Steve with due respect,We were discussing the age of Man,not the Earth.

Well they go hand in hand in my opinion. You cant have man before Earth.

-Steve

You're right, of course, need TOS - for both of us are simply choosing to believe in other humans giving us the correct/accurate information.

What I would truly not like to see is 'intelligent design' ever returned to our school systems. For while science is taught as 'theory', for the most part at least, I've yet to meet any person who will say their Faith is based on theory. Ergo, it would be taught as 'strict and utter truth' - and as such, would take away all the rights of those of a different faith or no faith at all.

And science leads to all sorts of magic - in medical and other areas. And religion, while it can be lovely indeed for those that have Faith, it can lead to endless heartache for so many others who don't share it. And vise versa. Another huge but gentle sigh.

I agree with no religion in school, but I feel as if Evolution should not be taught either or if so have it required that they state it is a theory and very controversial subject. Here they said that it is fact and that is the end of it. Allowed no debate or questions. Sound wrong?

-Steve

I'm sorry that you have taken offense, but the fact remains that no matter how much proof refuting "creation" that you put in front of a creationist, he will deny it's existence to his dying breath.

I, too, am probably going to bow out of this one. I should know better than to try and have a reasoned discussion with unreasoning people.

I enjoy your posts, I really do, but you seem to be doing what you claim I'm doing. I will not deny what you put infront of me, I just need to see it and look at it, but seeing as you have yet to do it you will no know that of me. You shouldn't judge a whole group based on a part of the group. I am not unreasoning, so please no name calling or degrading as was said by a mod in a different topic, attack the beliefes of the person not the person.

Please continue with the debate

-Steve

Third Law - http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0861526.html

In case you haven't noticed, diplomacy is not my strongest skill. I try to word things in the most general way, especially when referring to groups of people. When I refer to creationists, I'm speaking in the most geenral way, and the characteristics I ascribe to them are those that fit the group as a whole, on average. Now there may be individuals within a group that don't share all of the characteristics that the group as a a whole does. It's simply not reasonable (or perhaps even possible) to try and tailor individual responses to each individual posting here. Especially with all of these quote within quote within quotes. I've just about given up on trying to crop what I want to respond to fromm all of the nested quotes that are in, it seems, nearly every post. It's pretty hard to respond to individuals when they can't be separated from one another.

MaraM -

What you just said is why I wonder more people don't recognize that the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

I think it is scientifically reasonable to believe that God would create a universe with logical and phyically based principles or "laws". It will be very easy, as science moves forward, to understand this universe.

On the other hand, it would also be very difficult for science to prove that God did not create that universe.

Certain Christians take a specific view of how this creation was accomplished that I don't believe is the same view that the Buddhists have regarding the subject. Heck, not all Christians agree on the specifics of that specific viewpoint, either.

But, it is these specifics that cause the problem - not a belief in God.

One setion of Genesis - "Genesis 1:25 - And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good."

Wouldn't God say " I made the... and I saw that it was good", and not in English, by the way? We are taking translations of an observation and applying it specifically. I doubt that that is ever a good thing to do, but maybe that's just me?

I am not a believer, but I do not believe that science is anywhere nearing either proving or disproving the existence of a God.

I'm surprised that more believers don't revel in the fact that the universe that they believe their God created is so well designed that science hasn't found any verifiable imperfections.

I am aware of the Third Law of Thermodynamics, I am in an Engineering program, but I fail to see how that will make my resources evidnce mean nothing.

Please explain.

-Steve

Can I say it any clearer for you? BECAUSE its so advanced and it could NOT have came out of nowhere.



It cant and wont because its not fact.



How sad....and how rude.

I'm not going to spend more time quoting sources of proof for evolution, as I have done repeatedly in this thread. It would simply be redundant, and apparently ignored. With respect, I'm going to again focus on your use of the word "theory" in caps as if it were an attack on the credulity of evolution. In scientific terms, "theory" doesn't mean what it means to people in the vernacular use of the word. It is not a postulation or speculation, it is something that has gone through a rigorous scrutinizing process of testing and validating evidence to support its claims. It is fact, in the same way the theory of Relativity is fact, or Newton's theory of Gravitation is fact. The reason we call evolution valid science is because it has passed the test of falsifiability and has accurately predicted the results of new experiments and findings. No creationist theory has passed this test, which is why it is not valid science. You can believe in it if you want to, but if you call it science you delude yourself.

I see what you are saying, but to my knowledge it is a theory as in it has been tested but not 100% proven. If it is no 100% proven then it is not fact. I didn't meant the caps as an attack I was just stating so that it would not be overlooked that it is a theory and nothing more until proven so.

I meant no disrespect arcman
-Steve

Yup, and oddly enough I'm rooting for the kind Christians! I know my saying this will send a couple members into a 'state' - but I don't see the possiblity that I could be wrong and could be in for a whooping big surprise on the die I die as a 'threat' to my non-belief.

Nope, as another member said (I think it was DSTM), I'm quite content to live in the here and now and don't require proof one way or the other.

Proving ourselves 'right' and another 'wrong' is rarely all-inclusive surely. The only thing I wish - and wish hard for - is that all people with Faith were as understanding and tolerant of other people's beliefs as they are in this thread.

On a personal level, I'd be surprised if I was 'wrong' in my non-belief but would be horrified to be both wrong and spent eternity with people I didn't think of a 'good and kind Christians/people of other Faiths'. (And no casting of stones here, please! ).

Creation where is the proof
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

While I like that site too, CGM3, it seems creationist based sites are not wanted in this chat.

-Steve

No disrespect taken.
If you're looking for 100% proof in science, well, you won't find that anywhere. Strict proof is only possible in mathematics, not science. But if by proof you mean testable evidence, there is plenty for evolution. From a scientific standpoint we just as much testable evidence to consider evolution factual as we do that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

Well if you do not mind, could you possibly post some links to a few sites so that I do not have to go looking through 500+ posts?

thanks,
Steve

By this line of reasoning, then absolutely nothing can be considered fact.

Hmmm... Oddly enough, we seem to think upon the same lines, although we express it differently. I differentiate between Christians and "Christians", the latter being those that claim the name, but don't act in ways that are consistent with it. For example, I've never had a Christian get all up in my face about our differences in belief and philosophy*, but I've had plenty of "Christians" do so.

*Have to tell you a story about this, sometime.

Not really. I mean we can prove plenty of things out there. I mean I would really like to see what other people think about this and know their reasoning behind their beliefes.

-Steve

edit:

well they are not really Christians then are they?

Round 'n round we go... sighhh...

Presuppositions are things that are boiled out of the crucible of the scientific method. It was designed from the get-go so that what people thought was true wasn't as important as what could could be observed through experimentation. For anything to be taken seriously as science it has to hypothesize, experiment, and accurately predict results. Evolution has done all of these things on many occasions. I am unaware of any creationist theory that can attest this.

No prob. There was my post where we discussed how bacteria were evolving to be more resistant to antibiotics, and how another bacterium had evolved to digest nylon instead of carbohydrates.
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/ind...st&p=571401

There are also a couple of WP articles to start off with.
Objections to Evolution
Evidence of Common Descent

Thank you arcman.

-Steve

Good links, Arcman - I love to learn things and appreciate your work with the research and sharing them with us!

When anyone, Christian or not, is willing to look - really look - at both side of any issue, it's admirable. And anyone, Christian or not, is so set in their own belief that they refuse to even consider that there are things that perhaps don't quite 'jive' with what they think is right - well, drat.

I hope you'll all forgive my laughter here because it's not laughing 'at' anyone, rather at the entire situation of mankind and how we will 'go to the mat' to defend our beliefs.

And I agree with both Mattv and needTOS on this ...

I too think of a true Christian as a person who is so happy and content in his or her Faith that they are understanding and tolerant of others of another Faith or others who have no faith at all. They may be sad that their Faith isn't shared - but neither do they attempt to make others feel that they are 'bad people' if their Faith isn't shared. They accept and care and are tolerant of people's rights to be different.

I think of a self-professing 'Christians' as those that not just feel only he or she is right, but everyone else is very, very 'wrong'. And indeed, not only 'attack' the faith of others, they often decide to 'fix all the wrongs' - their perception of 'wrongs' in the world. Think of all the agony caused by these people. And for myself, I'm always simply filled with sadness - for surely, if they only knew it, by their example they send far more people scurrying to the hills rather than toward the nearest Church.

(Okay, one can 'cast stones' here ).

---
Oh crumb bum! I just realized that I'd drifted off the original 'Why is Evolution Taught as Fact' thread - and my post really should have been plopped into the 'Misc Religious' thread - my apologies!

oh well we still love ya MaraM

Come on now say something we can talk on.

Thank you, need TOS - huge happy smile!

Okay, out of sheer curiousity ... if Evolution is taught as fact/theory in schools ... would it be better to have nothing taught at all? (In Science, of course).

I think that Evolution should not be taught seeing as it is still a scientific theory. Even though I know arcman explained a bit what a theory in science is. I think that it might just be to controversial to discuss in a class room.

-Steve

I think I understand what you're saying, need TOS ... the only problem may be that so many areas within Science at least touch on Evolution, even indirectly. The science of dating soil, etc.

I'm feeling a tad old here as when I was in school we studied vast areas of sciences and yet not once broached the topic of either evolution or intelligent design. Perhaps because I was raised in a school system where literally everyone attended Church - and maybe it was honestly thought that science didn't intrude on Faith.

Either way, while I still love learning things, there are occassions when I still long for the simplicity of life when those putt putt submarines did magic with simply a bit of baking soda -

I don't think dating has anything to do with Evolution to tell the truth. They might use the same dating but they don't necesarily have anything to do with eachother because of that. IMO

-Steve

thats a damn good question
i allways asked when a teacher was teaching "but what about god" over and over any thing he said about evelution "what about god" hahah wow im dumb

Sorry I haven't been able to post lately, 12 hour work days don't leave much time accept to read the posts quickly. Now down to business.



I've have read many times about the whale evolution that is talked about. take a look at Origins of the Species part 2. it talks about whale evolution and the transitional forms that are used to make that claim.
video on demand



That is like asking a scientist to not use science to make his point.



I disagree. I think that evolution should be discussed in schools, but present the flaws along with the theory so that the lessons are truly objective and unbiased. This was not done in my school that I attended (Homestead Sr. High, a public school).

Arcman, there is a big difference between evolution and natural selection. Evolution is the changing of one form of life into a different and more complex form of life (i.e. single cell to multi cellular). Natural selection is a change in the appearance of abilities of an organism due to environmental conditions but no change in the complexity or kind of organism. For example, let's use dogs. There are many different breeds or species of dog. the earliest dogs were basically wolves that were domesticated. Natural selection or in this cases forced natural selection takes the genetic traits that the original dogs had in them and combined them in different ways. In other words, in colder environments dogs that had longer hair survived and passed those dominant genes on to their offspring. The gene for shorter hair became more and more a recessive gene until it eventually is no longer present. This is actually a loss of genetic information not an addition of new genetic information. I'll also note that while the above example of longer haired dogs are different from the original dogs, they are still dogs.

Natural selection is in essence a reshuffling or loss of genetic variability in an organism. It is not the same as evolution (i.e. molecules to man). Natural selection is observable, repeatable, and testable. It can happen quite rapidly. the confusion happens when some try to claim that natural selection is the driving force behind evolution. The nylon eating bacteria that you cited Is still identifiable as a variation of the original bacteria it came from. but is still identifiable as belonging to the same kind of bacteria as the original. That is an example of genetic flexibility within that kind of bacteria, not evolution the trait was most likely already there but dormant until environmental conditions cause a reshuffle in the genes and it became active. Yes I did read the article you posted.

Well, I've got to go. My toddler just woke up.

Seafox14

That is an "Answers in Genesis" link.
You keep referencing a site that is geared to convincing you that the Bible is to be taken literally.
Anyone who believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted are totally blind to science, period.
That Ham guy is helping to destroy education in this country and as long as people like you financially support him
it will continue.
It was not until the last 20 or so years that I even took notice of people who claim the earth is only 6,000 or so years old. I thought that had been settled even before I was born. What has caused this resurgence of insisting on creationism is
rooted in some really diehard evangelical fears that if science is accepted then the church industry will die a natural death.
The main reason for this increase in young people professing this ignorance of science is the increase in church and home schooling which happened because of the end of segregation.
You claim to have "studied" the evidence of the whale transitional forms but you still insist that evidence proves nothing or are part of some science conspiracy. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to convince you otherwise. I only hope that the young people who view this topic can see that your mind is closed to ever accepting any evidence disproving those few lines in Genesis that you insist are the absolute truth.
Your whole point in starting this topic was to PROMOTE your views not seeking information.

Excellent links, arcman.

If everyone read that first article before they posted in this thread, the thread would take a much different flavor, in my opinion.

From the article:
and



Needless to say, if anyone has read any of my posts in this thread, I agree with those statements.

Evolution is taught as fact because the correct definition of "evolution" is an accepted scientific fact. The answer to the opening question is that simple.

It does not conflict with the possible existance of a God at all.

And what is wrong with Answers in Genesis if they look at the scientific evidence and it points to what they are trying to state? Just because you do not believe that the Bible is not to be taken literaly does not automatically make it wrong. If you yourself would look at the evidence supplied you would find that it makes perfect sence. Why is it that you call us closed minded for refusing to look at a site geared toward Evolution, yet you refuse to look at a site geared toward Creationism? If people would just give it a fighting chance then maybe people could see the truth behind what is being said. And how come sites thats purpose is to supply scientific evidence toward Creationism are automatically written off? If the research is there and the scientists are reliable then it is perfectally acceptable to conclude that these sites are giving scientific fact. As many have said, Creationism is out there to prove something that can't change so they'll look over any evidence. Does anyone have any proof of that? I see no reason why this could be true, as I have stated the 6 days in the Bible could have been 6,000years, and the Earth could be 80,000 years old. There is no problems with that idea because the Bible is not specific in this area. Something God did do though was create the Animals. I personally agree with micro-evolution, it would be crazy no to seeing as it can be observed, tested, and re-tested. I just fail to see how a big accident could put together this intricately balanced planet the way it is. The odds for that are astronamical.

buddy215, I have looked at that evidence while I truly find it interesting I fail to find that it proves Evolution. One example does not make it scientific fact, there needs to be more evidence than that, if you would please present another example of transitional species then it would give Evolution more credability.

Something every one has looked over is the finding of the Wollemi Pine (Wollemia nobilis), it was supposed to have gone extinct roughly 150 million years ago, yet they are living roughly 200Km from Sydney, Australia. The oldest is dated to be around 1,000 years old. I find this very funny that a tree from the "Jurassic Age" is still alive today.

Well I must be off.

-Steve

That'd have to be another thread, on a completely different subject.

The creationists claim that the universe is only six thousand years old. Yet we know that there are stars whose light takes longer than six thousand years to reach Earth. (This can be shown without any equipment more complicated than pencil and paper, using observational data.) If the universe is only six thousand years old, then how can there be objects older than six thousand years within it?

That is not necessarily true, creationists state that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, big difference. And even if so, the light was here to begin with because there is a center of the universe in which all things were created and then were spread out, allowing the light to be here but have the object be 100,000 lightyears away.

-Steve

A star is a point-source of light. The light isn't from some background source. The above is akin to saying that light from the sun and light from a candle held between the sun and the observer have the same source (poor analogy, but I'm still caffeine deficient, yet).

What I am trying to say is that even though stars might be lets say 60,000 light years away does not mean that the light could not be here if let us go with the general beliefe (of Creationists) that the universe is anywhere between 10,000 - 6,000 years old. Since there is a point where everything was created. Then after the stars were made then the stars were spread out. Meaning that the light started here and then as it moved farther we just saw light that was produced at a longer time span than previously. This would explain why we can see the light now, and have the universe to be 10,000 to 6,000 years old. And it would also explain the expanding of the universe.

-Steve

need TOS, Just because your young mind or my old mind can't grasp all the ins and outs of scientific discoveries, shouldn't mean they are not valid.
QUOTE need TOS:"Meaning that the light started here and then as it moved farther we just saw light that was produced at a longer time span than previously. This would explain why we can see the light now, and have the universe to be 10,000 to 6,000 years old. And it would also explain the expanding of the universe."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please hang in here--there might be a breakthrough.
If I understand your reasoning, for instance, if two cars sitting rear bumber to rear bumber took off traveling at EXACTLY the same speed and one hour later they were 100 miles apart, it could be easily computed they both averaged 50mph during that first hour. Would you agree? Of course you would.
So if earth is 10 million LIGHT YEARS away from say Centaurus A and earth and Centaurus A were traveling away from each other at the speed of light, wouldn't you agree that at the least they had to start traveling at least 5 million years ago? I was just looking at the latest image that NASA provides each day which just happens that Centaurus A is todays image. Oh, and Centaurus A is mentioned as being 10 million light years away.
And please don't think that I am suggesting that the universe is only 5 million years old.

Well, the trait to digest nylon wasn't originally just there dormant in the genetic code, if you read the article you see it was a result of a frame-shift mutation. It's pretty clear that it wouldn't have already been present in its normal genetic code since nylon didn't even exist 100 years ago. So in essence what we have here is a very drastic mutation that fundamentally altered the physiology of an organism. Again, in a larger organism something like this would be analogous to water-breathing animal switching over to breathing air (is this sounding familiar?) A single mutation such as this consists of microevolution, and when you pile up enough microevolutions you get macroevolution, which we observe in the form of speciations. As much as creationists love to draw a line in the sand between macro and micro evolution, there is really no difference between how the two of them work. The process is exactly the same, macroevolution is simply microevolution on a larger scale, and on this larger scale we observe speciations such as this:

But the thing is if you go with what I am saying and believe in God (not saying you have to) then it is possible because he can make anything happen.

-Steve

buddy215 -

I suspect you are forgetting that God created everything,

so God can move things about at whatever speed is necessary to allow others to refute the natural laws.


Of course, the one problem I've mentioned still stands -

God didn't say that the earth was only 6,000 years old,

infallable man has interpreted writings that imply that.


Very big difference.

As I have said JohnWho, it does not mean the Earth is only 6,000 years old. It could be older by a few thousand.

-Steve

How can we see distant stars in a young universe?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

OK, I'll edit my quote to make it read 6,000 to 12,000 years old - doubling your number so I'm not accused of being overly restrictive.

Doesn't change the concept of what I said one bit.

The last sentence in that article is telling:

Even if I choose to accept that line of reasoning, "His Word" still isn't necessarily the English translation of various writings that comprise what we accept as The Book of Genesis.

Wikipedia article - Genesis

It could also be put another way. In order to think the way need Tos and other "young earthers" do, you must discard all logic, reasoning functions of your brain and simply admit that the supernatural world is in complete control.

I am not saying discard all logic, I am being completely logical about this, what I am saying though is that we do not have to assume that the planets or stars moved at the rate of 1 lightyear per year, it could be much faster, allowing the stars or planets to be where they are today, and they could have been slowing down over this stretch of time making them reach the speed they are at now.

-Steve