30 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayGive me the genetic code of an species that has two sexes and a similar species that doesn't and I can make a comparison study for you an then postulate the answer to your question.
No, I did not say that we could not approach the theory of evolution
through scientific methods. I asked you if evolution was faith based,
not that you couldn't use science methods upon natural occurrences!
You can look at natural occurrences all you want with science, that
does not mean that evolution isn't faith, only that you can look at
natural o ...[text shortened]... Can we talk about this with beliefs, faith, or observable
events that can be tested?
Kelly
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by Langtreecreation is not a Theory ,,,it's a hypothesis.
Lemonjello, Understand this clearly. Evolution and creation are THEORIES OF ORIGINS. The evidence we have exists in the present, but the actions in the past. Evolution occurs too slowly in any one life time to be documented.
All your evidence in anatomy has not answered the more nagging questions that plague evolution. 1. How does evolution explain th ...[text shortened]... reation are not science, but science is needed to verify the data, to see which side is correct.
If you want to call a hypothesis a theory, thereby changing the semantic environment the scientific theory must be raised to LAW,,, and then your creation" theory" is invalid because a theory is tested by their agreement with the LAWS of science.
Evolution is in agreement with the laws of science so in the scientific method is a Theory.
Creationism is not in agreement so its not even science.
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by LangtreeOriginally posted by Langtree
The ostrich
You made a serious over sight Frogstomp. In particular, there are modern birds that have teeth. Why don't you take a guess.
Make your claim and include your claim's relevance and I'll get around to answering it when I get to it.
wtf kind of question is " the ostrich" ??????
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompFrogstomp, both evolution and creation are hypothses. You are still avoiding my questions. I once was an evolutionist, you know what made me reconsider my position. When I was in South Korea, I took a class through the University of Maryland. The class and the professor raised more question than answers. I never looked back. I'm making a copy of this entire thread and I'm going to display this to my science class in September. I'm sure it will be very amusing I already have permission to give equal time to creationism and evolution. That is a fair education
creation is not a Theory ,,,it's a hypothesis.
If you want to call a hypothesis a theory, thereby changing the semantic environment the scientific theory must be raised to LAW,,, and then your creation" theory" is invalid because a theory is tested by their agreement with the LAWS of science.
...[text shortened]... entific method is a Theory.
Creationism is not in agreement so its not even science.
- Joined
- 10 Jun 03
- Moves
- 19229
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by frogstompSeems like someone is upset. Well, I have a busy day tomorrow. I have to teach Algebra, finish my lesson plans and enjoy my wife. We are in our fifties, and we behave like newly weds WOW, marriage is exciting, thankyou God!!!!!
Originally posted by Langtree
You made a serious over sight Frogstomp. In particular, there are modern birds that have teeth. Why don't you take a guess.
Make your claim and include your claim's relevance and I'll get around to answering it when I get to it.
wtf kind of question is " the ostrich" ??????
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by LangtreeGo right ahead , maybe the kids will read it and see exactly what horse manure you're shoveling at them.
Frogstomp, both evolution and creation are hypothses. You are still avoiding my questions. I once was an evolutionist, you know what made me reconsider my position. When I was in South Korea, I took a class through the University of Maryland. The class and the professor raised more question than answers. I never looked back. I'm making a copy of this ...[text shortened]... ady have permission to give equal time to creationism and evolution. That is a fair education
btw wtf kind of question is "ostrich" ?????
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by LangtreeWow, when will you folk learn what the 2nd law of thermodynamics actually says? Evolution doesn't need to "explain entropy". Come back when you figure out what a "closed system" is, why the 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, and why the Earth is not a closed system. Further, local decreases in entropy are perfectly consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, as long as they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system. As a teacher, you should be ashamed of spreading such drivel, and you should also be ashamed of not doing your homework on this issue.
Lemonjello, Understand this clearly. Evolution and creation are THEORIES OF ORIGINS. The evidence we have exists in the present, but the actions in the past. Evolution occurs too slowly in any one life time to be documented.
All your evidence in anatomy has not answered the more nagging questions that plague evolution. 1. How does evolution explain th ...[text shortened]... reation are not science, but science is needed to verify the data, to see which side is correct.
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI asked you if evolution was faith based, not that you couldn't use science methods upon natural occurrences!
No, I did not say that we could not approach the theory of evolution
through scientific methods. I asked you if evolution was faith based,
not that you couldn't use science methods upon natural occurrences!
You can look at natural occurrences all you want with science, that
does not mean that evolution isn't faith, only that you can look at
natural o ...[text shortened]... Can we talk about this with beliefs, faith, or observable
events that can be tested?
Kelly
and i answered no, evolution is not necessarily faith based. there is at least one fundamental difference between evolution and creationism and this difference breaks down along lines of faith and consequently along the lines of the natural versus the supernatural. creationism is necessarily predicated on the supernatural. keep in mind that the supernatural is basically a black box as far as we are concerned: that which is supernatural is not constrained by the natural laws that constrain us, and the supernatural is not discernable to our intellect (if we could discern it, then it would not be supernatural).
concerning bastardly hard problems (such as where did we come from?), the creationist posits (probably correctly) that reason will only take us so far in gaining understanding. once this uncertainty starts to encroach, the creationist panics and this is where faith comes in: he arbitrarily posits the existence of a supernatural being, slaps a general label on it (creator), and then proceeds to arbitrarily assign this creator characteristics (keep in mind that we cannot characterize that which is supernatural, so this is truly mental masturbation) that conveniently seem to offer the creationist some solutions. he thinks he has alleviated the uncertainty mentioned above, but he simply cannot escape the fact that his beliefs are completely arbitrary, evidenced by the fact that he absurdly claims to be able to characterize that which is not discernable. the creationist's beliefs are irrational because the introduction of the supernatural necessarily suppresses reason. of course, other creationists don't think at all and just accept creationism because they read it in a book. no matter: the arbitrary nature of creationism is common to the beliefs of all creationists.
the rational proponent of evolution also understands that it is indeed a bastardly difficult question and may also posit (probably correctly) that reason will only take him so far in gaining understanding. when this uncertainty encroaches, he acts differently from the creationist. he acts rationally and abstains from making the same wild, arbitrary claims of the creationist. he continues to chip away at the problem through scientific methodology which, unlike the supernatural, is compatible with cognition. nowhere is it necessary (or justified) for him to adopt faith. if that means that he must swim in a sea of uncertainty, well, that fact in and of itself does not distinguish him in any way from the creationist. again, nowhere is it necessary for the proponent of evolution to adopt faith and resort to the supernatural.
So how do you know which if not both occured?...Simply seeing naturally occurring events does not mean that we know what occurred billions of years ago nor does it mean we know how it started with creation or not. It only means we are seeing naturally occurring events.
again, this is the encroaching uncertainty mentioned above. the creationist panics and wets himself here; the proponent of evolution remains true to his capacity for reason. if one answers 'hey good question; i have no idea which occurred', then why in the world do you think it is justified for this person to then arbitrarily think up some supernatural being and point his finger and say 'He must have done it.'
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by Langtreeyour post does not address my question i posed earlier. please see my above post for more clarification on my position if that is what you are seeking.
Lemonjello, Understand this clearly. Evolution and creation are THEORIES OF ORIGINS. The evidence we have exists in the present, but the actions in the past. Evolution occurs too slowly in any one life time to be documented.
All your evidence in anatomy has not answered the more nagging questions that plague evolution. 1. How does evolution explain th ...[text shortened]... reation are not science, but science is needed to verify the data, to see which side is correct.
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloHe really hasnt a clue, thinking he can grandstand and get people to agree with his distorted ideas of how science works.
your post does not address my question i posed earlier. please see my above post for more clarification on my position if that is what you are seeking.
30 Jun 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Langtree
The pre-cambrian still lacks the transitional forms that should appear sometime before the Cambrian. There are still systematic gaps.
There are some gaps, but the presence of at least some fossil precursors demonstrates the cambrian is not the beginning of life on this planet. The scarcity (note not absense), and bad quality (relative to cambrian fossils), of pre-cambrian fossils also demonstrates that something was preventing fossilisation back then (ie each precambrian specie has only left a few fossil individuals, wheras each cambrian species has left thousands).
In short this is not a flaw of evolution theory at all, it is a flaw in the preservation of fossils before the cambrian. So while this period of the fossil record might not be of great support to evolution, neither does it harm evolution. There is an ample fossil record in other areas which strongly supports evolution, such as hominid fossils for example.
The Second Law, has three important applications, first, is classical thermodynamics, which has to do directly with our discussion. the energy availible for useful work in any functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant. Second is statistical, where organized system tend to become disorganized. Third, informational, where information tends to get distorted.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is all about heat transfer. Entropy as applicable to the 2nd law is in the energy sense which is completely different from entropy in the information sense. So while it might, or might not be true that information tends to get distorted, it isn't the 2nd law that says this.
The first application is also called the Law of Entropy(in turning) Since we live in an open system, Entropy always increases. The Laws of Thermodynamics run contrary to evolution.
Yet the 2nd law explicitly states that entropy can decrease in an open system, so obviously it doesn't run counter to evolution.
If entropy couldn't decrease then yes evolution couldn't occur. But the reason evolution could not occur is because without entropy being able to decrease life be unable to exist as life works by decreasing local entropy.
30 Jun 05
Originally posted by LangtreeIf you are saying ostriches have teeth, you are wrong. From wikipedia:
The ostrich
Lacking teeth, they swallow pebbles that help to grind the swallowed foods in the gizzard.
No modern birds have teeth, period. Your statement was incorrect. Please don't teach kids about all them modern birds running around with teeth.
30 Jun 05
1 edit
Originally posted by LangtreeWhew. That is one subject I'm pretty confident even a YEC cannot screw up. Please for the love of all that is sacred, refrain from teaching anything less cut 'n dry.
Seems like someone is upset. Well, I have a busy day tomorrow. I have to teach Algebra, finish my lesson plans and enjoy my wife.
Enjoy your wife.