americans and evolution

[BUFFLURP]

Originally Posted by Primevci

how long you guys gonna beat this dead horse?

who cares?

The forum has been, other than this, quiet for a while. Gives us something to talk about.


Thgere isnt a lot of questions lateley in any of the bodybuilding specific sections. might as well chat about this. Too bad Incredible Bulk shut down my "WAR" thread. that kicked ass, lol.

[krenalor]

Originally Posted by sonicbum

until it turns into a monkey....

Now thats classic! Enough reason to not shut it down for this one post.

[salb3039]

Originally Posted by Chauncey11

That's what I'm saying. Creationism and Evolution are both theories except I will admit that Evolution has more scientific proof

Tsk tsk Chauncey. Need to read more. The definition of a "theory" is ...

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

It has been proved and proved again. It is the THEORY of evolution....and the idea of intelligent design. Period. The idea of intelligent design has absolutely NO....i repeat NO scientific proof.

[Aspirin]

Skeptics with a materialistic-Darwinian worldview often argue all forms of creationism–whether young-earth creationism, 0ld-earth creationism or intelligent design–fail to meet the criteria for what constitutes science. This argument was successfully used in McLean v. Arkansas (1982) where the presiding judge ruled an Arkansas law requiring public schools to teach creation science alongside neo-Darwinian theory was unconstitutional. The judge based his decision upon a finding that creation science does not qualify as science.

He reasoned since creation science does not qualify as science it constituted religion and violated the Establishment Clause. According to DeWolf, Meyer and DeForrest, the McLean case and the philosophy of science that underwrites it, poses an implied challenge to the scientific status of all theories of origins that invoke intelligent causes as opposed to strictly material causes. This philosophy is prevalent among many evolutionists and their supporters.

For example, the position statement of the National Science Teacher Association (NSTA) states policy makers and administrators should not mandate the teaching of creation science or related concepts and they should support teachers against pressure to promote such “nonscientific” views. The judge in the McLean case based his determination on the expert testimony of Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse. In his testimony, Ruse asserted a fivepoint definition of science for distinguishing a scientific theory from pseudoscience, metaphysics, or religion. Ruse stated for a theory to be scientific it must be: (1) guided by natural law, (2) explanatory by natural law, (3) testable against natural law, (4) tentative in their conclusions and (5) falsifiable. Ruse further testified creation science could never meet these criteria.

Thus, he concluded creationism might be true but it could never qualify as science.

While Ruse’s definition of what constitutes science and non-science was well received in the courtroom, is it legitimate?

According to DeWolf, Meyers, and DeForrest the answer is no. In their essay “Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?” they argue:

1. Many prominent philosophers of science, many of whom reject the empirical claims of creation science, have repudiated Ruse’s testimony on the grounds it “canonized” a false stereotype of what science is and how it works. These philosophers insist Ruse misrepresented contemporary thinking about the demarcation issue and, in their view, the philosophy of science provides no grounds for disqualifying nonmaterialistic alternatives to Darwinism as inherently unscientific.

2. Many philosophers of science have abandoned attempts to define science via the demarcation criteria Ruse and the courts promulgated in the McLean case–in part because the criteria can be shown to not work. Well-established scientific theories often lack some of the criteria Ruse proposed, while many poorly supported, disreputable, or crank ideas often meet some of those same criteria.

3. The criteria of tentativeness and falsifability, two key litmus tests in the McLean case, assert all truly scientific theories are held tentatively by their proponents and are readily falsifiable by contradictory evidence. However, some of those who have stubbornly refused to reject their theories in the face of anomalous data have constructed some of the most powerful theories. In addition, there is no basis for claiming falsifiable theories (e.g., the flat earth, geocentricism, etc.) are somehow more scientific than successful theories that can’t be falsified but possess wide-ranging explanatory power.

4. Ruse’s demarcation criteria have proven incapable of discriminating the scientific status of materialistic and nonmaterialistic origins theories. To claim creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert creationism makes no empirical assertions whatsoever. That is false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about matters of fact.

The young-earth assertion of a recent origin of the universe and earth, for example, is testable, it has been tested and it has failed those tests. Most contemporary philosophers of sciences have realized the real issue is not whether a theory is “scientific” according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true–that is, warranted by the evidence. Valid scientific theories or models have predictive capabilities. In other words, they are able to make predictions about future scientific discoveries similar to the manner in which Einstein proposed tests that would validate or invalidate his theories of general relativity.

Let's briefly look at an origin of life example:

The materialistic-Darwinian model predicts the evidence will point toward natural pathways of random, natural chemical processes for the origin life. The intelligent-causer model predicts the evidence will indicate life appearing suddenly and independent of the natural environment. Some shared predictions of various evolutionary models include:

• Geochemical evidence of a prebiotic soup in the Earth’s oldest rocks.
• Life appeared gradually on Earth over a long period of time.
• Earth’s first life was simple.
• Life in its most minimal form is simple.

By comparison, the intelligent-causer model–predicts:

• Life appeared very early, while Earth was still in a primordial state.
• Life originated abruptly.
• Earth’s first life displayed complexity.
• Life is complex in its minimal form.

The data supports the intelligent-causer model.

First, there was no prebiotic soup. Geochemists have developed two powerful tools for measuring the quantity of prebiotics on the ancient Earth and both lead to the same conclusion: there was no prebiotic soup billions of years ago when life began.

Second, the evidence indicates life appeared incredibly early in Earth history about 3.85 billion years ago, the Earth had not cooled sufficiently to form a solid crust and oceans making life impossible prior to that time. Yet, fossil and geochemical data indicates life appeared very shortly after 3.85 billion years ago and prokaryotic microorganisms were firmly entrenched by 3.7 billion years ago. In the words of origin-of-life investigator J. William Schopf, “No one had foreseen that the beginning of life occurred so astonishingly early.”

Third, the evidence indicates life appeared suddenly. According to paleontologist Peter Ward and astronomer Donald Brownlee (secular scientists), the fact ancient life existed in Greenland, and perhaps elsewhere, as early as 3.8 billion years ago, leads to the conclusion that life must have appeared simultaneously with the cession of the heavy bombardment period–an awfully short period of time for the first life to evolve.

Finally, the evidence indicates life in its simplest form is complex–it must maintain complex metabolic and reproductive functions. Research has overturned the traditional view of bacteria (the first lifeforms) as little grab bags of molecules. Rather, bacteria display an incredible degree of internal organization and possess an exquisite orchestration of biochemical activity in spatial and temporal terms. Thus, origin-of-life researchers must account not only for the simultaneous occurrence of relatively large number of gene products but also for their spatial and temporal organizations.”

With all the evidence validating the intelligent-causer model and invalidating the materialistic-Darwinian model, one wonders why so many Darwinists continue to insist science can only consider materialistic causes. Perhaps it is as Dembski states in his book The Design Revolution. Intelligent-causer models, like intelligent design, fit the bill as a full-scale scientific revolution. They challenge the naturalistic idol of evolution and change the ground rules by which the natural sciences are conducted. Revolutions can be messy and require revolutionaries who are willing to take the abuse, ridicule and intimidation the ruling elite can, and will inflict. Nevertheless, a paradigm shift/revolution will eventually occur as historically it has always occurred.

[fumbrunner]

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seat...408/200408.pdf

do you have any ideas of your own??

[salb3039]

Originally Posted by fumbrunner

http://www.reasons.org/chapters/seat...408/200408.pdf

do you have any ideas of your own??

Great sign of the ignorant is quoting someone else's thoughts without using any of there own. Poor people.

[Aspirin]

Sure I do and you are reading them. Two of my friends are PhD professors at Caltech. We talk about this stuff all the time. Does it bother you that I can formulate legitimate arguments based on scientific information and communicate it to you? It shouldn't. The ability is within each of us. You only have to put in the college time (just as you put in the gym time). I've done the former for almost two decades. Now go do something good. You can choose to not be rude to others. That takes self-discipline and not looking at others through narcissistic lenses which help you to objectify them by labeling them in the third person when you discuss them or what they are communicating. God bless. Peace.

[fumbrunner]

When you use such materials and try to pass them on as your own, verbatim, it makes you look pretty sad.

[Aspirin]

You are not addressing the content of the information but merely pointing out that I am not the original author. I know Dr. Ross personally. He is one of my PhD friends from Caltech as I stated above. In fact, I am a certified apologist with reasons to believe. This information posted at their site does mirror my belief system (and therefore the evidence and where it goes I believe). But you know what, after further thought I think you have a point. I should have written that up APA style referencing everything as I went. Then you would have had to address the content rather than focus solely on how I elected to communicate it making my presentation more effective. In any event, I am glad you have an opportunity to read it. God bless.

Oh and while we are on the subject, CNN just had a really interesting report on the "genographic" project of the hardcore darwinist National Geographic, that claims all humans are descended from "Adam", who lived in Africa about 60,000 years ago. I wonder if they will begin to modify their darwinian bias. Check it out. Changes are slowly coming...

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/...hic/index.html

[TrainedMind]

Oh boy...another religious crusade

[larryj1973]

Originally Posted by RRAdam

Evolution and religion can and do coexist. To deny evolution is silly. it DOES happen, whether you like it or not - however, this does not disprove the existence of God anyway shape or form... God cannot be tested scientifically, so therefore cannot be proven or disproven. Many of the famous evolutionists were religious. Its the fact that monkeys may have evolved from man is the problem most people have with - and this hasnt been proven yet either.

This is a very ignorant statement.

You can not prove any of this.

[BUFFLURP]

Originally Posted by TrainedMind

Oh boy...another religious crusade

I'm not for that. I've had mine, lol.







People, the reason "Creationism" can't qualify as science is because we are not near smart enough to begin to comprehend the knowledge and power it would take to accomplish such a task. We would be merely speculating what happened. And that does NOT qualify as science. Doesn't mean it didnt happen though.

Evolution is only based on science. Micro-evolution is apparent and obvious and can be viewed and studied. It is not a theory. It is fact.

Macro-evolution has yet to be seen, and IMO is a ridiculous theory, and will never be proven. Macro-evolution is what most people think of when the term "Evolution" is brought up. Monkey-man, etc. Not true, or should i say almost impossible to prove. If macro-evolution were true, mermaids would likeley exist. but they dont, so...

I am a religious guy, and I am absoluteley in favor of "inteligent design/creationism", but i cant deny that micro-evoltion occurs. Viruses adapt to the environment, and become immune to certain vaccines. that is exactly what micro-evolution is. But, this viruses dna does not change, and if it were to prodcue sexually, it's children viruses would not have the same immunity. Also, it doesnt become a new, smarter virus with super-virus traits, which would be macro-evolution.

having this, and say a monkey were to develop a certain immunity, It's children can't inherit immunty. Immunity is no wired into you genetic code. A mutation is an alteration of genetic code within an organism. Mutation almost always have a negative effect in where that organism dies. I can't concieve of a mutation where a monkey became super smart and became bi-pedal, and lost all of its hair and developed dope speaking skills. That's one heck of a mutation. Sounds like X-men to me. We all know x-men doesnt happen.

that's my say. have fun.

[BUFFLURP]

Originally Posted by larryj1973

This is a very ignorant statement.

You can not prove any of this.

what about it is ignorant?

The fact that Darwin was a God-fearing man? and denied his own theory? That is documented proof. Other people exploded his theory. Not him.

Micro-evolution does occur.

It doesnt disprove the existence of God. God had to have invented micro-evolution.

Attaining knowledge and making adjustments to your life/atmosphere is micro-evolution if you want to far-stretch the meaning.

I dont see anything ignorant abou what he said.

Don't get me wrong, I am probably the most hardcore-religious Christian on here so don't think I am siding with Evolutionism.

[gym-junkie]

I'll probably pi** a few people off with my views, and if I do. sue me . All religions stem from early, primative man trying to explain the world in which he lived. Why does the Sun disappear, why does it rain, where did the mountains come from?? All these questions were beyond the comprehention of ancient man. And all of these questions can now be explained by modern man through science. Would religions have been started if ancient man knew what we know today?? of course not. There is no allmighty, no great divine being, no god. To me religion seems almost laughable, while the world progresses some people believe in 'the bogey man'. Bah! Get real and catch up to the 21st Century

[ams33]

can u tell me how all the human body is firmly regulated and accurately designed(just an example out of millions) ???...nature goes to increase entropy(disorder)....all living things are a deviation to that: very organized .....u cant say that if u knew how a car function u knew how it was made ...bec smart association of parts leads to proper functioning .....honeslty man , what s ur level of education ,plz be honest so i know how to argue with u

[BUFFLURP]

Originally Posted by gym-junkie

I'll probably pi** a few people off with my views, and if I do. sue me . All religions stem from early, primative man trying to explain the world in which he lived. Why does the Sun disappear, why does it rain, where did the mountains come from?? All these questions were beyond the comprehention of ancient man. And all of these questions can now be explained by modern man through science. Would religions have been started if ancient man knew what we know today?? of course not. There is no allmighty, no great divine being, no god. To me religion seems almost laughable, while the world progresses some people believe in 'the bogey man'. Bah! Get real and catch up to the 21st Century

pffft, so we are really an advanced monkey? One day a monkey decided to speak and have a written complex language with mathematics etc.? thats quite the step from primitive to homosapien in about 5 years.

All of the sudden a monkey ate some toxic waste(thats what it would take i guess due to standing up and the loss of body hair, and super inteligence) and became homo sapien, the only being on earth with the ability to reason. What a cute story. Sounds like Ninja Turtles. Lame.

I don't mean to sound rude or immature(apologies in advance), but whoever beleives that man was developed from previous species such as a monkey(darwinism) is an idiot.

[sonicbum]

they both take faith.. "where did god come?" from AND "where did matter come from?" are both going to reamain unanswered by puny Humans....

[sonicbum]

Whilst accepting subsequent Darwinian evolution, Flew argues that this cannot explain the complexities of the origins of life. He has also stated that the investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce [life], that intelligence must have been involved."

taken from>> http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...&ct=clnk&cd=10



... duh....