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

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]

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:

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Johannmon
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.

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]

Originally posted by Johannmon
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.

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.

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

Originally posted by Johannmon Is that your grand philosophy?

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.