Why does Creationist view cause a problem as Sec of the Army?

[JimBowie1958]

We actually don't know that man ever evolved. We know that there was neanderthal man and cro-magnon man. They existed at the same time. There has been very little evolution in cro-magnon man and what there has been is either the result of adaptive evolution or improvements in nutrition.

Actually they have found Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in modern man ethnicities. While not all of us are of Neanderthal descent, most of us from outside of Africa do have some, and those from the Far East have a lot of Denisovan, as I understand it.

I find the evidence for evolution convincing, but my wife does not, and she is much smarter than I am.

The purpose of attacking this man is to fashion a means of prohibiting religious people's advancement, anywhere.

You nailed it. Seems libtards are AOK with a religious test on evolution, and that is a pity.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I came to Christianity from atheism. I find no conflict between religion and science. They prove one another right all the time.

Modern science itself stems from the Scholastic movement.

Scholasticism turned Astrology into Astronomy, Alchemy into chemistry, etc.

 

[JimBowie1958]

10,000 vs 4.5 billion..........not off by much

I wouldnt say that YEC 10k estimates of the Earth's age are off by much, but that their foundational assumptions about God and how He relates to mankind are completely in error.

The vast difference in years of the understood age of the universe all pivot on those assumptions.

 

[OldLady]

Nothing comes from nothing (hum along....nothing ever could...) and zero plus zero equals zero. Zero minus zero equals zero. Zero times zero equals zero. Zero divided by zero equals zero.
Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

Is this something along the lines of any number to the zero power equals 1?

No. Click the link I provided for the assertion. What "it" (the mathematical proof) is -- as opposed to what it is like -- is explained in really straightforward (easily enough grasped by non-mathematicians) language in the introduction and other prose one finds there. The paper isn't long either.

Ummm...you either linked the wrong paper or you're sadly mistaken about my powers of understanding that level of scientific chat.
You've once again proved you're smarter than me. LOL

The proof shows that when a small true vacuum bubble is created by changes in the energy found at a local energy minimum within the vacuum, the bubble can expand exponentially, which in turn results in the creation of matter." Simply put, under the right conditions, something can be created from nothing. Whether something, our universe/multiverse, has been created from nothing is a different question.

It's critical to realize that though energy can be converted to matter, "matter" being "something," energy is not mater. One might think of it as being roughly analogous to an idea for creating a thing not being the same thing as the thing one creates using the idea.

Where did the energy come from? Is that what God is? Energy? That spark coming off his finger to Adam? The breath of life?

I'm not going to "go there" with you. Those questions inherently presuppose that energy is matter, that it is "something" that has weight and takes up space, and it is not. Linguistically, sure, energy is something. I can't do anything about the limitations of the English language and the language that's best suited to communicating the difference is math, and the relevant statements that show that it's possible to transform "nothing" into "something" are in the paper I linked. You noted you aren't comfortable with discussing or considering the topic in the language that precisely explains how that happens, and I can't take the discussion any further in English without running into the semantic inability of English to do. Those realities are what they are, but that they are means there's no place for this line of discussion to go; it'll resolve into a circular discussion.

I'll take it to the Science and Technology forum.
I never took physics, so my understanding of "energy" is lightning or magnetism. Both of those are created by the interaction of things. That's why this is hard for me.

 

[Iceweasel]

I thought our Constitution guaranteed there would be no religious test?

Yep- pains me to agree with you- but you are correct in this case.

I'm always correct. I feel your pain.

 

[Iceweasel]

The proof shows that when a small true vacuum bubble is created by changes in the energy found at a local energy minimum within the vacuum, the bubble can expand exponentially, which in turn results in the creation of matter." Simply put, under the right conditions, something can be created from nothing. Whether something, our universe/multiverse, has been created from nothing is a different question.

It's critical to realize that though energy can be converted to matter, "matter" being "something," energy is not mater. One might think of it as being roughly analogous to an idea for creating a thing not being the same thing as the thing one creates using the idea.

So E=MC2 is incorrect? Explain Einstein. I don't share your level of faith and it's contrary to all I've ever heard.

 

[aris2chat]

The proof shows that when a small true vacuum bubble is created by changes in the energy found at a local energy minimum within the vacuum, the bubble can expand exponentially, which in turn results in the creation of matter." Simply put, under the right conditions, something can be created from nothing. Whether something, our universe/multiverse, has been created from nothing is a different question.

It's critical to realize that though energy can be converted to matter, "matter" being "something," energy is not mater. One might think of it as being roughly analogous to an idea for creating a thing not being the same thing as the thing one creates using the idea.

So E=MC2 is incorrect? Explain Einstein. I don't share your level of faith and it's contrary to all I've ever heard.

Einstein was Wrong about E=MC2 - The Living Universe book - J.Carter
www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html
How Einstein was Wrong about E=MC2. Einstein made three basic mistakes in his interpretation of the E=MC2 equation. Einstein's first mistake with E=MC2 was ...
Was Einstein Wrong? - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/30iht-eddas30.html
Sep 29, 2011 - Einstein's celebrated formula about the relation between mass (m) and energy (E), E=mc2, where the speed of light in a vacuum is denoted by the letter c, also comes from relativity. ... Over the years, experiments have rigorously and repeatedly tested relativity and quantum mechanics and found no discrepancies — until now.
Has [math]E= mc^2[/math] been proven wrong? - Quora
Has [math]E= mc^2[/math] been proven wrong? - Quora
I don't know where you heard it, but the odds are that whatever you heard was wrong. Cranks love trying to disprove Einstein. Claiming to disprove Einstein is ...

 

[Iceweasel]

The proof shows that when a small true vacuum bubble is created by changes in the energy found at a local energy minimum within the vacuum, the bubble can expand exponentially, which in turn results in the creation of matter." Simply put, under the right conditions, something can be created from nothing. Whether something, our universe/multiverse, has been created from nothing is a different question.

It's critical to realize that though energy can be converted to matter, "matter" being "something," energy is not mater. One might think of it as being roughly analogous to an idea for creating a thing not being the same thing as the thing one creates using the idea.

So E=MC2 is incorrect? Explain Einstein. I don't share your level of faith and it's contrary to all I've ever heard.

Einstein was Wrong about E=MC2 - The Living Universe book - J.Carter
www.circlon.com/living-universe/025-how-einstein-was-wrong-about-E=MC2.html
How Einstein was Wrong about E=MC2. Einstein made three basic mistakes in his interpretation of the E=MC2 equation. Einstein's first mistake with E=MC2 was ...
Was Einstein Wrong? - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/opinion/30iht-eddas30.html
Sep 29, 2011 - Einstein's celebrated formula about the relation between mass (m) and energy (E), E=mc2, where the speed of light in a vacuum is denoted by the letter c, also comes from relativity. ... Over the years, experiments have rigorously and repeatedly tested relativity and quantum mechanics and found no discrepancies — until now.
Has [math]E= mc^2[/math] been proven wrong? - Quora
Has [math]E= mc^2[/math] been proven wrong? - Quora
I don't know where you heard it, but the odds are that whatever you heard was wrong. Cranks love trying to disprove Einstein. Claiming to disprove Einstein is ...

Why post that he was wrong then right?

 

[Syriusly]

Trump wants Mark Green for Secretary of the Army. There's a real issue there because he is a Creationist and because he said psychiatrists consider transgenderism a disease.

Are those actual issues as secretary of the Army? I'm really asking. I don't see how those views have anything to do with the position.

Trump Army secretary pick gave a lecture arguing against the theory of evolution - CNNPolitics.com

It goes to a person's inability to reason. If you are ignorant enough to believe that man didn't evolve, you are susceptible to all manner of bullshit conspiracy theory.

It goes to a person's inability to reason. If you are ignorant enough to believe that man didn't evolve, you are susceptible to all manner of bullshit conspiracy theory.
Belief and reason are two very separate cognitive functions. Many people who choose to believe that God created the world and its creatures as written in the Bible are perfectly aware of evolutionary science. As Jim pointed out, there are different schools of thought on "creationism." Spiritual belief is a conscious choice when faced with "facts" to the contrary.
I don't really think it is an indicator that someone is ignorant or that their mental processes are lacking. People who protect their children from learning evolution in school are doing them a disservice, I feel; that IS courting ignorance. I doubt if that is the case with Mark Green, however. He knows the arguments. He has chosen belief instead. I don't buy that he is unable to think critically because of it. He has chosen belief, which by it's definition is not based on facts.

We actually don't know that man ever evolved. We know that there was neanderthal man and cro-magnon man. They existed at the same time. There has been very little evolution in cro-magnon man and what there has been is either the result of adaptive evolution or improvements in nutrition.

The purpose of attacking this man is to fashion a means of prohibiting religious people's advancement, anywhere.

Life is constantly evolving- however, modern man evolved from earlier man. Cro-Magnon was modern man- Neanderthals were a different species with different DNA- that somewhat interbreed with modern man thousands of years ago- modern man, neandertals and Denosovians(sp?) all evolved from an earlier common ancestor- which is why it was still possible for them to interbreed.

Could not be a different species with different DNA and successfully interbreed. Different species cannot breed. Lions and tigers will interbreed because they are both of the feline species, but horses and cattle cannot interbreed one being equine and the other bovine..

LOL 'feline species'- what the hell is that? Tigers and Lions are part of the same 'family'. There are 42 cat species

Living cats belong to two subfamilies, the Pantherinae and Felinae. The former comprises the "big cats", including the tiger, lion, jaguar, leopard, snow leopard, clouded leopard and Sunda clouded leopard.[5] Felinae includes all the non-pantherine cats,[8] which range in size from the small rusty-spotted cat to the big cat-sized puma and includes such diverse forms as the lynx, ocelot, serval and cheetah, as well as the domestic cat.

Different species can and do breed- but rarely successfully- horses and donkeys are good examples.
Because of DNA we know that humans and neandertals interbred, as did humans and Denosovians- even though we don't really know who the Denovians were- we know it from DNA.

Species that are too unrelated by DNA cannot crossbreed- but those close enough sometimes can.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Aaaaaaaand he withdrew