Watchtower January 22, 2004 Share Watchtower Member January 22, 2004 Ok, somewhat interesting i guess.. ALthough he takes a really long time to try to make one point really. I don't agree with him seperating us from animals in a sense that they can't know this "Law" or "rule" he's talking about. Animals, like monkies fo example, are very social and very often put emphasis on the others in their groups. Like grooming for instance.. Primates groom each other.. They are doing something thats benefits the other party. Not themselves.. Why would any monkey groom another other than to help that monkey out? Maybe because he knows if he doesn't groom, he wont get groomed? Just one example. How about motherhood and paternal care withing other species of animals?? Do most packs live in harmony or some chaotic, anarchistic mess where they are all out for themselves? No, they hunt, the females and cubs eat first, then everyone else.. That sounds like "Right" to me.. Law of nature I like.. Imposed by a God, possibly. Universal, yes. Not just man. We like to think we are special. Well we are, but not like that. Instances of Feral children Prove that fact. If not raised in a home where someone has Shown them right from wrong, they don't know and behave very differently. God forgot to install his laws in that Human? THe animals took them away? Some of these children cannot even be taught to speak or read. Many documented cases if you desire proof.. I'll post a quote. "Social behaviour Quite simply, feral children are usually entirely unaware of the needs and desires and others. The concepts of morals, property and possessions are alien to them, and they can't show empathy with other people. If brought up by animals, they don't even identify themselves as human, but probably regard humans as "the enemy". Not something we are "naturally" or Divinely bestowed with. And the laws are not that black and white.. Breaking a promise Can be the right thing to do.. Stupid example but say you are kidnapped. you promise not to yell and scream.. And you do. Killing another human can be the right thing to do. It all depends on the situation. There's some food for debate.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar January 22, 2004 Share Crowbar Member January 22, 2004 I see your points Watch, but I don't think those few isolated examples disprove his points. As Lewis said, They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. As for the bit about animals relating with each other...you are correct, monkeys related with each other very similarly to humans in some respects. Dolphins are said to have a very sophisticated way of communicating, and there are other examples. However, I think all these things have much more to do with primal instinct, than knowing the Law of Nature. A mother bear protects her cubs, not because it is Right, but instead because God put that instinct in her, and perhaps a sort of knowledge that her cubs cannot fend for themselves. In other words, I don't think the mother bear takes time to sit and think, "Protecting these cubs is such a pain, I ought to just let one of them get eaten. It would be so much easier on me." They don't have a Right and Wrong to choose from, is what I mean. It's instinct. btw, good thinking posting a new topic to discuss the book, thanks very much. I hope you enjoy reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 22, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 22, 2004 Primates groom each other.. They are doing something thats benefits the other party. Not themselves.. Why would any monkey groom another other than to help that monkey out? Maybe because he knows if he doesn't groom, he wont get groomed? I'd say you're thouroughly wrong there. 1) they're grooming because it's a basic instinct 2) they're grooming cause they want to eat those nice juicy bugs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 23, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 23, 2004 No nice juicy bugs.. And why don't All the other animals groom each other like that if it's "instinct"? And it's true that if one is stingy(sp?) about his grooming, he dosen't get groomed as much.. It's more about bonding and "you scratching my back I scratch yours than bugs" buddy.. And whats with you telling people that they are wrong lately? I know I'm not wrong, and especially not "thoroughly" wrong.. And they Do have a choise of taking care of their children or not.. Not all primate mothers are equal.. Some are definitely better than others.. And Gorillas are known to tell lies! koko would sign a specific human and blame accidents on them.. Kinda of a white lie but anyhow.. We are really going to have to redefine what it is to be human.. As a matter of fact, they are.. And noone touched the Feral children bit.. Is it a put-on? Not real? Fact is if you are raised by wolves, you act like one. No "God Given" anything, just "primal instincts". You're concern is survival. t's not soo much and "odd individual" either.. They just weren't raised right of have something else going on.. if you isolate 100 children at birth, take care of them with no outside stimuli, 100 will know not about right and wrong.. We are totally a product of our environment... 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 23, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 23, 2004 Just found a great site that explains my theory.. Professor of Law at Rutgers University.. Try your debate with him! http://www.animal-law.org/commentaries/cyberpost8.htm You may have to look past some big words and complicated writings, but it's there.. For the thinkers out there.. You should really scroll down and start from the beginning or "introduction".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 23, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 23, 2004 And whats with you telling people that they are wrong lately? I know I'm not wrong, and especially not "thoroughly" wrong hey watch...is the Bible 100% true like I say? get my point? I get sick and tired of hearing people say that Christians (and include myself) are constantly telling other people they are wrong. We all tell people they are wrong every day, it's just that me personally I don't work to sugar-coat it when I disagree. I say "you're wrong" and if you're right and prove me I'm willing to admit it. So please don't go around saying that I am constantly telling others their wrong. This forum is about discussion...we won't be able to discuss anything unless we can come in here and say "you're wrong, here's why:" and then have the other person reply "no you're wrong, here's why"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 23, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 23, 2004 Whats funny Playaa is just about everything you say and others too I feel is wrong or just misinformed, but for the sake of getting along I don't come out and tell you, "You are Wrong PLayaa". "Do you believe everything you read??" i could, and maybe I should since that is how you define "discussion".. You know what I get sick of? People that try to refute scientific reasoning with some little shred of nothing. It's in your face, explain it away anyway you have to. You may not know of it because you aren't looking.. You have all the answers already.. Sad. Should I have said that? We'll see what happens. P.s, you shouldn't tell someone they're wrong if you are trying to have a constructive conversation. If you're not trying to be constructive, maybe you should sit out.. The point of all of these threads is not for you or anyone to sit from a pulpit and preach, it's about understanding.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 23, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 23, 2004 you're right Watch...my bad...I'll do my best to refrain from telling others they're wrong. as for scientific reasoning...it's as faulty as human beings no matter what we think. There are brilliant scientists who say evolution is true. There are brilliant scientists who say evolution is untrue. (I'm not even talking the Christians here) and there are brilliant scientists who say not only is evolution true, but the creation of the Bible is totally true. The problem is that we have 3 groups of equally brilliant people. They totally disagree with each other. The reason that you don't believe the ones who spout creation is as simple as you don't believe in creation. (I actually don't know your views but I use "you" as a generic reference) I don't believe the ones who spout evolution simply because I don't believe evolution. We can claim it's science...yet there are men and women who's brains make ours look like a pile of mud who can't even agree on it...they have fought for decades and centuries and will continue to fight...how in the world can we ever know? As I said we can claim science but for the common man like you and me all we really have is faith. You have faith in those scientists that they are coming up with the right conclusions. I have faith in the creationists. I just get amazingly frustrated because I've only been on the internet for about 8 years...and yet I've been over the same topics 1,000's of times with not ONCE having either side give way. I'm just getting sick and tired of it. Everyone KNOWS that they are right...so why do we try? What's most frustrating is that no matter what I do I don't think you'll ever understand where I'm coming from...you have a preset opinion of me and my beliefs because I'm a Christian and you aren't willing to listen just like I have trouble listening to you. (I actually had to come back to this thread to apologize because I was just going to ignore it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 23, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 23, 2004 as for social behavior in primates...as I've said to others in the past...you're looking in the wrong places for answers...who cares if primates are social? Who cares if they DO have morals? For all we know every animal in this world goes to heaven or hell when they die...the Bible says nothing of it. my question is why does this affect your life? That's one of the biggest reasons I get frustrated with discussing religion with people...they chase down the silliest concepts (not calling you silly) and ignore the big picture... I think I've said this in past topics but I believe in the Bible because of the big picture. Through science (mainly DNA) I believe it is not probable to have evolution (macro that is) and I believe in intelligent design. From there I work my way down and no other religion makes as much sense as Christianity (that I've seen) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar January 23, 2004 Share Crowbar Member January 23, 2004 only reason behind not touching the ferel children bit is because I don't really know anything about it. does that really happen? i really would be interested to see what happened if we took 100 childeren and isolated them from birth. kind of like Lord of the Flies...which is a wonderful view at why evolution is a load of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trouble .gc January 23, 2004 Share Trouble .gc Member January 23, 2004 crowbar For your reading enjoyment yes this really does happen...i guess a good example would be the boy from jungle book being raised by animals....its basically the lack of human interaction...no language/social skills... now, you say "which is a wonderful view at why evolution is a load of crap." why because they are isolated on an island? if 100 children are an island, oh, lets say between the ages of 4 and 7, do you honestly think that they would kill eachother? in all reality, children that young lack the basic understanding of survival, plus the lack of language, and social skills. humor me here and follow. lets just say that some of these children survived and mated...and so on and so on for many 100's of years....do you not think that there would be some sort of physical changes/adapatations? i'm no scientist, but, i would have to say yes. i guess the reason i believe more so in evolution is because of fossils and physical evidence...the proof is in the pudding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 23, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 23, 2004 do you not think that there would be some sort of physical changes/adapatations? i'm no scientist, but, i would have to say yes. i guess the reason i believe more so in evolution is because of fossils and physical evidence...the proof is in the pudding. heck yeah there would be physical changes and adaption. That's a misconception by probably 99% of supporters of "intelligent design" (the idea that the beings on earth were created by SOMETHING). Evolution IS scientifically provable...you can see it by looking at a Chihuahua versus a Great Dane. The thing that ISN'T science is called Macro-evolution...the idea that one species can evolve enough to make an entirely different species (i.e. over time a fish becomes a bird). You wanna see some support for intelligent design...study the DNA molecule. It is probably the most complicated thing on this earth and there is absolutely no probability that it happened by chance. (I use probability because there is ALWAYS a possibility of everything) And these are not just my ideas...the scientific world is also leaning towards this. I onced watched a video talking about 9 scientists who were supporters of evolution and they had learned over time that macro-evolution was totally improbable. So they got together at a beach house in North Carolina for like 3 weeks to study this subject alone. Every one of them was a non-religious man. After 3 weeks of constant study they all agreed that evolution could not explain the origions of this world and the only thing that could was intelligent design. Now NONE of them believed in a god at the beginning...now everyone of them believes SOME outside more powerful force had a hand in this worlds beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar January 23, 2004 Share Crowbar Member January 23, 2004 interesting stuff there... however, I doubt all of those stories are true, such as the Lobo Girl of Devil's River story. Information on her is found in a book published by the Texas folklore society. now, I said that piece about the Lord of the Flies, because the book is meant to show human society's degenerative nature. you put 100 40 year old men on an island and they will degenerate just as quickly, if not faster, than 100 young boys. It's the stongest evidence against evolution. Things in this world do not get better. Nothing naturally gets better, things naturally degenerate, decompose, go back to the dust from whence they came, etc and etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL January 23, 2004 Share dwEEziL Member January 23, 2004 Hence the first 2 laws of thermodynamics, 1) no energy can be created or destroyed, and 2) the amount of usable energy is decreasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playaa January 23, 2004 Share Playaa Member January 23, 2004 wait wait...I thought it was matter cannot be created or destroyed? and the second was that all matter tends towards disorder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL January 23, 2004 Share dwEEziL Member January 23, 2004 Technically it is energy, which matter is made up of. Also, technically, it is the amount of usable energy is decreasing. From these two laws, the concept of entropy came about, which is everything is moving to a less complex state of being, or in otherwords, breaking down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 24, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 24, 2004 Matter in fact May be created .. Pretty good evidence of this.. When you guys tout these "scientific facts" you are quoting decades old stuff.. Click. is whats happening today... Or 2002. And Crow, to me all that is saying is man can't live forever.. Not that if man keeps reproducing, his generations will get worse? Look at how man has Evolved over the ages we can see.. Bigger, faster, stronger.. Is that humankind breaking down? And playaa, the arguement about micro-macro is a waste of time.. They are in fact the same thing.. Noone argues that anymore.. And I'm not saying anything about no possible way there is intelligent design.. Or a God, never once have I said that have I? We assume way too much. We talk of what we do not know like it is law. THe reason I bring up animals is becuause Christians like to believe we are bestowed with some great sense of right and wrong by Their God. Like that is proof of their God. It's easy to believe that, but if you really research, and consider what Everyone has to say like Jane Goodall and like scientists, you'll realize we are realated. We are so much alike. A chromosome away.. 99% likeness in DNA.. So much data supporting this that you Have to ignore. Sure not Everything has been answered. Do we need all the answers? No. Show me the "brilliant scientists" who have proof that the bible and the creation story is true and I guess I will have to believe.. Seriously, show me some scientific proof as I have shown you of my beliefs. And after looking up Entropy, I found this.. Please read.. 2nd law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy January 24, 2004 Share auggybendoggy Member January 24, 2004 (edited) I must put my NON-cents into this... sorry guys I know I run alot of smack but this conv is good. My thoughts on micro and macro??? this is not a fact but a question. If evolution is true would there not be life on mars? After all isnt the point of micro to adapt to the enviroment...thus enabling macro. In fact I see no macro evolution. So if life on mars (algea, bacteria, viral) is found is it fair to say evolution will be found bunk. If it is not bunk then I would assume that billions of years ago these cells should have adapted to the mars atmosphere then evolved to a greater existence. Thus creating more life. What about other plantes? I've never done a study on evolution but I think I've got the main concepts down. Of course I realize some would say..."even if they find life (bacterial) on mars theres no animals or humans walking around cause they cannot live in such atmosphere" the obvious response being "I thought they should have adapted" I guess I'm thinking if evolution is true then there should be massive life just about everywhere. and if the conditions have to be just right then adaptation of evolution seems a bit weak. any thoughts auggy Edited January 24, 2004 by auggybendoggy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL January 24, 2004 Share dwEEziL Member January 24, 2004 Depending on your definition of "matter", I disagree with your statement. Just because new "substances" are formed does not mean that energy has been created out of nothing. Also, that guys statement about the second law of thermodynamics supporting the formation of complex structures out of simple just seems a bit off the wall, unless he is referring to the amount of usable energy decreasing thus increasing the amount of unusable energy. I just did a google search and didn't see any other pages to support his claims. Also, "Bigger, faster, stronger.. Is that humankind breaking down?" That is not evolution. That is "maybe" (a big stretch here I think) is adaption but more likely can just be attributed to a culling of the species and the advances in medicene and technology. On a whole, are people in better health condition than they were years ago? I think not. Just a couple hundred years back, people regularly spent 16 hours or more in the field plowing or some of the many other forms of manual labor that they had to do just to survive. I would argue that they were in much better shape than the average person today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 24, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 24, 2004 "substances" = matter no? So you agree. And once again, science and our discovery of the world around us is really in it's infancy. So to claim to be able to answer Everything is ridiculous. And basically what that page is saying that it is More "bunk" to use the second law of thermodynamics to Disprove evolution. He shows how people try to do it and how that argument fails.. Our condition determines wether we are in better shape or not.. ANd yes, I'd say the people that Are in shape are stonger and more fit than those even a few hundred years ago.. Am I stating this to prove evolution? No. Just to contradict Crowbars thought on the fact that everything is in a state of degradation... Maybe it does have a bit to do with evolution as well.. Man is definitely not the same man from 1000 years ago.. Micro Macro= THe same thing.. This was not always thought the case tho. And again, realize that this is all pretty much brand new to us so everything may not be explained clearly. "From Patrick O'Neil: Oh for... For the second time. There is no difference between MICROevolution and MACROevolution. The underlying process IS IDENTICAL. It is merely predicated upon the particular mutation type in a particular location within a particular gene. The mutation can be a point mutation, a transposition event leading to a fusion, a gene duplication (which REALLY allows new, novel functions to develop without harming the host in many cases), and so forth. A point mutation may not do squat or it might so alter the resulting protein's conformation or function that it has drastic phenotypic effects. Same with ALL the other mutation types. The ONLY thing required to initiate the formation of a new species of whatever is a minor change in an isolated population's mating biology: for animals that experience estrous, this can mean a VERY minor alteration in fertile cycles such that they can no longer mate with other related creatures. It can mean an alteration in egg receptors such that only a specific variant of sperm ligand can productively bind. There are ANY number of simple means by which a new species can come into being and once one does, it can go in a direction morphologically and behaviorally independent from its precursor species." Make sense now? I post all of these theories and thoughts yet noone ever produces and theories or seeming proofs of creationism outside the bible... Show me the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar January 24, 2004 Share Crowbar Member January 24, 2004 Did a quick skim through of the Institute for Creation Research and found these articles. Both written by veteran scientists, both as qualified as any scientist. I heard one of them speak long ago, he's done quite a lot for the Christian side of science. Evolution, Thermodynamics and Entropy The second one is a very short, rather scathing article written by the president of ICR. Can raw energy create order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowbar January 24, 2004 Share Crowbar Member January 24, 2004 I pulled this out of another, much larger article found here. These are some questions put to creation scientists, and their answers. The third question in particular is relevent to this current discussion. Creation and Science Question: "Since creation is not testable, and therefore cannot really be scientific, why should it be included in science curricula?" Answer: Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being observable experimentally. Both can be stated and discussed as scientific models however, and it is poor science and poor education to restrict instruction to only one of them. The fact that creation is not repeatable in the laboratory is irrelevant, since evolution (in the sense of "vertical" transformation from any given kind of organism to a more complex kind of organism) is not only never observed in the laboratory (or in all recorded history for that matter) but also seems impossible in light of the entropy principle (see below). Since creation was completed in the past, we would not expect to see it take place now, whereas evolution is supposed to be still going on. Yet it has never been observed and the entropy principle seems to guarantee that it will never occur at all. In this sense, creation is thus more "scientific" than evolution and should certainly be recognized as at least a legitimate scientific alternative to evolution. Question: "Even though evolution cannot be demonstrated, it is at least based on natural processes, whereas creation is based on supernatural processes; doesn't this prove creation is intrinsically unscientific?" Answer: This frequent humanistic assertion is nothing less than thoughtless arrogance at best. Whoever decided that "science" should be defined as "naturalism," anyway? The word science comes from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge." True scientists are supposed to "search for truth," wherever that search leads. It is surely possible that a great Creator exists (and, of course, absolutely impossible to prove He does not exist!); so it is at least possible that creation is the true explanation of the origin of the tremendous and intricately complex universe in which we live. It is inexcusable for evolutionists (whether they are atheistic evolutionists or "theistic" evolutionists) to arbitrarily exclude even the consideration of special creation as a scientific model from public institutions, when it might well be true, and therefore profoundly and perfectly scientific. Question: "Why can't creationists understand that their entropy argument against evolution is completely irrelevant, since the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems and the earth is an open system?" Answer: Why won't evolutionists quit echoing this irrelevant canard, and listen to what creationists actually are saying? Evolutionists seem to think that the principles of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems but professional thermodynamicists never say this. The imaginary age-long evolution of the biosphere must, of course, be discussed in terms of open-system thermodynamics, but this fact in no way helps the case for evolution. The influx of heat energy into an open system (as, say, from the sun onto the earth) will not naturally improve the organization of that system, as evolution would require, but will increase the entropy (that is, the disorganization) of the system more rapidly than if the system remained closed. To verify this, one need only examine the simple thermodynamic equation for heat flow into an open system. Where do evolutionists get the quaint and quite unscientific notion that solar energy is a sufficient explanation to account for evolution? Solar energy has not generated life or evolution on Mars or Venus, so how can it do so on Earth? The fact is that any system which does experience an increase in its organized complexity must be much more than merely an open system with external energy available to it. These are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions. In addition, the system's growth in complexity must be directed by a previously created program and then energized through a previously designed energy storage-and-conversion mechanism. For example, the growth of a seed into a plant is directed b~ its qenetic code and implemented by the mechanism of photosynthesis. Similarly the "evolution" of a building from a pile of bricks and lumber is directed by a blueprint and implemented by the construction machinery and the muscular skills of the builders. The evolution of the earth's biosphere in the space/time continuum, from primeval chemicals to a complex array of plants, animals and human beings represents a far greater increase in organized complexity than a plant or a building, yet it apparently had no directing program (chance?) and no solar energy conversion mechanism (mutations?). Thus, the entropy principle does indeed define any significant amount of upward naturalistic evolution as completely unscientific. Evolution would require an unending string of miracles to make it work! Question: "But hasn't this problem been solved by Prigogine and other scientists?" Answer: The real problem has hardly been addressed, let alone solved! Belgian scientist Ilya Prigogine received a Nobel prize in 1977 for his work in non-equilibrium thermodynamic theory but he did not solve, or even claim to solve, the problem of harmonizing evolution with entropy. He showed that under certain conditions of high energy flow and high energy dissipation, with large overall increases of entropy, certain ephemeral "ordered systems"called "dissipative structures" be formed as a side effect of the dissipative process. Priogogine expressed the hope that these might eventually somehow provide a clue to the origin of life. That was as close as he (or anyone else) has come to resolving the conflict between evolution and entropy. Evolutionists who believe this conflict can be handled merely by repeating the vacuous statement that the earth is an open system are thereby inadvertently acknowledging that they badly misunderstand the basic principles of thermodynamics. Question: "Don't creationists realize that the earth is far older than the 10,000 year age postulated by the creation model?" Answer: The scientific creation model is not tied to the young earth concept at all, despite very wide misunderstanding on this point. The basic evidences for creation and against evolution (e.g., the gaps in the fossil record. the laws of thermodynamics, the complexity of living systems) are completely independent of the age of the earth or the date of creation. Creationists therefore do not propose that creationism be tied in public schools to a recent creation. On the other hand, there are many sound scientific evidences that the earth is young more numerous and based on data at least as good as the few evidences for an old earth apparently the only reason for not including these in public education is the fact that the evolution model requires an old earth before it can be considered feasible at all. The creation model does not depend on a young earth, but evolution does imply an old earth. Why shouldn't both types of evidences be included, so that students can have access to all the information relevant to a decision on this important subject? Question: "But doesn't the Bible teach a young earth?" Answer: The Bible certainly does teach that all things were created in six days several thousand years ago, if its record is taken naturally and literally. Unfortunately, many Christians have been so intimidated by the evolutionists' insistence on an old earth that they have resorted to various forms of non-literal interpretation to try to accommodate the geological ages in the Genesis account of creation. In any case, although scientific creationism is compatible with Biblical creationism, each can be taught and evaluated quite independently of the other, and scientific creationists are as opposed to the teaching of Biblical creationism in public school as evolutionists are. Although the young earth is indeed a teaching of true Biblical creationism, it is not a necessary teaching of scientific creationism, and it is only the latter which should be taught in tax-supported institutions. Biblical creationism, on the other hand (including its teaching of literal recent creation) should be taught in Bible-believing churches. Both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be incorporated in Christian schools and colleges. Only scientific creationism should be taught in public schools. Question: "What about the teaching of a worldwide flood?" Answer: The same distinction should be made as with the teaching of a young earth. The Bible, taken naturally and literally, indeed does teach both a recent creation and a subsequent worldwide hydraulic cataclysm, but neither of these are necessary components of scientific creationism. As with the evidence for a young earth? there is a great amount of sound scientific evidence for catastrophism, rather than uniformitarianism, in earth history, including good geologic and ethnologic evidence for a worldwide flood. There is no good reason why all these scientific data should not be incorporated in public instruction. However, this question is quite distinct from the basic creation-evolution question, and should be kept separate in public school classrooms and textbooks. In other words, there are three basic questions at issue here: Special creation versus naturalistic evolution as the ultimate explanation of the universe, life and man. Age of the earth; ancient earth versus young earth. Uniformitarianism versus catastrophism (including not only intermittent local catastrophism, but also a global cataclysm) as the basic framework of interpretation in earth history. Each of these issues can and should be treated as a separate scientific issue in public education. They are related issues, of course, but each is important in its own right and is capable of discussion and evaluation quite independently of the others. Furthermore, although all three (creation, young earth and worldwide flood) are taught in the Bible, they can and should be discussed (in public schools) solely in terms of the scientific evidences, pro and con, related to each. Question: "Creationists say there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, while evolutionists maintain that there are; which is right? Answer: After many decades of insistence by the neo-Darwinians that evolution proceeded slowly and gradually by accumulation of small beneficial mutations by natural selection, it is gratifying to creationists that more and more evolutionists today have abandoned gradualism for what they call "punctuationalism," the idea that evolution proceeds by quantum leaps, accomplishing major changes very rapidly. The main reason for this change has been the belated acknowledgement that the fossil record billions of fossils now discovered shows no evidence of true transitional forms. However, although these ubiquitous gaps are widely recognized by evolutionists when arguing among themselves, they are quick to bridge the gaps when debating with creationists, insisting that there are many transitional forms. The transitional forms cited are almost always the sameArchaeopteryx (the reptile-like bird), the therapsids (the mammal-like reptiles), and the horses. Others are mentioned occasionally, but these are clearly the most likely candidates for intermediacy. Even if these were convincing, however, the very fact that the same fossils are continually being offered as examples is an eloquent testimony to the scarcity of transitional forms. If total evolution were really true, it would seem that all fossils should be transitional forms! As a matter of fact, even the handful of examples exhibited are not really evolutionary transitional forms anyhow. For an up-to-date discussion of this subject, see the book, Evolution The Challenge of the Fossil Record, by Dr. Duane Gish (C L P, 1985). Neither these nor any other supposed transitional forms meet any of the following requirements for true transitional forms: (1) transitional or incipient structures, such as half-scales/half-feathers on reptile/birds; (2) series of gradually changing intermediates from one major kind to another, rather than sharp changes; (3) correlation of even the sharp changes with geologic time sequences. For example, true birds are now known to be at least as "old" geologically as Archaeopteryx; the early horses overlap chronologically with more modern horses and each is quite distinct from the others, with no gradual intermediates; the mammal-like reptiles died out even before the main age of reptiles, and no one knows which, if any, ever evolved into mammals. All were evidently fully functional in their own environments, with neither vestigial structures from previous evolutionary stages nor incipient structures destined for future utility. At best, each was a "mosaic" form, not a transitional form, with a mosaic of useful features including some found in certain other animals, but all uniquely created with their own peculiar combination of structures for their own intended purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 24, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 24, 2004 Ok, I love how this opinion piece dances around key issues.. like Question: "But doesn't the Bible teach a young earth?" Answer: The Bible certainly does teach that all things were created in six days several thousand years ago, if its record is taken naturally and literally. Unfortunately, many Christians have been so intimidated by the evolutionists' insistence on an old earth that they have resorted to various forms of non-literal interpretation to try to accommodate the geological ages in the Genesis account of creation. In any case, although scientific creationism is compatible with Biblical creationism, each can be taught and evaluated quite independently of the other, and scientific creationists are as opposed to the teaching of Biblical creationism in public school as evolutionists are. Although the young earth is indeed a teaching of true Biblical creationism, it is not a necessary teaching of scientific creationism, and it is only the latter which should be taught in tax-supported institutions. Biblical creationism, on the other hand (including its teaching of literal recent creation) should be taught in Bible-believing churches. Both scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be incorporated in Christian schools and colleges. Only scientific creationism should be taught in public schools." It dosen't give any facts at all and says both are true? Which is it, Old earth or new? And there Are transitional fossils. For example, the human-like skeletons we've found.. Sort of ape-ish with more human traits.. Many varieties of these.. upright and not. Horse like skeletons.. The archaeopteryx.. look it up. Feathered dinosaur.. Not a bird, not a lizard.. And the fact is no billions of different fossils have been recorded.. Who are they trying to kid? Fact is most are insects, plants and sea life.. Land animals are Very rare finds so how do we expect we have found everything? Sorry, but those arguments are a joke. No evidence for anything except the fact they say that nothing can be ruled out... Creationism, Evolution.. you cannot say one or the other definitely did Not happen. Sorry. Some actual Proof please.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auggybendoggy January 25, 2004 Share auggybendoggy Member January 25, 2004 I'll assume the answer to my question concerning life (bacterial) on other planets as... "auggy! SHUT UP!" I never cease to amaze myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watchtower January 25, 2004 Author Share Watchtower Member January 25, 2004 Do we know that there's absolutely no life on any other planets? Or Has been life? Even Mars? Isn't that why the rovers are there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now