power to dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional comforts of Western thought, particularly the notion that nature's benevolence, order, and good design, with humans at a sensible summit of power and excellence, prove the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent creator who loves us most of all…. To these beliefs Darwinian natural selection presents the most contrary position imaginable.


It really does not sound much like Steven J. Gould which was always careful to express how science and religion did not compete with each other 'non-overlapping magisteria' and all that.

So, it rose my suspicion, and I found the original article and look into it.
Not that surprisingly, the next paragraph reads:
Richard Dawkins would narrow the focus of explanation even one step further—to genes struggling for reproductive success within passive bodies (organisms) under the control of genes—a hyper-Darwinian idea that I regard as a logically flawed and basically foolish caricature of Darwin's genuinely radical intent


As I was expecting, the paragraph the creationist so eagerly quoted was but a setup to debunk the idea.
So, there you go, one more example of quote mining from creationist, hence, making the author seems to express the complete opposite of what he meant. Way to go Ms Dao and walk in the lying footsteps of your dishonest forefathers. Howind would be proud!

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Edited by - Simon on 12/12/2008 14:53:59
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 12/12/2008 :  17:45:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by derek

it's interesting that you would compare a cell to a clock. something that you say formed by chance functions like something that was created.
I never once said that cells formed by chance. That's an old creationist lie that attempts to portray evolution as absurd on its face. Its weakness as an argument is that the person who uses it simply ensures that they appear to know nothing about the science that they reject. Do you, derek, intend for us to see you as being completely ignorant of that which you've voluntarily chosen to speak out against?

As far as the clock analogy goes... If you've got a problem with that, then surely you've got a problem with basic chemistry. How do Hydrogen, Oxygen and Sulphur "know" to make sulphuric acid, which is much more complex than any of its constituent elements? A chemist could tell you, but you'd probably reject the explanation in favor of "God wanted it that way," wouldn't you?
something about the laws of logic and reason.
Here we go again. The laws of logic and reason are man-made. Of course they have "evolved." They have changed as mankind has learned more and more.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Maverick
Skeptic Friend

Sweden
385 Posts

Posted - 12/13/2008 :  01:42:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Maverick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by derek

you guys have good points. how does genesis contradict EVERYTHING. that is a pretty general statement.

Are you saying that the creation myth in Genesis is supported by the evidence?

i think as far as what you call "religion" its more explanatory than any other belief. for instance babel gives a reason for such a difference in cultures and language. thats the only one off the top of my head.

You don't think that tribes and societies being isolated from each other will take care of that?

"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan
Go to Top of Page

Maverick
Skeptic Friend

Sweden
385 Posts

Posted - 12/13/2008 :  01:45:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Maverick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by derek

it's interesting that you would compare a cell to a clock. something that you say formed by chance functions like something that was created.

Are you saying that cells were formed purely by chance, and that all chemical reactions are entirely random and have nothing to do with the properties of the basic elements? Chemistry would be much harder if that was true.

"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9669 Posts

Posted - 12/13/2008 :  03:16:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
When throwing around terms like "uniformitarianism", it's necessary to define which of the different kinds of uniformitarianisms one is talking about.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Simon
SFN Regular

USA
1992 Posts

Posted - 12/13/2008 :  12:12:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Simon a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by derek
it's interesting that you would compare a cell to a clock. something that you say formed by chance functions like something that was created.


Thing is, biochemistry is determinist. Under the same set of conditions, the same elements will react in the same way.

If you mix acid and bases, you will get water and heat and, depending what type of base and acid, the corresponding number of ions in solution.

Similarly, if you put lipids into an aqueous solution, you will obtain micellic membranes.

In a more complex chemistry, if you put cyanide and ammonia together, for example, you will spontaneously see the apparition of nucleotides.
That is not random. Not anymore than putting a copper nail in acid will dissolve it into ions.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000