Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas

[archangel]

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.

After all would it not be fun for the teacher to pit God against the Greys as a scientific experiment? What was the 'He" hint all about....I just used the Father and Grandfather so not to offend Native Americans...They call God the Father and or Grandfather.....geez!

 

[Annie]

After all would it not be fun for the teacher to pit God against the Greys as a scientific experiment? What was the 'He" hint all about....I just used the Father and Grandfather so not to offend Native Americans...They call God the Father and or Grandfather.....geez!

No, actually the problem comes in when trying to teach what scientific method is about. Now you may say, "nonsense", but then again I would hope you are homeschooling your children or sending them to an Evangelical school.
FYI one cannot teach the methodology on 'faith.' It fits into philosophy, comparative religions, or theology, but NOT science.

 

[Nienna]

As far as different races forming, I don't have a good answer.

Got an answer there, although William Joyce won't like it. Races occurred in humans the same way speciation occurred in animals. After the Tower of Babel, the people groups broke up and spread out over the earth. Isolated groups lost certain characteristics in their genetic pools, and bred a specific look, such as very dark or very light skin, more orbital fat around the eye, height, etc. Some races had characteristics more likely to survive the environment, for instance, if a very dark-skinned people moved north where the sunlight was not as strong, they would likely acquire a vitamin D deficiency. This would cause them to not process calcium very well, leading to soft bones, rickets, bent leg bones, etc. Some scientists think this is the story of the so-called Neanderthal man. Or a very light-skinned people who moved south would be more likely to get skin cancer, not surviving to breed.

 

[mrsx]

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.

You are correct that the comparison is a silly one. I'm sorry to have offended you with it. I never intended to mock the military. If you look at my last post in the TRULY SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS thread, you will see what I think about that subject.

 

[MissileMan]

Got an answer there, although William Joyce won't like it. Races occurred in humans the same way speciation occurred in animals. After the Tower of Babel, the people groups broke up and spread out over the earth. Isolated groups lost certain characteristics in their genetic pools, and bred a specific look, such as very dark or very light skin, more orbital fat around the eye, height, etc. Some races had characteristics more likely to survive the environment, for instance, if a very dark-skinned people moved north where the sunlight was not as strong, they would likely acquire a vitamin D deficiency. This would cause them to not process calcium very well, leading to soft bones, rickets, bent leg bones, etc. Some scientists think this is the story of the so-called Neanderthal man. Or a very light-skinned people who moved south would be more likely to get skin cancer, not surviving to breed.

Within a few generations, these 8 human beings multiplied into millions, morphed into a myriad of races with a myriad of languages, several different religions, some of which had nothing to do with a monotheistic God, crossed oceans and continents and totally repopulated the earth? You really think this is more plausible than hundreds of thousands of years of development through evolution?

Can you provide any of your ID science that supports this theory? There must be some demonstrable scientific principle that would allow 2 middle-easterners to produce an asian, caucasion, hispanic, or black offspring.

 

[USViking]

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

There is also a 3rd Law of Thermodynamics: There is no entropy at absolute zero temperature.

Frankly I do not know how this might be worked into either side of the debate.

If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever.

Probably. The largely discredited Steady State theory of the Universe does postulate continuous creation of new matter out of nothing, sufficent to sustain an uncreated universe. And Quantum Mechanics requires the continuous creation of "virtual" particles out of nothing at an unknown rate.

It would already have reached heat death.

This statement does not follow fron the preceding ones. In any case, the energy now present is obviously not close to a state of universal entropy- witness the uncountable numbers of heavenly bodies.

 

[5stringJeff]

Within a few generations, these 8 human beings multiplied into millions, morphed into a myriad of races with a myriad of languages, several different religions, some of which had nothing to do with a monotheistic God, crossed oceans and continents and totally repopulated the earth? You really think this is more plausible than hundreds of thousands of years of development through evolution?

Can you provide any of your ID science that supports this theory? There must be some demonstrable scientific principle that would allow 2 middle-easterners to produce an asian, caucasion, hispanic, or black offspring.

The languages are explained in the story of the Tower of Babel, when God created different languages. As far as different races, I think that mom's hypothesis is reasonable, especially if you extend the time period out to thousands of years.

As to your last sentence, I think that ID explains very well that two middle easterners would not be able to produce an Asian or Caucasian baby - by God's design.

 

[MissileMan]

The languages are explained in the story of the Tower of Babel, when God created different languages. As far as different races, I think that mom's hypothesis is reasonable, especially if you extend the time period out to thousands of years.

As to your last sentence, I think that ID explains very well that two middle easterners would not be able to produce an Asian or Caucasian baby - by God's design.

Isn't the timeline between Noah and Abraham approximately 1,000 years? Isn't the time between the Tower of Babel and Abraham even shorter than this?

 

[Nienna]

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.

The model of evolution covers a wide range of subjects, including chemistry and astronomy. It includes an atheistic cosmology. Again, perhaps the curriculum in your area is different from the one in our area, but here, evolution is invoked in all areas of science. This is why the evolutionists are claiming it is the underpinning of all of science, one of the excuses used to keep an alternative theory out of the classroom. Many scientists would disagree with you that evolution would still fit if a Creator put a one-celled organism on the planet. And, again, I have demonstrated how a one-celled organism could never have evolved into a man.

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.

This is also the reason that Creationists use science-- to explore and understand the amazing world that God created for us.

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

E --Energy
m --mass
c --the speed of light. The accepted value for the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,455 meters per second. The meter is a measure of distance or space (2D)

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.

Microevolution has been observed repeatedly. We even have a genetic understanding of how it occurs (although this is not exhaustive). No one questions microevolution. It is, indeed, a postulate or axiom (Your favorite word! :tng: )

Macroevolution is the assumption behind the evolution model, just as a Creator is the assumption behind the creation model. These are both unobserved, unrepeatable models used in historical/origins science. One model assumes that there was a Creator, the other model assumes that there was not.

You seem to think that macroevolution is the proven axiom, and that microevolution is simply the vehicle. In fact, microevolution is what is proven, observed, and tested. Both macroevolution and creation are unproven historical models.

Macroevolution has not been disproven. It wouldn't still be a theory if it had been.

See, we agree! However those fighting the Kansas Board of Ed. do not. The Bd. of Ed. is simply trying to inform students that evolution is a theory, and allow discussion of the flaws along with the merits of this theory. The evolutionists are going ballistic over this. What are they trying to hide? What happened to scientific skepticism?

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.

We discussed before, and I thought we agreed, that amount of DNA does not necessarily equal the amount of genetic information. The Kleinefelter man might have an extra X chromosome, but that chromosome was already present in his genome. Just a copying error of what was already there. No new information is produced.

 

[dmp]

Geesh mom...You're brilliant.

 

[Nienna]

Geesh mom...You're brilliant.

Not really. I'm not really a "science person." This info is available for anyone who looks for it. But thanks, anyway. And THANK YOU for changing your sig!

 

[dmp]

Not really. I'm not really a "science person." This info is available for anyone who looks for it. But thanks, anyway. And THANK YOU for changing your sig!

you didn't like the pa-rum-pa-pum-pum?

 

[Nienna]

you didn't like the pa-rum-pa-pum-pum?

My husband was ready to leave me bc I was humming it in bed!

 

[dmp]

My husband was ready to leave me bc I was humming it in bed!

:teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

 

[Nienna]

There is also a 3rd Law of Thermodynamics: There is no entropy at absolute zero temperature.

Heat death.

Frankly I do not know how this might be worked into either side of the debate.

Shows that the universe did not exist infinitely in the past, or else it would already have reached heat death. The universe had a beginning, therefore it must have had a cause. A Creator

Probably. The largely discredited Steady State theory of the Universe does postulate continuous creation of new matter out of nothing, sufficent to sustain an uncreated universe. And Quantum Mechanics requires the continuous creation of "virtual" particles out of nothing at an unknown rate.

"Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp

In any case, the energy now present is obviously not close to a state of universal entropy- witness the uncountable numbers of heavenly bodies.

Okay!

 

[5stringJeff]

Shows that the universe did not exist infinitely in the past, or else it would already have reached heat death. The universe had a beginning, therefore it must have had a cause. A Creator

Dude... you are the MAN!!!

(in a figurative sense)

 

[IControlThePast]

The model of evolution covers a wide range of subjects, including chemistry and astronomy. It includes an atheistic cosmology. Again, perhaps the curriculum in your area is different from the one in our area, but here, evolution is invoked in all areas of science. This is why the evolutionists are claiming it is the underpinning of all of science, one of the excuses used to keep an alternative theory out of the classroom. Many scientists would disagree with you that evolution would still fit if a Creator put a one-celled organism on the planet. And, again, I have demonstrated how a one-celled organism could never have evolved into a man.

Evolution: "A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." So how since the first organism didn't come from a pre-existing type of organism, it's not Evolution. My curriculums were, respectively, state and nationally mandated. I've already proven how an organism could evolve into a man .

E --Energy
m --mass
c --the speed of light. The accepted value for the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,455 meters per second. The meter is a measure of distance or space (2D)

If space contains no matter, it has no energy. The only two things varying in that forumla are mass and energy. Meters and time are fixed, not variables here. There isn't a relationship shown here between something's "space" and Energy or "space" and Mass. C is just a constant to create proportional relationship between Energy and Mass. The unit you're trying to use to measure the amount of space in the Universe is only in two dimensions too, while the Universe has at least three spatial ones, or do you still believe the world is flat too :tng: .

Edit: Actually I thought the Meter was one dimensional, like a line, but you say it's two?

Microevolution has been observed repeatedly. We even have a genetic understanding of how it occurs (although this is not exhaustive). No one questions microevolution. It is, indeed, a postulate or axiom (Your favorite word! :tng: )

Macroevolution is the assumption behind the evolution model, just as a Creator is the assumption behind the creation model. These are both unobserved, unrepeatable models used in historical/origins science. One model assumes that there was a Creator, the other model assumes that there was not.

You seem to think that macroevolution is the proven axiom, and that microevolution is simply the vehicle. In fact, microevolution is what is proven, observed, and tested. Both macroevolution and creation are unproven historical models.

Macroevolution is a statement drawn completely from the tested axioms of microevolution. You can make macroev. a theorem from previous microevolution axioms, like Euclid drew the large number of theorems in Euclidean Geometry (I think around 113 or so) from his 5 axioms. This is different than creating a whole new axiom, which you need to do with the Creator for ID. You can't make that a theorem from existing axioms. This is how it violates Occams Razor.

We discussed before, and I thought we agreed, that amount of DNA does not necessarily equal the amount of genetic information. The Kleinefelter man might have an extra X chromosome, but that chromosome was already present in his genome. Just a copying error of what was already there. No new information is produced.

Well then where exactly are you finding fault? I thought you were saying there wasn't enough raw material (bp) for variation, that even if infintely specified the early genomes could not incorporate the amount of info we have, trying to write a sentence with only two letters? There are of course mechanisms for altering genetic information once the numbers of base pairs are there, like mutation, which creates variation. Natural selection makes the genome more specific, adding the specified complexity. When a mutation occurs on "backup" gene, it introduces new information to the organisms genome without losing any functions.

 

[USViking]

Dude... you are the MAN!!!

(in a figurative sense)

She would be so if what she said was accurate, but it is not. See post #126 for details, if you wish.

 

[5stringJeff]

She would be so if what she said was accurate, but it is not. See post #126 for details, if you wish.

Your quote:

The largely discredited Steady State theory of the Universe does postulate continuous creation of new matter out of nothing, sufficent to sustain an uncreated universe. And Quantum Mechanics requires the continuous creation of "virtual" particles out of nothing at an unknown rate.

So one theory is discredited, the other theory can't explain the rate of "creation." Yet quantum mechanics still doesn't violate the principle of Conservation of the sum of Mass and Energy. So if mass increases in the universe (i.e. particles are created), then energy decreases.

 

[USViking]

Your quote:
The largely discredited Steady State theory of the Universe does postulate continuous creation of new matter out of nothing, sufficent to sustain an uncreated universe. And Quantum Mechanics requires the continuous creation of "virtual" particles out of nothing at an unknown rate.

This quote was not part of my rebuttal. I was only pointing out here that the evidence is not entirely incompatible with a universe having no begining.

This was my rebuttal:
"This statement does not follow from the preceding ones. In any case, the energy now present is obviously not close to a state of universal entropy- witness the uncountable numbers of heavenly bodies."

So one theory is discredited, the other theory can't explain the rate of "creation."

Astronomical observation is continually narrowing the range of possibilities.

Yet quantum mechanics still doesn't violate the principle of Conservation of the sum of Mass and Energy. So if mass increases in the universe (i.e. particles are created), then energy decreases.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Since mass IS energy, then additional mass would add to the amount of energy.