It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faith-Based Parks? Bush backs creationism in national parks.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Yes the study, not the selling of it as scientific fact. Nor the use of federal dollars to propagate a religious belief as scientific fact.


[edit on 26-12-2004 by I_AM_that_I_AM]


I will not bother to make a response to most of your other responses because you bring up no new arguments nor any new facts. I will say that if you had ever read biographical information about Darwin you would know that he was indeed vehemently anti-christian. This does not necessarily negate his theories but you have to understand a persons bias and their assumptions in order to evaluate their work. Second the Theory of relativity is still just that, a theory that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true.

Now as to the quote above. It was my understanding that the park book store was selling (ie making a profit on) a book that described a creationist theories concerning the formation of the grand canyon. There is no federal money being spent to convince people that the theory of intelligent design is true. In fact it sounds to me like they are making money on the the exploration of different scientific viewpoints so chill out on the separation of church and state thing which by the way is not even in the constitution. No laws have been writtent that required each park visitor to buy and read the book in question so no foul was committed.

I will say one last time that the advancement of science is never served by the suppressing of scientific study even if theory being studied eventually proves false. In fact history will tell you that the school of thought that most loudly seeks to suppress another is usually proven false. Those who seek to say that the theory of evolution has been proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt are only showing the weakness of their arguments.

By the way the probability calculations did take into account the size of the universe and still showed that the probability of a single celled organism forming from by random chance should the whole universe be filled with a perfect mixture of elements was about the same as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving behind a pristine 747 in its wake. Could it happen? To the thinking person the answer is obiously not. But to then imagine the millions upon millions of times that it would need to happen in order to progess to the level of complexity we see in life today is to cross over into pure fantasy.




posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Here are some quotes on evolution and on Charles Darwin to back up my claims that he and his theory were conceived by him as an attempt to show how the world developed without God.


Evolution is so anti-creation, that leading evolutionists have admitted that even if creation was true,
it could not be accepted by them as science (Eldredge, 1982, p.134; Ruse M., 1982, pp.322-323;
Futuyma, 1983, p.169; Ruse, 1996, p.301; Pennock, 1999, p.283; Ratzsch, 1996, p.168). Which means that
evolutionists would rather evolution be naturalistic and false than supernaturalistic and true! [top]

4. Evolution is anti-Christian
Darwin stated in his later Descent of Man that his primary objective in writing his earlier Origin of
Species was religious: "firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created" and his scientific
objective was only secondary:


Link to disertation

Another good paper on the origins of evolution link

[edit on 26-12-2004 by Johannmon]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
I will not bother to make a response to most of your other responses because you bring up no new arguments nor any new facts.


In reality you can't. Because you know I'm correct.


Second the Theory of relativity is still just that, a theory that has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be true.


This just shows that you have no idead what I just said. No do you know anything about scientific study. Nor do you have any Idea what is actually meant by the word 'theory' when used by actual scientist.



It was my understanding that the park book store was selling (ie making a profit on) a book that described a creationist theories concerning the formation of the grand canyon. There is no federal money being spent to convince people that the theory of intelligent design is true.


They allowed a religious story of people who didn't live by the grand canyon to be sold next to scientific text books as though they were just as valid as them.
This is the point of the article.


In fact it sounds to me like they are making money on the the exploration of different scientific viewpoints


Creationism is NOT a scientific veiw point. It's a religious belief.
Now I could understand if you said that about an Intelligent Design book, but not a creationist book.


I will say one last time that the advancement of science is never served by the suppressing of scientific study even if theory being studied eventually proves false.


ANd I will say one last time that creationism is neither a science nor do you really understand what is meant by the use of the word "theory".


By the way the probability calculations did take into account the size of the universe and still showed that the probability of a single celled organism forming from by random chance should the whole universe be filled with a perfect mixture of elements was about the same as a tornado blowing through a junkyard and leaving behind a pristine 747 in its wake. Could it happen? To the thinking person the answer is obiously not. But to then imagine the millions upon millions of times that it would need to happen in order to progess to the level of complexity we see in life today is to cross over into pure fantasy.


Ok, you just countered your own arguement. (Just look at how many million times we do see something like that.)
Doesn't seem to implrobable now does it?



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

Ok, you just countered your own arguement. (Just look at how many million times we do see something like that.)
Doesn't seem to implrobable now does it?


actually a 747 being assembled from parts in a junkyard by the force of a tornado blowing through sounds pretty impossible to me. Maybe to a died in the wool evolutionist such as yourself it sound possible but then again you believe something as complex as the human body could happen by chance so I am not suprised.

Let me further add that you have once again succeeded in posting a rather lengthy post with no arguments made only blanket statements without any corraberation or even explaination. For instance you claim I do not know what a theory is yet you have never given your definition. I get mine from the course work and lab work that I have done on a collegiate level at Iowa State University. WHere do you get your definition that you have never defined from? If you are going to make a statement at least back it up with something other than your opinion. Otherwise simply state your opinion that is ok too if you clarify that you are speaking about an opinion and not a fact. Creationism can be an also is a science when it is studied using the scientific method. That , if you will take a moment to look it up is what defines a "science" in that it is a theory or proposition that is examined and tested using the scientific method. If you would like to challenge that definition I am open to that debate but unless you can rise above unsupported and unelaborated upon blanket denials and claims I have no further interest in addressing your arguments. No offence it is just that there is no benefit to the revelation of truth in that type of discussion.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon

actually a 747 being assembled from parts in a junkyard by the force of a tornado blowing through sounds pretty impossible to me. Maybe to a died in the wool evolutionist such as yourself it sound possible but then again you believe something as complex as the human body could happen by chance so I am not suprised.


Your statement that we "happened by chance" just goes to show your complete lack of understnding about evalution.


For instance you claim I do not know what a theory is yet you have never given your definition. I get mine from the course work and lab work that I have done on a collegiate level at Iowa State University.


Sorry, I just assumed you had access to a dictionary, working at a college and all. I know better now. My definition, as you put, of an actual scientific theory is when a scientist takes a look at empirical data, and then says "how does this make sense?" The answer they come up with then becomes tested to see if it stands up or not. That's a theory. NOT "well the bible says this happened so it must be true." (Which is how "Hydroplate theory" got it's start.) What you defined as a theory descibes a study. Studies are used to prove disprove theories. A study say's "if we do x thenY should result" and so they do x on a variety of subjects and see the results, If y happens repeatedly then the studies shows that. and can then prove the theory.


Creationism can be an also is a science when it is studied using the scientific method.


That's liek saying "the sky can also be a science when it is studied using the scientific method. It can't your study might be scientific but that doesn't make the sky scientific.


That , if you will take a moment to look it up is what defines a "science" in that it is a theory or proposition that is examined and tested using the scientific method.


So? Last time I checked, "Creationismology" is not a course you could take at a local college. That's because it's a religious explaination for things. Not a scientific one.



unless you can rise above unsupported and unelaborated upon blanket denials and claims I have no further interest in addressing your arguments. No offence it is just that there is no benefit to the revelation of truth in that type of discussion.


If you think your reveing truth then your sorely misguilded.
Contrary to what you believe, I am not merely making "blanket denials" am I stating inarguable facts to counter the nonsense that your trying to spew.
And you want a "debate" go to the "Fight Club" forum. I have state dmy views on this matter and will not repeat them just so you can feel were "debating" things, jsut because I won't let you get away with spewing nonsense like "creationism is science"...


And for the record I'm not a "hardcore evalutionist" as Jo wants you to believe. I'm a Christian. I' just not[self moderated comments about the intellegence of people who think the earth is only 6000 years old]

DENIE IGNORANCE!



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
So because creationism begins with the possiblility of intelligent design it is not a science? Well I guess the study of the Egyptian pyramids is not a science then since we assume they were created by a civilization rather than a random series of natural processes. That is just silly. The complexity and balance of the universe is sufficient evidence to hypothesise that there is an intelligence behind its design. That being an initial assumption, and all science begins with assumptions, true science progresses to prove its case through observation and experimentation. You claim that evolution is a better science because it claims that everything we observe in nature was created by purely natural process. That is a huge assumption that does not hold up to the evidence presented by probability. Yet I do not disprove of the study of the theory or the presentation of its tenants because all scientific study advances the whole of science, even if the theory being study eventually is proven incorrect. Yet you seem dogmatically opposed to the study of creationism, the idea that the universe is a carefully designed system. Such dogmatism has stood in the way of scientific discovery in the past when church leaders insisted that the world was flat. It now stands in the way of scientic discovery because pride in our own understanding refuses to acknowledge what our own science has clearly revealed, that the world and the universe is too complex and balanced to have occured by purely natural processes.

If we see a straight line forming a right angle on the floor of the ocean, the first assumption is that it is a remnant of an ancient civilization, yet when we see biological machinery of a complexity that we cannot yet even begin to duplicate with all our expertise we assume it must have happened by random forces? I would say that is a flawed assumption yet study its folly if you will, I have no problem with it. Neither should science have a problem if others wish to study the idea of a designer creating those complexity with intent.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
So because creationism begins with the possiblility of intelligent design it is not a science?



NO, creationism isn't a science becaue its' a religious belief.(that the Christian god made the universe)
Intelligent design isn't a science becasue it begins with creationism.



Well I guess the study of the Egyptian pyramids is not a science then since we assume they were created by a civilization rather than a random series of natural processes. That is just silly. The complexity and balance of the universe is sufficient evidence to hypothesise that there is an intelligence behind its design.


No it's not. That's liek saying the Sun can't exist because it's far to complesx to explain with out god, even though it is and has been explained with out resorting to God did it! And people who do resort to that, aren't scientists.




That being an initial assumption, and all science begins with assumptions, true science progresses to prove its case through observation and experimentation.


Nope. Wrong again. True Science begins with emperical data and tries to explain it.


You claim that evolution is a better science because it claims that everything we observe in nature was created by purely natural process.


Nope. I just realise that evoltuion is based on science. Unlike creationism.



That is a huge assumption that does not hold up to the evidence presented by probability.


Yes it does.


Yet I do not disprove of the study of the theory or the presentation of its tenants because all scientific study advances the whole of science, even if the theory being study eventually is proven incorrect. Yet you seem dogmatically opposed to the study of creationism, the idea that the universe is a carefully designed system.


Wrong again. Creationism isn't science in any way shape or form.
It's a (Judeo-Christian)religious belief that God made the universe.


Such dogmatism has stood in the way of scientific discovery in the past when church leaders insisted that the world was flat. It now stands in the way of scientic discovery because pride in our own understanding refuses to acknowledge what our own science has clearly revealed, that the world and the universe is too complex and balanced to have occured by purely natural processes.


Except that it hasn't outside your head.


If we see a straight line forming a right angle on the floor of the ocean, the first assumption is that it is a remnant of an ancient civilization, yet when we see biological machinery of a complexity that we cannot yet even begin to duplicate with all our expertise we assume it must have happened by random forces?


Show me that. Oh, right you can't. We have.
Have a nice day.


I would say that is a flawed assumption yet study its folly if you will, I have no problem with it. Neither should science have a problem if others wish to study the idea of a designer creating those complexity with intent.


If you knew anything about science you would never allow someone to start with a false premise. And science doesn't have a problem with people studying stuff, just stop trying to pass it off as science.

[edit on 6-1-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
Here are some quotes on evolution and on Charles Darwin to back up my claims that he and his theory were conceived by him as an attempt to show how the world developed without God.


Evolution is so anti-creation, that leading evolutionists have admitted that even if creation was true,
it could not be accepted by them as science (Eldredge, 1982, p.134; Ruse M., 1982, pp.322-323;
Futuyma, 1983, p.169; Ruse, 1996, p.301; Pennock, 1999, p.283; Ratzsch, 1996, p.168). Which means that
evolutionists would rather evolution be naturalistic and false than supernaturalistic and true! [top]

4. Evolution is anti-Christian
Darwin stated in his later Descent of Man that his primary objective in writing his earlier Origin of
Species was religious: "firstly, to shew that species had not been separately created" and his scientific
objective was only secondary:


Link to disertation

Another good paper on the origins of evolution link

[edit on 26-12-2004 by Johannmon]


Actually their all bad links, put up by creationists who want to try and define evolution as being anti-christian.
It's not.
And while you can point at a bunch of people who are antichristian and use evolution in thier arguements, that won't make evolution itself anti-christian.
ANd I'll repeat that Darwin really wan't anti-christian, he just wasn't a christian and didn't buy into creationism. He was branded anti-christian because he didn't believe in GOD in a time and place where that was commonly accepted as reality.



posted on Jan, 6 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   
No links, no corraberating evidence, just more bull about the only true science being the one that you ascribe to, basically you have no argument other than pure argumentativeness. I have provided links, analogy, logic and comparisons and yet you come back with nothing more than broad denial berift of supporting logic or corraborating material. You are not even willing to address the validity of any of my arguments with arguments of your own. Instead you simply restate your opinion without any logical or analytical reasoning. That sounds more like religious fanaticism than the religious fanatics you seem to be seeking to discredit. I will allow you, however, the last word if you decide you need it for I have determined that you are not interested in a valid discussion so I will no longer provide one.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
No links, no corraberating evidence,


Well, if you ignore all of reality then yes, thier's no corroborating evidence.
Meanwhile, back in reality:


just more bull about the only true science being the one that you ascribe to, basically you have no argument other than pure argumentativeness.


That's because my stance is not an arguement, it is an accepted fact.


I have provided links, analogy, logic and comparisons and yet you come back with nothing more than broad denial berift of supporting logic or corraborating material.


That' only true if you completely ignore science as you have done.
YOU are just mad because I dont' accept your faulty premises as a basis on which to "debate" things.



You are not even willing to address the validity of any of my arguments with arguments of your own.


That's because they dont' have any.


Instead you simply restate your opinion without any logical or analytical reasoning.


Actually it's not my opinion, it's scientific fact.


That sounds more like religious fanaticism than the religious fanatics you seem to be seeking to discredit. I will allow you, however, the last word if you decide you need it for I have determined that you are not interested in a valid discussion so I will no longer provide one.


HAHAh 'valid discusion' my rear....
Your just mad because you know as well as I do that creationism isn't a science. And intelligent design isn't either.

Scientific Method
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Intelligent Design says:
the phenomenon is life, so that's easy

Science says:
No, it's the phenomenon of something effecting life to make it change.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

Intelligent Design says:
Okay, life was designed by an intelligent designer...easy too.

Science says:
Yes that is a hypothesis

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

Intelligent Design says:
The said designer likely had contact with the designed...the whole world-wide belief in a higher power, or Chariots of the Gods explanations shows a belief that such has happened.


Science Says:
But what are you proving with your hypothesis?

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Intelligent Design says:
Hand out neopets or install copies of SimLife on the school computers.

Science says:
And that is a computer model, not something observable in the real world as a 'valid' experiment.

Intelligent Design says:
Is it iron-tight? Nope...but then again neither is evolution.

Science says:
Not even close to being close. But Evolution is a lot more 'iron-tight' then that and it has observable phenomanon to point to as proof as well as other evidence.

[edit]And here is a better defination of the Scientific Method:

The process of proposing a hypothesis, and then testing its accuracy by collecting data on events the hypothesis predicts. If the predictions match the new data the hypothesis is supported. Generally the best supported hypothesis is considered correct.

Welcome to reality.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Religion and science are 'not' exclusive. Current versions of the bible state that the universe and everything in it suddenly came into being at some undetermined time in the past. Simply by the will of God, who said "Let there be light." And there was.

Science says that the universe and everything in it came into being at some undetermined time in the past in a massive explosion of energy and matter. They currently have no determined cause for this Big Bang.

I've said it before, I'll say it now. Science is the 'how' of things, religion is the 'why' of things.

Does this mean that we should tell kids that the parts of nature we don't understand are inherent proof of some creator? Nope. Because if you need proof of your God, you've just demanded that the sublime and intangible become mundane reality. "God exists! Here's his autograph."

Intelligent design does not encourage kids to figure out the puzzles that God set before us. It states that as complicated as some things are, it 'has' to be proof of some God. Yet, the same could be applied to science of a thousand or two thousand years ago. "The sun! It fades, it is being eaten! Quick, get some virgins in here to sacrifice, for 'that' is proof of God!"

God stopped poking around in the reality of our world a long time ago. Whatever mysteries are left in the universe, they're there to be figured out by us, in due time, as our science grows.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

God stopped poking around in the reality of our world a long time ago. Whatever mysteries are left in the universe, they're there to be figured out by us, in due time, as our science grows.


I get it now. You believe in God but don't know a thing about who God is. That explains you to me quite well. Thank you for the revelation. God is no longer around so we have to grow in knowledge for our own sakes. Is that it? Is that your grand philosophy?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
I get it now. You believe in God but don't know a thing about who God is.


I would say that I know a **** more about him than you do, but that woudl be off topic now wouldn't it?
Or do you really want oget into a flamewar?
Is that it, I show that creationism isn't a science and you become a troll?


Originally posted by Johannmon Is that your grand philosophy?


Science isn't about philosophy.
Neither is this thread.
And that you think my personal beliefs matter in this shows your own ignorance.

Evalution doesn't speak about the creation of the universe.
It's just the theory with currently the most emperical data to back it up.
It doesn't explain everything and no true scientist claims it does.
If you want to learn about things that it doesn't cover, like why the big bang happened then take a religious or philosophy class or talk to your parents.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by I_AM_that_I_AM]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Several things have happened in the last few decades which are adding more credence to the possibility of ET life - for instance we now know that planet formation around stars is pretty common, our sun is a (young) average ordinary star, and we live in the "habitable" zone in our galaxy (a rather large area). It's very possible that we could find evidence of life on other planetary bodies in our solar system (Mars, Moons of Jupiter or Saturn).

www.msnbc.msn.com...



Does science make room for aliens?
Researchers argue that new theories better the odds

By Leonard David
Senior space writer
Space.com
Updated: 1:26 p.m. ET Jan. 14, 2005


Decades ago, it was physicist Enrico Fermi who pondered the issue of extraterrestrial civilizations with fellow theorists over lunch, generating the famous quip: "Where are they?" That question later became central to debates about the cosmological census count of other star folk and possible extraterrestrial visitors from afar.

Fermi’s brooding on the topic was later labeled "Fermi’s paradox." It is a well-traveled tale from the 1950s when the scientist broached the subject in discussions with colleagues in Los Alamos, N.M. Thoughts regarding the probability of earthlike planets, the rise of highly advanced civilizations "out there," and interstellar travel — these remain fodder for trying to respond to Fermi’s paradox even today.

Now scientists note that recent astrophysical discoveries suggest we should find ourselves in the midst of one or more extraterrestrial civilizations. Moreover, they argue it is a mistake to reject all UFO reports because some evidence for the theoretically predicted extraterrestrial visitors might just be found there.

The researchers make their proposal in the January/February 2005 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.

Curious situation
Pick up any good science magazine and you’re sure to see the latest in head-scratching ideas about superstring theory, wormholes or the stretching of space-time itself. Meanwhile, extrasolar planetary detection is on the verge of becoming mundane.

"We are in the curious situation today that our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation, yet any possible evidence of such lurking in the UFO phenomenon is scoffed at within our scientific community," contends astrophysicist Bernard Haisch.

Haisch, along with physicists James Deardorff, Bruce Maccabee and Harold Puthoff, make their case in the journal article: "Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation" (PDF document).

The scientists point to two key discoveries made by Australian astronomers and reported last year that there is a "galactic habitable zone" in our Milky Way Galaxy. And more importantly that Earth’s own star, the sun, is relatively young in comparison to the average star in this zone — by as much as a billion years.

Therefore, the researchers explain in their article that an average alien civilization would be far more advanced and have long since discovered Earth. Additionally, other research work on the supposition underlying the Big Bang — known as the theory of inflation — shores up the prospect, they advise, that our world is immersed in a much larger extraterrestrial civilization.

Point-to-point distances
Given billion-year advanced physics, might not buzzing around the galaxy be possible?

Even today, superstring theory hypothesizes other dimensions, which could be habitable universes adjacent to our own, the researchers speculate. It might even be possible to get around the speed-of-light limit by moving in and out of these dimensions.

"What we have done is somewhat of a breakthrough," Haisch told Space.com. "We have pulled together various recent discoveries and theoretical issues that collectively point to the strong probability that we should be in the midst of one or more huge extraterrestrial civilizations."

Haisch said that superstring dimensions and wormhole and space-time stretching possibilities address the "can't get here from there" objection often argued in view of the interstellar point-to-point distances involved. Also, diffusion models predict that even a single civilization could spread across the galaxy in a tiny fraction of the age of the galaxy — even at sub-light speeds, he said.

E.T. signature in the data
Can the scientific community bring itself to consider any evidence coming from mysterious sightings of strange things by the public?

In large measure, the scientific community seemingly has eyed E.T. visitation as far from being serious stuff to cogitate over. Why so?

"The dismissal has several causes, all reinforcing each other," Haisch responded. "Most of
the observations are probably misinterpretations, delusions and hoaxes. I have seen people get confused by Venus or even Sirius when it is flashing colors low in the sky under the right conditions. Having been turned off by this, most scientists never bother to look any further, and so are simply blissfully ignorant that there may be more to it," he said.


Deardorff, the lead author of the journal article, points out in a press statement: "It would take some humility for the scientific community to suspend its judgment and take at least some of the high-quality reports seriously enough to investigate … but I hope we can bring ourselves to do that."

According to Haisch, there is a motivation not just for scientific tolerance of the UFO issue, but a strong scientific prediction that there ought to be some genuine E.T. signature in the data.

"This potentially changes the relationship of the UFO phenomenon to science in a significant way. It takes away the ‘not invented here’ prejudice, pointing out that a ‘yes’ to E.T. visitation is exactly what side our current physics and astrophysics theories would come down on as the most likely situation," Haisch concluded.


Stephen Hawkings has gone on record as saying that yes, there probably are other civilizations out there, and that we should probably pray they don't find us until we are on their level. He points to our own track record here on earth of what happens to a less advanced civilization that is "discovered" by a more advanced one...it isn't pretty.

In addition there's a theory called the "Quarantine Theory" which postulates that advanced civilizations might be all over the place and have some rule for not openly contacting civilizations until they are deemed ready. This theory would account for why a species would scout us on a regular basis but not openly make contact. Supposedly there'd be stages in development that you have to hit...markers, essentially...that show you are advanced enough for first contact.
Invention of Fire.
Powered flight.
Splitting the atom
Leaving your planet's atmosphere.
A unified world government.
Finding a way to sidestep the lightspeed barrier.
Interestingly enough, the modern UFO boom started right after the detonations of the first atomic bombs, and the infamous Roswell incident happened right next to the base of the US's only nuclear squadron.


p=f n f f f "what i means is that the probabability p- p h l i c , that intlligent life will elvolve in any star system is a function of the probability that the star will have planets, the number of habitable planets, the probability that intelligent life will evolve from simple life, and the probability that intelligent life will atempt interstellar communication within 5 billion years. That's all the equation says.

But the point is we have no facts. We must guess at every single one of those probabilities. And it's quite easy to guess one way--and conclude there are probably thousands of intelligent civilizations. It's equally easy to guess that there is only one civilization, ours.



posted on Jan, 20 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
There are at least two distinct parts to the ongoing argument: 1) Incorporating Biblical Creationist theory into a science-based theory; and 2) Installing Biblical Scriptural text onto plaques. But the argument falls apart due to the plaques. The local native tribal creation beliefs are NOT included on the plaques.

Take a good look at the scriptural text and really read it -- this is not only inaccurate for any scientific theory, but is bad writing. For something as sparse for an entire view of the universe, it duplicates itself.

The italicized notes are mine; otherwise, the biblical text is accurate.

Few things are more puzzling for a non-believer than to read Genesis in the Bible. At first glance, one can take it like any other creation myth -- and every people has at least one. It even has the sparseness of description. None of the creation myths have a whole lot of detail. There is a lyrical cadence to it, similar to myths handed down via an oral tradition -- one easier to remember and tell accurately, time after time, generation after generation.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could take this story and insist on a literal interpretation of it, if only due to the inaccuracies and duplications contained within the first two chapters.

Unfortunately, for literalists, who take each and every word of the Bible as being devinely inspired and without error, Genesis is both incomplete and filled with duplications that make it less than adequate.



Chapter 1
Day 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(both were created in the beginning)
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(light was created and separated from the dark -- day and night were created on the first day)

Day 2
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
(firmament is generally translated as "heavens" -- which means that he recreated the heavens on the second day by separating the waters -- waters which do not exist above us)

Day 3
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day

Day 4
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
(A second creation of light and dark and a creation of "lights" in the firmament to give light on earth)
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
(Yet another day spent creating light and dark -- with the addition of more specifics, a sun and moon and stars)

Day 6
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
(Man and woman was created on the sixth day)

Chapter 2

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

(Oh? Man has been created again, following the first 7 days)

8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

(Animals and birds are created, again)

20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man

(Woman is created for a second time)



Since literalists believe that the earth is only approximately 6,000 years old, all geology, paleonthology, archeology, anthropology, zoology, botany -- all of the social and earth sciences are compressed into a strange pretzel form to account for all of the achievements or events that don't fall within the 6,000 year range. This is especially a difficult contortion act when "the great flood" occurred at approximately the 4,500 year mark and the entire world, including the tallest mountains, were covered by water. This destroyed all life, except for that contained on the Ark.

Again, the literalists have devised various theories about how every living creature that has been known to live on the face of the earth during the past 4,500 years came to the ark from all over the world to be included as a biological specimen (plants weren't collected). Supposedly, this included dinosaurs as the command was for "all" and none were listed as being excluded.

Oddly enough, on the 7th day following the flood waters recession, a bird came back with a leaf -- indicating that the earth was once again living. Interesting that there is no passage about God recreating all of the flora after the flood.

There are many websites who circulate the "answers" to dinosaurs, geology, creation of the universe, etc. One of the easier and more comprehensive reads is on answersingenesis.org.

I will oppose this nonsense being taught in public schools, whether as "Creationism" or as "Intellegent Design." Evolution may not have every answer, but year after year, new discoveries are being made to pin down a lot of the missing pieces. I believe in the far longer geological periods, the phases of life's development, and in evolution as being the ultimate answer to most of the questions.

Whether or not there is a Creator way back when is relatively irrelevant. Whether or not humans are an uplifted species due to devine intervention remains a possibility. However, I cannot accept the Bible as being little more than a mishmash of oral traditions, history, and invention. It may contain great truths, but I don't believe that it's all truth. The history of the Bible is far from an unbroken chain.

Christianity has many sects. There are many different doctrines espoused throughout Christianity, all based on "scriptures." The Roman Catholics use a different Bible than the Protestants, which include different scriptures. Different sects focus on particular elements more than others -- if all agreed that the Bible was to be taken literally, there would be no need for the various sects.



posted on Apr, 6 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I would also like to point out that the Theory of Evolution doesn't talk about the begining of life or the universe(and anyone using term like 'how the universe evolved' and such just mean how it developed).
Intelligent Design presumes to know what the odds are of life developing in the universe, which we have no way of currently knowing.
And creationism doesn't preclude evolution.



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   
I AM, thank you for a most enjoyable debate. Its nice to be proven wrong; for the longest time, I was under the impression that the vast majority of American Christians were blind, superstitious irrationally programed robots to whom science equates with Satan.

I voted you way above!



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Oh brother.

The Dinosaur Park is a privately run enterprise. They can do
what ever the heck they want. Who cares? If they want to
have a park that has dinos along side cavemen then so be it.
The FLINTSTONE cartoon does the same. Are you all going to
start a boycott of cartoons because of it?

The Grand Canyon has creation books next to Native American
books. SO WHAT? If the Native American books can be there,
then so can creation books, and so can any other book that
people show an interest in that will sell and bring in $$$ for
the store.

Honestly!!
Some of you are so anti-christian that you
get all upset for nothing.

Edited to add - In MY opinion evolution backs up scripture.
When Cain killed Abel he was afraid to go out 'among the
others' and that they would kill him. God put a 'mark' on
Cain so that he wouldn't be touched. WHO were the others?

Neanderthals. At least that's my guess. 'Adam and Eve'
were cro-mag. The 'others' were the Neanderthals that
died out 30,000 years ago.


[edit on 10/27/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Nov, 3 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Oh brother.

The Dinosaur Park is a privately run enterprise. They can do
what ever the heck they want. Who cares? If they want to
have a park that has dinos along side cavemen then so be it.
The FLINTSTONE cartoon does the same. Are you all going to
start a boycott of cartoons because of it?

The Grand Canyon has creation books next to Native American
books. SO WHAT? If the Native American books can be there,
then so can creation books, and so can any other book that
people show an interest in that will sell and bring in $$$ for
the store.

Honestly!!
Some of you are so anti-christian that you
get all upset for nothing.

Edited to add - In MY opinion evolution backs up scripture.
When Cain killed Abel he was afraid to go out 'among the
others' and that they would kill him. God put a 'mark' on
Cain so that he wouldn't be touched. WHO were the others?

Neanderthals. At least that's my guess. 'Adam and Eve'
were cro-mag. The 'others' were the Neanderthals that
died out 30,000 years ago.


[edit on 10/27/2005 by FlyersFan]


That was very nice. Honestly. Few Christians would look so critically and actually believe that there is room for both god and science. For Christians, you have proposed a nice idea, as opposed to absolute forced literalism of everything in the bible.

I dont object to private parks who want to promote Christianity, Just public parks using public funds to try and sell creationism in its most fundementalist sense.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join