R3fr said: "For evolution, which i'll say again for those who might have missed it, a piece of non-living matter cannot just go from non-living to living. And matter cannot just jump to be here, or slowly form to be here either. It defies all logic. Energy cannot just be here from nothing. Think of 'the beginning' when there was absolutely nothing (in evolution).. Can something spawn from nothing? No, it can't. We ALL know this as fact whether we admit it or not. No matter how large or small of a piece of matter or energy, it CANNOT spawn from nothing. This alone disproves evolution. "


No, wrong. Science has left that attitude behind a hundred years ago. Living things are made of non-living things. Energy can be stored in non-living, or even apparently non-energetic materials, like combinations of acids and metals to make a battery. The Sun is not alive, and it is the source of our energy, our life, nothing would live here without it. Particles spawn from apparently nothing in situations bordering on the impossible (nature abhors a vacuum).

As for life, Carbon is the basis for life on earth, a non-living material. Your DNA are chemicals, you are made of metals, water, non-living compounds. The vitamins you take in are minerals, acids, metals carried by other living things. You can be rendered down to find that you are made of 100% non-living material. A nickel's worth of zinc stands between you and insanity. Is a galvanized bucket alive?

Actually a great deal that isn't alive contributes to life, and living things are made of non-living material. You have taken the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and wrongly twisted it to mean something that it doesn't. There is a lot in nature that forms spontaneously from diverse parts, both alive and not. An atheist would call it chance, a Creationist would call it design, but to act like it doesn't happen is blindness.

Sorry to be harsh, but I would stick to cut and paste.



[Message Edited]

P.S. what you are doing is simply making your own definition of 'energy' and 'life' that suits your argument. If you make up all the definitions, then no one can disprove the arguments you make out of them. If I have one problem with Watchtower literature, it is the knack they have of doing that. I respect, for instance, your right to believe that blood transfusions are wrong, but the 'scientific' material used to support it is dubious at best. Why make belief into science? Why do you need to make something spiritually true to you, physically true to everyone else; unless it is just to prove every one else wrong?

If either side of the argument should see anything about me in this discussion, it is that I *despise* people portraying belief as "Fact". If you want to believe in Creation, or the wrongness of some modern medicine, then you have my full support in doing so. Don't, though, try to twist science to validate your subjective beliefs.


[Message Edited]

For evolution, which i'll say again for those who might have missed it, a piece of non-living matter cannot just go from non-living to living. And matter cannot just jump to be here, or slowly form to be here either. It defies all logic. Energy cannot just be here from nothing. Think of 'the beginning' when there was absolutely nothing (in evolution).. Can something spawn from nothing? No, it can't. We ALL know this as fact whether we admit it or not. No matter how large or small of a piece of matter or energy, it CANNOT spawn from nothing. This alone disproves evolution.

Sorry, but that's a specious statement. When you say 'defies all logic', who's logic are you talking about? Where do you draw the line between living and nonliving? We've created amino acids from simple compounds (without using an existing lifeform to create it). And while an amino acid may not be categorizable as living in the strictest sense, it is certainly one of the components of a living system. Additionally, DNA is essentially a polymeric chain composed of a sequence of 4 different molecules (ACTG) in varying combinations. None of those component molecules, in and of themselves, can be strictly defined as living (even the DNA molecule itself is not technically alive, it encodes the information required to produce the compounds that eventually take on the obvious aspects of life, eg. us and plants and animals, etc.).

There is a functional theoretical mechanism for the evolution of species, even from the primordial ooze. Whether the details of that framework are correct or not is a valid subject of discussion, but the evidence clearly details a linear time to complexity relationship in the history of living things. There are varying theories about the proximate cause of abiogenesis, but there is nothing in our current scientific knowledge that abrogates the process in principle.

Your argument is a strawman. No evolutionary scientist is arguing that something came from nothing. All of the atomic and molecular chemical precursors existed and can be legitimately argued to form the foundation of the formation of life.

As mentioned before, I'm a believer, and I believe in creation, but in a creation that includes cosmology, evolution, physics, etc. There is *no* conflict in that position.

When you get right down to it, there really are only two ways we can look at the existing evidence from which we form our understanding of the universe (and life and evolution). Either the evidence is directly related to and / or caused by the actual process of evolution, or it was placed there in that fashion (presumably by God). In either case, we should interpret that evidence based on our knowledge and whatever position the evidence supports. As our knowledge grows (or we get more evidence or information), we will adjust our viewpoints and theories to account for that new knowledge.

Carbon dating isn't correct. Something that is 2,000 years + old (this is just a random number) releases such a small... ity-bity amount of carbon thats its extremely difficult to date it properly. What scientists say is just a guess, for the most part.

Radiocarbon dating, as it is properly called, is the process of determining the age of something that processed carbon at some point (living material for the most part) and detecting the ratio of carbon 14 (the isotope) to carbon 12 (normal) based on the ratio of the two in the atmosphere. The half-life of carbon 14 is 5730 years. When the organism (for example) dies (stops processing carbon), the ratio of C14 to C12 starts to decrease as C14 decays (it isn't a matter of releasing carbon). The decay is logarithmic (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, etc.). If the starting ratio is 1:5 (for example, then after 5730 years, the ratio will be 1:10. For ideal conditions, the practical upper limit of radiocarbon dating is about 50,000 years (about 9 half-life cycles of the decay process).

There are clearly limitations to radiocarbon dating. First is that the atmospheric ratio isn't constant over time. The ratio of C14 to C12 is based on the ratio in the atmosphere at the time the organism, etc., was actively processing carbon. Second, sample size is important. Smaller sample sizes are less accurate than multiple readings from a large sample size (including multiple sample sources from the same target area). Third, radiocarbon dating is sensitive to contamination from influxes of carbon containing substances, either between the time the source existed and now, or caused by handling. Fourth, being a logarithmic process, there are upper and lower limits to detection. You can't carbon date something that's only, say, 10 years old, as the margin of detection error is greater than the decay over a 10 year period. At the other end, once the C14 has decayed sufficiently, the amount left to detect is extremely small, and the margin of error issue creeps up again.

That said, radiocarbon dating is very good at characterizing the age within a reasonable margin of error for objects between about 300 to about 30,000 years. With a good sample size that's uncontaminated, there no rational reason for doubting the accuracy of the process.

IPlural

You beat me to it

BakerStreet

If either side of the argument should see anything about me in this discussion, it is that I *despise* people portraying belief as "Fact". If you want to believe in Creation, or the wrongness of some modern medicine, then you have my full support in doing so. Don't, though, try to twist science to validate your subjective beliefs.

Exactly right!

Is it a good thing, or bad, that my posts make you feel you're in church?

Bad. if I want to have someone quote bible verses at me i will go to church, not WC.

No offence of course.

Very true, and at the same time I do admit it is just as wrong for those on the side of evolution to just disregard Creation out of hand. Especially when based upon deeply ingrained emotional automatic responses for whatever reason one might retain them.

You know, I do apologize for some of my posts based in those same auto-responses, at times the human condition can end up being all consuming and using the Emotional Mind to design reality tends to lend confusion at best for the most part and almost always blatant ignorance of social grace ( for me at least ).

Seems the mechanics of Social Cognition and Automatic response comes into play when one least expects it

Kona I almost responded to his questioning you on that because it lent something other than presenting the verses as a means of considering information presented as possibility. As if you were being dared into some kind of abreaction reaction, or to put you in your place.

Of course, it might just be how I read the words as they lay on the screen without the ambient information of psychical presence.

I am glad I did not and I totally agree 100% with what you've stated.

And no I am not attempting or intend what I said above to disrespect Church, Faith, the Bible or his beliefs.

But do not agree with the means in the least if my perception is in fact correct.

r3fr: Perhaps (as Jafo put it earlier in this thread) God created evolution...

hmmmmm....

If we are going to talk about written books that where cast down for us to read from God as fact, it is hard to prove. I can believe all I want in God and the Bible, I nor anyone here can prove any statement in there is specicifally God's word.

Its called faith.



Strangely enough, most religious people will answer that statement I made above by quoting something from the Bible as fact instead of useing the Bible as a guide (as it is really intended I believe) to some physical evedence or worked out theory. Any book written well has references to others. I beleive the Bible (as well as some others) are written for faith not provability.


Does anyone know how many religions or faiths there are around the world who would feel just as strongly about thier bliefs and facts as written in their holy scripture?


(This is why I love my church. They don't try to ignore the fact that there are not other ways of looking at things and use the Bible as an example. They know there is a difference between faith and answers and beliefs)



As human beings, we should understand that there is no way we can understand the complexity of this universe created or otherwise. That includes the Bible (one example) and the multiple faith types that come from it. I think if you try to be more rational and open it is easier to see that a belief can be wrong and a fact can be mis-understood.


Many here have their opinion about creation or evolution and some have many sources to back their opinion up. Nevertheless it can be said from reading the posts so far that we all are pretty much working on other peoples work and trust that they did the work and research right. Not a belief but an assumption that the previous work was done correctly.


The belief starts when no one questions the 'facts'.




This thread has given me allot to think about. I really didn't think about evolution or creation working together until now.



Lets call it creat-U-lution

yeah, why couldn't God create evolution?


I think we are getting to stuck in the terms of these words. Evolution might be more than the term states. Creation might well be part of the effect.

or just the universe been created to evolve from some unknown source.

(I would call the unknown source God. Either way you look at it, the unknown source created us and is the force that is part of our being and destiny. I think "God" is a very overloaded term to many people because of religion and a 'human like' figure looming over them. People would rather say there isn't one even though there was or is a force that happened to create/evolve us and is part of us; our universe, solar system, galaxy. That source is our 'God'... it is what gives life and takes it away)

What Dreams May Come

Sorry to interrupt...but would you guys mind if I copied this entire thread and published it as a book, entitled "Creation vs. Evolution: Seen through the eyes of ordinary people". If I get rich, I'll give you all a smurf.

R3fr's posts are a good example of how subjective both arguments are, so much so that a Biblical Literalist can believe that science can prove their points. Oddly, though, science isn't helping his opponents prove their points to him. He can say the findings are wrong, and then not expect the other side to say the same? Scientific proof requires subjective belief as well.

A fun, if annoying, example. It is impossible to prove to someone that the moon landing occurred ( http://www.moonmovie.com/10things.html ) . Show them pictures, they say it is a soundstage at Area 51. Show them a moon rock, they ask you to prove that it came from the moon. If you are an astronaut, they say you are paid to lie. We think they are kooks, but we have no more empirical evidence that man landed on the moon than they do. We choose to believe the evidence we have second-hand, and they don't.

It is *belief*, not science, that separates the two sides of the argument. They are, in their own small minds, being more scientific than you, because of their "skeptical" nature. To me this is no different than an Atheist ruling out the possibility of God, or a biblical literalist ruling out the possibility that Evolution was God's method of creation. Their 'a priori' ideals have no possibility of being defeated by an 'a posteriori' addendum to Man's knowledge.

People tend call this sort of thing 'skepticism', but it is really blind pessimism. I can't prove that Jesus existed, but neither can anyone prove that Shakespeare existed. Darwin could simply have been an invention of a Humanist/Communist conspiracy to destroy all religion!!! We rely on written and oral tradition for everything outside of our own personal experience, whether it be the Torah or The Origin of Species.

Unless you know everything, you have to admit that your universal model is incomplete. Again, I don't see a vs. here, unless it is imposed by lack of imagination or prideful inflexibility. Both sides should readily agree on the possibility that they don't know everything, and then go believe whatever the smurf they want to.

Sorry to interrupt...but would you guys mind if I copied this entire thread and published it as a book, entitled "Creation vs. Evolution: Seen through the eyes of ordinary people". If I get rich, I'll give you all a smurf.

You could put it into the 'Ten most interesting threads from the WC message board' collection. (Along with the 'Uzee' thread (any of them) and 'Musical Vision!'

Yeah I like musical vision thread.


anyway, I think we should be discussing how the two can actually work together.

I'm telling you guys:

Creat-LU-tion.

Or Crevolution. Maybe Evo-reation?

Baker,

Not to mention the Flat Earth Society

That said, I do have a minor quibble with your philosophical position.

While I agree that the body of knowledge that we accept is primarily founded on an acceptance of authority, I do still stand by the argument that we can, *in principle* replicate the results of most of that body of scientific knowledge ourselves. Yes, *in practice* such replication is difficult, cumbersome, and often outside of the scope of our abilities at any given time. But the in principle part is still important. The ability to make an empirical argument for the biggest part of our body of knowledge provides a meaningful foundation for any rational mind. And yes, I do consider such people as the flat earth society and the moon landing hoax proponents (among others) to be irrational. I accept their right to be irrational, and it may be a world view that provides the most comfort to them, but there really is some mental disconnect there.

I can make an empirical argument for the proposition that you are posting to this thread using a computer and keyboard (to pick a trivial case), while you may argue that you are directly manipulating the content using only your mind powers. I may not be able to convince you of my position, but the odds are staggeringly in my favor of having the correct interpretation.

The truth behind the core of our scientific viewpoint can be measured by, and supported by, the results we get from them. I don't have to be able to directly sense electromagnetic radiation to know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they do exist. It isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of inference.

As we get to the fuzzier subjects (history, natural selction theory of evolution, etc.), the empirical chain of argument *does* rely on greater levels of acceptance of *authority* (and there are valid arguments about the validity of some authority) and interpretation.

Nonetheless, I tend to reject any nihilistic view of knowledge. The epistemological pursuit of what constitutes how to distinguish between inadequate knowlege and adequate knowledge is my particular preferred mechanism for identifying what knowledge to accept and what to reject or modify. Fundamentally, I believe (and I know you're going to ping me for using that word ) that there are meaningful mechanisms for determining a basal truth in the body of our knowledge base.

*ping*

" ...we can, *in principle* replicate the results of most of that body of scientific knowledge ourselves."

True, but does that always matter? The universal 'What goes up, must come down' seems solid enough. I might say, "Stand with a ball in your outstretched hand, release it." You could test it over and over, with or without a control group, and it would always work just the way I say. It is the interpretation that is flawed. Something tested over and over with the same effect here might result in a totally different outcome somewhere else, or from a different understanding of the test itself. 'Common Sense' has never recovered from Newton.

Modern science and modern religion are based on many layers of *highly* interpreted data, which are based on previous rules of interpretation. Each level of abstraction loosens the philosophical truth tolerance a bit. Discussions of this ferocity happen within churches and educational institutions, between people of like mind. Each side projects a firm chain of evidence outwardly, but among their peers they disagree on many individual links. They, too, have faith that their chain is solid, even though they don't yet agree on the interpretation of the links.

"I can make an empirical argument for the proposition that you are posting to this thread using a computer and keyboard..."

Of course. If you can, you come see if I am lying or misled about my swooby mental powers . Sadly, though, as a witness, you have become part of the experiment. Anyone removed from the occurrence in space or time will reference you as data that must then itself be interpreted. What you have gained is personal, factual knowledge of a single occurrence. What you have given the world is another perspective they may or may not choose to believe. Granted, these witnesses add up in time. In terms of evolution and religion, though, people tend to say "Nothing of the sort has ever been, or ever shall be, possible." This goes far deeper, and taints the whole thing, regardless the results of any one test.

I keep seeing a relative of mine on TV since it is Halloween. A member of csicop, he goes and 'debunks' X-Files style phenomenon. He used to carry a 'bologna detector' to balance all the equipment the paranormal people brought. My opinions would jive with his pretty well. The difference, I think, is that I see them as opinions.

P.S. for anyone interested, and who can stand a manly dose of pessimism with their skepticism, their site is here: http://www.csicop.org/

[Message Edited]

...and a really, really applicable piece currently featured on CSICOP for all you "brights", It lends a bit of understanding to why these discussions are so chaotic, I think.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/brights/

Gotta love the last line:

"I'm not sure, but I do know one thing -- something that we all learned in high school. The "bright" kids aren't always the ones with the most friends, and nobody -- nobody -- likes a smart ass."

Really?

Yes, its not 100% accurate. You said it yourself in your post "and therefore produces dates that have smaller standard errors than the conventional method." It is still just a guess.

No, wrong. Science has left that attitude behind a hundred years ago. Living things are made of non-living things. Energy can be stored in non-living, or even apparently non-energetic materials, like combinations of acids and metals to make a battery. The Sun is not alive, and it is the source of our energy, our life, nothing would live here without it. Particles spawn from apparently nothing in situations bordering on the impossible (nature abhors a vacuum). As for life, Carbon is the basis for life on earth, a non-living material. Your DNA are chemicals, you are made of metals, water, non-living compounds. The vitamins you take in are minerals, acids, metals carried by other living things. You can be rendered down to find that you are made of 100% non-living material. A nickel's worth of zinc stands between you and insanity. Is a galvanized bucket alive? Actually a great deal that isn't alive contributes to life, and living things are made of non-living material. You have taken the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy and wrongly twisted it to mean something that it doesn't. There is a lot in nature that forms spontaneously from diverse parts, both alive and not. An atheist would call it chance, a Creationist would call it design, but to act like it doesn't happen is blindness. Sorry to be harsh, but I would stick to cut and paste.

My mistake. I wasn't thinking small enough (atoms and the like). I was picturing a rock into an animal. As for spontanious appearances of things, I was referring to evolutions beginning, which I stated in parentheses; "Think of 'the beginning' when there was absolutely nothing (in evolution).. Can something spawn from nothing?" When there was only space. No gravity, no matter, no energy, nothing at all. Then big bang or slowly into existence?

If science has been wrong in the past, isn't there a chance its still wrong? This has been said by me before, sorry, but the earth. Today we know it to be round. Hundreds of years ago, we knew it to be flat. Before that, the Bible said it was round (Isaiah 40:22). Or some of the silly things, like toads will give you warts, or cow saliva will grow a bald mans hair back. We look back at those things and laugh... Will the next generation look back at modern science and also laugh?

If I have one problem with Watchtower literature, it is the knack they have of doing that. I respect, for instance, your right to believe that blood transfusions are wrong, but the 'scientific' material used to support it is dubious at best. Why make belief into science? Why do you need to make something spiritually true to you, physically true to everyone else; unless it is just to prove every one else wrong?

What scientific material are you speaking of? There are dieseases and the body rejecting the blood, it can also affect the immune system. I have no specific data facts on these, but they do happen. Whether our scientific material is true or not isn't our fault, but the scientists that we get this material from. You must also keep in mind, if its an older issue, that science hasn't always been correct and still may also not be correct.

If either side of the argument should see anything about me in this discussion, it is that I *despise* people portraying belief as "Fact". If you want to believe in Creation, or the wrongness of some modern medicine, then you have my full support in doing so. Don't, though, try to twist science to validate your subjective beliefs.

That is what you're doing... Portraying your beliefs as "fact". Remember, evolution is only a theory. To you its a fact. For you it may be like "how can he not see?" To me, creation is a fact and to me "how can he or she not see?" You and I present our facts. If everyone knew the truth, there wouldn't be this discussion.
On blood, you can't say there are no risks involved in transfusions. You can't say there are no after-affects. Thats one reason why we don't accept blood transfusions, because its unsafe. Its like when people used to put cocaine in certain medicines.

Sorry, but that's a specious statement. When you say 'defies all logic', who's logic are you talking about? Where do you draw the line between living and nonliving? We've created amino acids from simple compounds (without using an existing lifeform to create it). And while an amino acid may not be categorizable as living in the strictest sense, it is certainly one of the components of a living system. Additionally, DNA is essentially a polymeric chain composed of a sequence of 4 different molecules (ACTG) in varying combinations. None of those component molecules, in and of themselves, can be strictly defined as living (even the DNA molecule itself is not technically alive, it encodes the information required to produce the compounds that eventually take on the obvious aspects of life, eg. us and plants and animals, etc.).

I've not heard of the amino acid thing, but there is bacteria everywhere which is a possibility in why you got the acids. Is it possible to have a completely 'controlled environement'?

Your argument is a strawman. No evolutionary scientist is arguing that something came from nothing. All of the atomic and molecular chemical precursors existed and can be legitimately argued to form the foundation of the formation of life.

But what are their orgins? How did they 'come to be'?

Bad. if I want to have someone quote bible verses at me i will go to church, not WC. No offence of course.

Understood. I don't think of myself like other religions, but to you guys and gals, i'm sure we all look the same. Blabbering about nothing. The reason why I quote the Bible versus it to prove that what I say before the verse, is from the Bible.

None taken.

r3fr: Perhaps (as Jafo put it earlier in this thread) God created evolution...

I believe that my religion is the true religion, as should everyone else of their religion or beliefs. From what i've read and been taught, I find no possibility of evolution. I believe we were created and have stayed the same. Humans as humans, cats as cats, dogs as dogs.

If we are going to talk about written books that where cast down for us to read from God as fact, it is hard to prove. I can believe all I want in God and the Bible, I nor anyone here can prove any statement in there is specicifally God's word. Its called faith.

I see your point, Joe. That man are prone to make mistakes and somewhere along the line we might have made a mistake in translating the Bible. As for my point, God has made sure that his word has survived to this day for us to be taught the truth accurately, letting nothing get in his way. To have faith, we must know God and to know God, we must have accurate knowledge about him. The only way to gain that knowledge is from the Bible. God will guide those trying to gain that knowledge.

Strangely enough, most religious people will answer that statement I made above by quoting something from the Bible as fact instead of useing the Bible as a guide (as it is really intended I believe) to some physical evedence or worked out theory. Any book written well has references to others. I beleive the Bible (as well as some others) are written for faith not provability.

True, the Bible is a great guide book. It provides guidence for marriage mates, for times of distress, raising children and many other problems/situations. But if nothing in the Bible is taken as fact, then we cannot believe that Jesus was a great teacher and walked the earth. We cannot believe in a resurrection, or in a paradise earth. We cannot believe that the wicked will be destroyed and all imperfections will be done away with. And also, we cannot believe in God or his purpose. We cannot draw close to God. We cannot believe in the prophecies. What kind of guides are those?
Though you're correct in saying the Bible is a guide book, it also has facts. It mentions actual cities, people and places with dates. (The Bible endures as true forever.—Isa. 40:8; John 17:17; 1 Pet. 1:25.)Though everything in the Bible isn't to be taken literally, such as the rich man and Lazarus account. The Bible tells us how to get everlasting life.

“Look out: perhaps there may be some man that will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.” (Col. 2:8, NW)

Not to mention the Flat Earth Society

I have a friend who met someone that believes the earth is flat... possibly in that society Cheesy. Yes.

My mistake. I wasn't thinking small enough (atoms and the like). I was picturing a rock into an animal.

Then how about a man out of a lump of clay? (As it says in the Bible)

R3fr: "That is what you're doing... Portraying your beliefs as "fact". Remember, evolution is only a theory."

Perhaps you came late. Feel free to look back at any of my other posts and correct me if I ever espoused evolution as fact. I have spent a lot more time fencing with the atheists than the other side in this discussion.

I shift to you because you post scripture as though it *means* something to those with opposing opinions. Naysayers will react the same as you do to carbon dating. You don't give them any reason to believe it, they must just accept it as fact. If you want to change minds, work from their definition of the world, not the one they have already publicly rejected. Doctrine is the problem for these people, not the solution.

**

As far as blood transfusions, they save millions of lives per year. Very little subjectivity involved in that statement. I have had them myself, and without them I would be dead. It is difficult for me to fathom the 'wrongness' of my continued existence. Almost everyone I know has been given blood that wasn't theirs in one form or another, and I don't know anyone that has had complications. Not to say it doesn't happen, but one must weigh possibilities with certainties.

Cars kill a great many more people than transfusions, so why pick and choose modern health threats? It is because the *science* aspect of the Jehovah's Witness material on transfusions is just a means of validating a biblical *belief* about transfusion. One that gives them a lot of bad press. As I said, this is what I really don't like, calling something fact when it is just belief. A dangerous belief in this case.

Someday, there may well be a discovery that allows us to never use transfusions. I am open to the possibility. In the meantime, if you choose to pass on a transfusion to your own mishap, it is your right. When this 'science' sways people, or their children, to die without transfusions, though, there is no accountability on the part of the Watchtower organization. I find the act of authoritatively promoting that kind of risk with no accountability quite distressing, especially shrouded under the guise of 'science'.


[Message Edited]

Gotta love the last line:"I'm not sure, but I do know one thing -- something that we all learned in high school. The "bright" kids aren't always the ones with the most friends, and nobody -- nobody -- likes a smart ass."

Yes, its not 100% accurate. You said it yourself in your post "and therefore produces dates that have smaller standard errors than the conventional method." It is still just a guess

How did I not expect anything more coming from you.....