Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas

[USViking]

Adam and Eve were not the origin of man. An eternal, intelligent Creator was. The Laws of Thermodynamics show that the universe had a beginning, and therefore must have had a cause. God is that cause. The complexity of life and the existence of intelligence, itself show that God is intelligent.

Thermodynamics does not require the universe to have had a beginning.

This is inferred from evidence that the universe is expanding, and evidence that it is filled with a "background radiation" of a certain temperature.

And the fact it had a beginning does not imply it had an uncreated cause.

And an uncreated universe is no more astounding than an uncreated creator would be.

 

[Annie]

Thermodynamics does not require the universe to have had a beginning.

This is inferred from evidence that the universe is expanding, and evidence that it is filled with a "background radiation" of a certain temperature.

And the fact it had a beginning does not imply it had an uncreated cause.

And an uncreated universe is no more astounding than an uncreated creator would be.

Chicken and the egg. Sort of like this:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/blackhole_history_030128-1.html

 

[007]

The bible might be (probably is) the history of Christianity. It is folly to apply it outside those bounds.

And that would be no more than just your opinion.

Funny how the Bible has sold more editions than any other book in the history of print.

 

[5stringJeff]

It's being claimed that the bible is THE true accounting of the history of the planet. Things like continental drift, ice ages, and global volcanic flooding (chapter and verse please) aren't mentioned in the bible because those things take tens of thousands if not millions of years to run their course and therefore fall outside the timeline of the bible. (and therefore couldn't have happened)

I don't think anyone on here said that the Bible contains 100% of all the history of the planet. What's being claimed is that 100% of what the Bible contains is truth.

 

[no1tovote4]

The U.S. military isn't the only one with recruiting problems. The Army of the Lord is looking for a few good goyim. Could be your last chance...

What a silly comparison, it really tears down your own credibility to attempt to mock the people that protect your freedoms regardless of where they have been ordered to go.

 

[deaddude]

Nor do we have scientific evidence that there was a giant, massive enough to become the earth. However there is "light" and "earth." Both there from the beginning. What would be the effects if the lakes were originally blood? Are there iron-rich deposits in every lake bed. Does the sedimentary evidence justify this theory? Are all mountains composed solely of calcium carbonate? What phenomenon would have occured to vaporize the brains, and is there any evidence of this phenomenon left on the earth as proof?

What would the effects of man being made from clay be?

 

[JayW]

Liberals don't want the creation theory taught because it assumes a deity, which they hope doesn't exist, because otherwise, they're all going to Hell.

But on the racial issue, it's evolution that shows how we got the different races --- and why some races are smarter than others.

Huh? Care to back either of those statements up?

 

[Nienna]

look at the Urey-Miller chemistry experiment where using only lightning they were able to create organic compounds, including 13 amino acids, from inorganic compounds with random strikes within a week.

All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller/Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp

Genes can't be equated with money, because many of those microbe genes aren't expressed, they're useless. These genes can be lost through mutation to a new species where an organism is less fit to have those genes now and loses them. There are also things called haploid organisms, meaning they only have half the DNA of the parent cell, which can account for loss of genetic information through mutant haploid cells.

Still talking about loss of genetic information.

Science doesn't conflict with a non-literal interpretation of the Bible. The Bible and Evolution can co-exist. There are other things driving people away from the Church, like the pedophile priests.

See, that's the thing. Who has more knowlegde and authority? Scientists, whose information changes rapidly, or God whose word never changes? One has to go. Why is it Genesis that has to compromise?

You're right, many things do drive people away from the Church (and I am not referring only to the Catholic religion, but all Bible-believing religions). However, evolution is one of those things.

ID and Creationism aren't scientific because they don't fit Occam's Razor and are unfalsifiable. Let the coverage of "atheism" (if that's what you call science) be in a Science class and Religion in a Philosophy class.

I showed before how Creationism fits Occam's Razor. I also explained how creation science is just as testable as macroevolution.

You can't prove the universe had a beginning, it might be infinite in size. We've never seen the edge of the universe.

1st Law of Thermodynamics: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: The amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down (entropy).

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever. It would already have reached heat death.

Once again Evolution is not about explaining how things started, but Biological pathways including macroevolution. You are correct that microevolution leads to macroevolution is not axiomatic, you don't have to add any more axioms, but you do have to add the axiom that a Creator exists for ID. You don't have to assume there is a beginning for Evolution, that once again is not the purpose of it. You just have to theorize using existing axioms that certain pathways continued to act over a larger time scale for a larger result. It doesn't have to assume a beginning.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you just said that I was correct that "microev. leads to macroev." is not axiomatic, but one must theorize using this axiom.

I don't know what you mean by genetic information. Some one celled organisms have way more base pairs than humans. Because humans have less base pairs and are more complex proves that the number of complex mechanisms is dependant upon amount of genetic information. A man's wealth is entirely dependant on his money though, so your analogy doesn't fit.

Sounds like you just answered your own question m'dear. The number of complex mechanisms is dependent on amount of genetic information. The information is the meaning encoded in the proteins, directing the expression of the genes. Also correct, some plants (as an example) have more genes than humans. However, they have less genetic information, or complexity. Polyploid plants have duplicate copies of the genome.
Example:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
ILOVEMYMOTHER

The first line has twice the number of characters as the second, but the second line has more meaning. The first line has replicated copies of the character. The second line has more special meaning behind the characters. This is another argument for a Creator. How else would we be able to make sense of randomness?

 

[MissileMan]

I don't think anyone on here said that the Bible contains 100% of all the history of the planet. What's being claimed is that 100% of what the Bible contains is truth.

As it pertains to the creation of Earth and ALL life, you would have to say it's being claimed at a minimum as THE true first chapter of the history of the planet. But if everything in the Bible is 100% true, then take a shot at the questions in #100.

 

[5stringJeff]

As it pertains to the creation of Earth and ALL life, you would have to say it's being claimed at a minimum as THE true first chapter of the history of the planet.

That I would agree to. But I would also say that it's not all inclusive; that is to say, it does not contain every event that transpired. Continental drift, ice ages, the formation of black holes, etc. etc. were not recorded as individual events. All we know is the God created the heavens and the earth.

But if everything in the Bible is 100% true, then take a shot at the questions in #100.

I already answered about continental drift and ice ages. As to the formation of new religons... first, Noah and his family were not Christians. They weren't even Jews. They only knew that God existed (although Noah did receive commands directly from God). The religions that spawned on earth after the flood all have the concept of God or gods. Therefore, it seems reasonable that they all came from the same original concept of God that Noah and his family had.

 

[IControlThePast]

All energy sources that produce the biochemicals destroy them even faster! The Miller/Urey experiments used strategically designed traps to isolate the biochemicals as soon as they were formed so the sparks/UV did not destroy them. Without the traps, even the tiny amounts obtained would not have been formed.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4220.asp

Just keep in mind that Evolution does not come into play for this part of the debate, so you can't critisize Evolution for it. Recent experiments have shown that the atmosphere contained even more Hydrogen, making it a very easy place for organic chemicals to form. The presense of oxygen doesn't have to preclude the abiogenesis there, and there are safe "traps" on the Earth. Keep in mind this is just one theory. Another is the asteriod theory. One that landed on Earth was found to contain 90 amino acids.

See, that's the thing. Who has more knowlegde and authority? Scientists, whose information changes rapidly, or God whose word never changes? One has to go. Why is it Genesis that has to compromise?

You're right, many things do drive people away from the Church (and I am not referring only to the Catholic religion, but all Bible-believing religions). However, evolution is one of those things.

You might not want to ask that first question. If the Bible was all encompassing we wouldn't need Science to begin with. There are many things not mentioned in the Bible, tomatoes for example, that people must turn to Science for. That is the advantage of updating information. One doesn't have to go. You can still be Christian and not believe Genesis is literal. Therefore Evolution does not cause people to leave any Church except for ones that require a literal interpretation of the Bible.

1st Law of Thermodynamics: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics: The amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down (entropy).

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever. It would already have reached heat death.

Your statements only deal only with the energy in the system and not with its spatial size.

I showed before how Creationism fits Occam's Razor. I also explained how creation science is just as testable as macroevolution.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you just said that I was correct that "microev. leads to macroev." is not axiomatic, but one must theorize using this axiom.

It is not an axiom, because one can draw that conclusion of macroev. from previous axioms of microev., without having to add anything extraneous for a new axiom. An axiom is something extraneous, not derivable from other given axioms. For ID, you do have to add something extraneous, a Creator, instead. Understand?

Sounds like you just answered your own question m'dear. The number of complex mechanisms is dependent on amount of genetic information. The information is the meaning encoded in the proteins, directing the expression of the genes. Also correct, some plants (as an example) have more genes than humans. However, they have less genetic information, or complexity. Polyploid plants have duplicate copies of the genome.
Example:
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
ILOVEMYMOTHER

The first line has twice the number of characters as the second, but the second line has more meaning. The first line has replicated copies of the character. The second line has more special meaning behind the characters. This is another argument for a Creator. How else would we be able to make sense of randomness?

What you are arguing is specified complexity. The special meaning is exactly what natural selection and evolution work towards.

 

[MissileMan]

That I would agree to. But I would also say that it's not all inclusive; that is to say, it does not contain every event that transpired. Continental drift, ice ages, the formation of black holes, etc. etc. were not recorded as individual events. All we know is the God created the heavens and the earth.

It's being argued by some that in order for the story of Noah to be true, the migration of species, including man, had to be assisted by either land bridges formed by low water levels, or continental drift, or volcanic flood. These globally significant events had to have been witnessed by the immediate descendents of Noah, yet no mention of these miraculous aids to the repopulation of the planet exist in the Bible.

I already answered about continental drift and ice ages. As to the formation of new religons... first, Noah and his family were not Christians. They weren't even Jews. They only knew that God existed (although Noah did receive commands directly from God). The religions that spawned on earth after the flood all have the concept of God or gods. Therefore, it seems reasonable that they all came from the same original concept of God that Noah and his family had.

They weren't technically Christians because Christ hadn't been born yet, but they worshipped the same Christian God that you do.

Are you actually arguing that all of the world's religions are derived from Christianity? That's gotta be the biggest whopper I've read yet.

So explain how people of middle eastern descent morphed into Asians, Caucasians, American Indians, Blacks, Eskimos, etc in just a few generations?
Explain how a person of middle eastern descent who worships the Christain God becomes an idol worshipping head hunter on a remote pacific island with absolutely zero archeological evidence that their ancestors ever heard of Noah, or God.

 

[Markainion]

Just keep in mind that Evolution does not come into play for this part of the debate, so you can't critisize Evolution for it. Recent experiments have shown that the atmosphere contained even more Hydrogen, making it a very easy place for organic chemicals to form. The presense of oxygen doesn't have to preclude the abiogenesis there, and there are safe "traps" on the Earth. Keep in mind this is just one theory. Another is the asteriod theory. One that landed on Earth was found to contain 90 amino acids.



If scientists believe that organic chemicals can create life, why haven’t they created life from nothing yet? I guess we are still going to have to wait to see how much life exist in the universe for the asteroid theory to hold.

I am not saying that someday these theories will not be proven. Just keep in mind that we our still very much in the dark, on what creates life. Scientists still have a long way to go, they can manipulate life, but they can’t create it.

 

[IControlThePast]

If scientists believe that organic chemicals can create life, why haven’t they created life from nothing yet? I guess we are still going to have to wait to see how much life exist in the universe for the asteroid theory to hold.

I am not saying that someday these theories will not be proven. Just keep in mind that we our still very much in the dark, on what creates life. Scientists still have a long way to go, they can manipulate life, but they can’t create it.

Right, these are just some theories that don't affect Evolution at all, because no scientist knows how it all started. It is hard to simulate the conditions of the primordial stew, and watch in an experiment something that took millions of years. Like you said we still have a long way to go there, but the abiogenesis theories are definately possibilites. I'm not saying that because abiogenesis occured there is no God. All of those inorganic chemicals had to get there somehow in the first place.

 

[dmp]

Right, these are just some theories that don't affect Evolution at all, because no scientist knows how it all started. It is hard to simulate the conditions of the primordial stew, and watch in an experiment something that took millions of years. Like you said we still have a long way to go there, but the abiogenesis theories are definately possibilites. I'm not saying that because abiogenesis occured there is no God. All of those inorganic chemicals had to get there somehow in the first place.

At least you have good taste in cars.

 

[5stringJeff]

It's being argued by some that in order for the story of Noah to be true, the migration of species, including man, had to be assisted by either land bridges formed by low water levels, or continental drift, or volcanic flood. These globally significant events had to have been witnessed by the immediate descendents of Noah, yet no mention of these miraculous aids to the repopulation of the planet exist in the Bible.

If you read the chapters directly after the flood account, you will see that there's one story (about Noah getting drunk). Then it goes on into genealogies until the story of Abraham. So nothing is specifically mentioned in the Bible about anything between Noah and Abraham. The rise of early civilization and the first bronze age occured during this time period, yet the Bible mentions nothing about it. The reason for this is the the Bible was not meant to be an all-inclusive history of the world.

They weren't technically Christians because Christ hadn't been born yet, but they worshipped the same Christian God that you do.

Are you actually arguing that all of the world's religions are derived from Christianity? That's gotta be the biggest whopper I've read yet.

So explain how people of middle eastern descent morphed into Asians, Caucasians, American Indians, Blacks, Eskimos, etc in just a few generations?
Explain how a person of middle eastern descent who worships the Christain God becomes an idol worshipping head hunter on a remote pacific island with absolutely zero archeological evidence that their ancestors ever heard of Noah, or God.

I'm arguing just the opposite: that there was no such religion as Christianity, or Judaism, at the time of the flood. Therefore, it would be impossible to say that all religions derived from Christianity. What I'm saying is that Noah knew God (actually, the Bible says that he walked with Him). So the eight people left after the flood all had knowledge of God. This follows known history, since the early religions that formed in the world all had some sort of god/gods in them (as opposed to atheism/agnosticism). Therefore, I do not believe the account of Noah knowing God to contradict history.

As far as different races forming, I don't have a good answer.
As far as "absolutely zero archeological evidence that their ancestors ever heard of Noah, or God:" first, most Pacific islanders didn't leave much evidence of anything, much less their knowledge of God. However, I will point out that flood myths abound in many ancient cultures, especially in the Middle East.

 

[Nienna]

Just keep in mind that Evolution does not come into play for this part of the debate, so you can't critisize Evolution for it. Recent experiments have shown that the atmosphere contained even more Hydrogen, making it a very easy place for organic chemicals to form. The presense of oxygen doesn't have to preclude the abiogenesis there, and there are safe "traps" on the Earth. Keep in mind this is just one theory. Another is the asteriod theory. One that landed on Earth was found to contain 90 amino acids.

Evolution depends upon the assumption that life could have come about without supernatural aid. So insofar as it depends on this, it does deal with the origin of life.

I'm so glad you recognize that Urey-Miller experiment, although useful in its place (1953), was not the final word on assumed atmospheric conditions on earth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v3/i3/atmosphere.asp

You might not want to ask that first question. If the Bible was all encompassing we wouldn't need Science to begin with. There are many things not mentioned in the Bible, tomatoes for example, that people must turn to Science for. That is the advantage of updating information. One doesn't have to go. You can still be Christian and not believe Genesis is literal. Therefore Evolution does not cause people to leave any Church except for ones that require a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I agree that you can be a Christian and not believe in a literal Genesis, although it has caused others to turn away from the faith. But why would you, when there is so much evidence supporting it?

Once again (Jeff, you feeling my pain, brother?) ... The Bible is not a record of every piece of information that has been or will ever be discovered in the universe. But when the Bible does mention science or history, it is accurate.

Your statements only deal only with the energy in the system and not with its spatial size.

Energy, mass, space, and time are all interrelated. E=mc^2

It is not an axiom, because one can draw that conclusion of macroev. from previous axioms of microev., without having to add anything extraneous for a new axiom. An axiom is something extraneous, not derivable from other given axioms. For ID, you do have to add something extraneous, a Creator, instead. Understand?

ax·i·om ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n.
1)A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
2)A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

I do not think that macroevolution is self-evident. It's mechanisms have been proven not to work.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/evolution_train.asp

What you are arguing is specified complexity. The special meaning is exactly what natural selection and evolution work towards.

Specified complexity is exactly what natural selection and mutation can never achieve.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter9.asp

 

[IControlThePast]

Evolution depends upon the assumption that life could have come about without supernatural aid. So insofar as it depends on this, it does deal with the origin of life.

No it doesn't. Evolution trys to track the divergence in species, not how the first species occured. If a Creator put a one celled organism on the planet that evolved into everything else Evolution still fits. It is not the business of Evolution to explain how those first living organisms came from others though.

Once again (Jeff, you feeling my pain, brother?) ... The Bible is not a record of every piece of information that has been or will ever be discovered in the universe. But when the Bible does mention science or history, it is accurate.

I know it isn't a record of everything, but that is why people are turning to Science, because it is adaptive and therefore tries to include everything.

Energy, mass, space, and time are all interrelated. E=mc^2

Ummm, that formula only deals with energy, mass, and the speed of light. No mention of space :tng:.

ax·i·om ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ks-m)
n.
1)A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim: “It is an economic axiom as old as the hills that goods and services can be paid for only with goods and services” (Albert Jay Nock).
2)A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.

I do not think that macroevolution is self-evident. It's mechanisms have been proven not to work.

Macroevolution is a conclusion attempted to be drawn from only the postulates of proven microevolution. You need a new postulate, that there is a Creator, for ID. Macroevolution has not been disproven. It wouldn't still be a theory if it had been.

Specified complexity is exactly what natural selection and mutation can never achieve.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter9.asp

Natural selection was created with the intent to account for the argument you are trying to make. You can see examples all around us, and through transition fossils. As for humans having less information, did you know the DNA of an Ameoba, a one celled organism, has over 100 times the number of DNA base pairs a human does? The relationship between evolutionary status and amount of DNA is not clear like you make it out to be. The whole goal of natural selection is to arrive at these highly specified organisms. A tetraploidy mutation can provide a new species with much more DNA than the original species. This DNA is then later modified through new species while the first divergent species become extinct. There is an example of natural selection producing a new species. Even humans have disease mutations like Kleinefelter's which gives a male a whole extra X chromosome. If mutation were more drastic, it could produce a new species with 50% more DNA than the parent. There are quite a few Biological mechanisms for losing or increasing the amount of DNA, also between species.

 

[archangel]

After considerable consideration listening to the posts in here on ID vs Creationism vs Evolution...well there can be only two possibilties...There is a Devine creator we call God,The Father,The Grandfather or The culprit has to be the Greys being held captive at area 51...(ID theory)

Either God planned all of this to amuse us or the Greys experimented with DNA exchange....Since monkees are still roaming the Earth in basically unchanged composition...then we must be a mutation caused by DNA exchange between monkees and the Greys....

I for one prefer to believe in the Devine Creator "God"....because if the Greys did it...then where did the Greys come from?Besides it gives me the creeps to think I could be a DNA exchange rather than something special...

 

[Annie]

After considerable consideration listening to the posts in here on ID vs Creationism vs Evolution...well there can be only two possibilties...There is a Devine creator we call God,The Father,The Grandfather or The culprit has to be the Greys being held captive at area 51...(ID theory)

Either God planned all of this to amuse us or the Greys experimented with DNA exchange....Since monkees are still roaming the Earth in basically unchanged composition...then we must be a mutation caused by DNA exchange between monkees and the Greys....

I for one prefer to believe in the Devine Creator "God"....because if the Greys did it...then where did the Greys come from?Besides it gives me the creaps to think I could be a DNA exchange rather than something special...

And I for one believe in a Creator, God. I'd imagine that we may have differences in the way 'He' operated. (hint: neither of us know.) That doesn't effect the difference between religion/philosophy parameters. Sunday schools, home, religion in private schools all are great forums for this discussion.