Creation Theory vs. Evolution Theory
-
Chris Losinger wrote: read Jay Steven Gould. it's simple. crap. Chris Losinger wrote: ask the AIDS virus, or staphlococus, or any of the other dozens of critters man is driving into antibiotic resistance about competitive mutations. They mutate in response to a threat in the form of an antibiotic. That is how immunisations work as well, they make you sick enough for your body to become immune. That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. The eye example is simply evolution over a much much longer span of time. It isn't like the eye just appeared one day.
-
Brit wrote: There are plenty of ways a species could benefit from an non-fully functioning eye. You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
No, it doesn't. It could start as photo-sensitive tissue.
-
Brit wrote: There are plenty of ways a species could benefit from an non-fully functioning eye. You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
Christian Graus wrote: You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Given its current design. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
Christian Graus wrote: They mutate in response to a threat in the form of an antibiotic you give far too much credit to that which is nothing more than a string of RNA. Christian Graus wrote: That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. uh huh. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917Chris Losinger wrote: you give far too much credit to that which is nothing more than a string of RNA. And you give far too much credit to the idea that a living thing can change itself at will. You're saying that diseases would become immune to our antibiotics even if we had not subjected them to them ? Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
Oh, man.... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) All these jerks are doing is looking for holes in our explanation of teh univers and using them to justify their silly religious beliefs. What they don't understand is that real science does not claim to explain everything. It simply provides a way to learn what the explanations are. And it recognizes that this is an iterative process. Here's my 30-second rebuff of creationism: You're using a comnputer, right? This computer is build using transistors. Transistors are engineered devices that make use of our understanding of quantum physics... specifically, that electrons can only have certain energy levels. Another thing we learn from quantum physics is that light wavelengths are also quantized. Each element emits its own specific wavelength, which we see as color (for those elements that emit in the visible wavelengths, of course.) The wavelengths in between these quantized wavelengths simply can't be produced. When we look up at the stars, we see that all stars emit wavelenths that are just a little redder than the "possible" wavelengths. This indicates that these stars are moving away from us, at varying speeds. By measuring the difference in wavelengths, we can tell how fast the stars are mving.. and it turns out that, by extrapolating backwards, we can see that all of the starts were in the same place, approximately 15 billion years ago. So this leaves us with three possible conclusions: 1) The universe was created 15 billion years ago 2) The universe was created at some other time, and the stars were set moving in some supernatural way. Which seems more likely? I'd love to be able to respond to the stuff in your message, but my training is in electronics, not geology.
Jim A. Johnson wrote: What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. Ok, that whole paragraph was rather insulting, but i'll let it slide. I do suggest that you find a dictionary and read the entry for the word 'theory'. Jim A. Johnson wrote: Which seems more likely? Ah, well that's the rub though, isn't it? No matter how involved an explanation you come up with, it doesn't mean jack shit until someone believes it. In any case, how is when the Universe was created relevant?
Shog9 --
Maybe Java is kind of like God, it "works in mysterious ways". It seems like your apps are running slowly, because in the backgroud Java is solving world hunger, or finding the cure to cancer. - Ryan Johnston, Don't die java!
-
Oh, man.... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) All these jerks are doing is looking for holes in our explanation of teh univers and using them to justify their silly religious beliefs. What they don't understand is that real science does not claim to explain everything. It simply provides a way to learn what the explanations are. And it recognizes that this is an iterative process. Here's my 30-second rebuff of creationism: You're using a comnputer, right? This computer is build using transistors. Transistors are engineered devices that make use of our understanding of quantum physics... specifically, that electrons can only have certain energy levels. Another thing we learn from quantum physics is that light wavelengths are also quantized. Each element emits its own specific wavelength, which we see as color (for those elements that emit in the visible wavelengths, of course.) The wavelengths in between these quantized wavelengths simply can't be produced. When we look up at the stars, we see that all stars emit wavelenths that are just a little redder than the "possible" wavelengths. This indicates that these stars are moving away from us, at varying speeds. By measuring the difference in wavelengths, we can tell how fast the stars are mving.. and it turns out that, by extrapolating backwards, we can see that all of the starts were in the same place, approximately 15 billion years ago. So this leaves us with three possible conclusions: 1) The universe was created 15 billion years ago 2) The universe was created at some other time, and the stars were set moving in some supernatural way. Which seems more likely? I'd love to be able to respond to the stuff in your message, but my training is in electronics, not geology.
then explain the blueshift phenomenon. Also the fact that in order for the big bang theory to work, angular momentum would have been required. if the big bang actually occured as you suggest, the particles form the big bang woudl have moved outward at a constant velocity and never combined to form stellar gas clouds of hydrogen and helium unless acted upon by angular momentum. It woudl have taken angular momentum to create the universe as we know it. Are the laws of physics supposed to simply stop working because the big bang said so??
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
-
Brit wrote: The genetic evidence alone gives Evolution enough strength to stand on its own. You mean the evidence of code reuse on the part of our programmer ? It proves nothing either way as far as I am concerned. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
I'm not talking purely about genes found in one species are found in another, but rather, silent mutations which appear only appear in one branch (which can only be explained by saying God created each species from another existing species with some modification), by broken genes which appear in one branch of life, but not another. And when species are separated by distance, they form completely different methods to accomplish the same task (what? God doesn't reuse genes now?). For example, fish near the north pole and south pole use completely different genes to form "antifreeze" which prevents their bodies from freezing in the water. When you look at the evidence for a chromosome fusion event between chimps an humans, you quickly conclude that either God did some quirky things while making human chromosomes or God never made them at all. Or the fact that 98% of a human's DNA is never used. It's junk. If you were a "master programmer" you would never create humans with all the crap DNA that is there. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
Oh, man.... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CREATION THEORY. What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. In other words, they started with the theory, then went in search of facts to supprt it, rather than the other way around (which is how the scientific method works.) All these jerks are doing is looking for holes in our explanation of teh univers and using them to justify their silly religious beliefs. What they don't understand is that real science does not claim to explain everything. It simply provides a way to learn what the explanations are. And it recognizes that this is an iterative process. Here's my 30-second rebuff of creationism: You're using a comnputer, right? This computer is build using transistors. Transistors are engineered devices that make use of our understanding of quantum physics... specifically, that electrons can only have certain energy levels. Another thing we learn from quantum physics is that light wavelengths are also quantized. Each element emits its own specific wavelength, which we see as color (for those elements that emit in the visible wavelengths, of course.) The wavelengths in between these quantized wavelengths simply can't be produced. When we look up at the stars, we see that all stars emit wavelenths that are just a little redder than the "possible" wavelengths. This indicates that these stars are moving away from us, at varying speeds. By measuring the difference in wavelengths, we can tell how fast the stars are mving.. and it turns out that, by extrapolating backwards, we can see that all of the starts were in the same place, approximately 15 billion years ago. So this leaves us with three possible conclusions: 1) The universe was created 15 billion years ago 2) The universe was created at some other time, and the stars were set moving in some supernatural way. Which seems more likely? I'd love to be able to respond to the stuff in your message, but my training is in electronics, not geology.
But what if God simply created everything in an expanding state - mid flight, with the starlight from the receeding galaxies already distributed as we observe it, with the correct doppler shifted wavelength and everything? "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
right. since our life span is ~70 years, evolution cannot be real. -c
To explain Donald Knuth's relevance to computing is like explaining Paul's relevance to the Catholic Church. He isn't God, he isn't the Son of God, but he was sent by God to explain God to the masses.
/. #3848917If Evolution is not a faith, why are people so irrational when discussing it ? I did not say that makes it untrue, I said that makes it unobservable. That is true if it is a correct theory or not. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
I'm not talking purely about genes found in one species are found in another, but rather, silent mutations which appear only appear in one branch (which can only be explained by saying God created each species from another existing species with some modification), by broken genes which appear in one branch of life, but not another. And when species are separated by distance, they form completely different methods to accomplish the same task (what? God doesn't reuse genes now?). For example, fish near the north pole and south pole use completely different genes to form "antifreeze" which prevents their bodies from freezing in the water. When you look at the evidence for a chromosome fusion event between chimps an humans, you quickly conclude that either God did some quirky things while making human chromosomes or God never made them at all. Or the fact that 98% of a human's DNA is never used. It's junk. If you were a "master programmer" you would never create humans with all the crap DNA that is there. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
Brit wrote: If you were a "master programmer" you would never create humans with all the crap DNA that is there. *ahem* Those are the comments...
Shog9 --
Maybe Java is kind of like God, it "works in mysterious ways". It seems like your apps are running slowly, because in the backgroud Java is solving world hunger, or finding the cure to cancer. - Ryan Johnston, Don't die java!
-
then explain the blueshift phenomenon. Also the fact that in order for the big bang theory to work, angular momentum would have been required. if the big bang actually occured as you suggest, the particles form the big bang woudl have moved outward at a constant velocity and never combined to form stellar gas clouds of hydrogen and helium unless acted upon by angular momentum. It woudl have taken angular momentum to create the universe as we know it. Are the laws of physics supposed to simply stop working because the big bang said so??
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
John Aldrich wrote: Are the laws of physics supposed to simply stop working because the big bang said so?? Sounds like you have a lot of faith that the "laws of physics" are constant. What is that based upon? "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
Christian Graus wrote: That doesn't remotely relate to the eye example. The eye example is simply evolution over a much much longer span of time. It isn't like the eye just appeared one day.
Exactly. That's a hell of a complex thing to just come from no-where, especially as it had no use and no idea of it's function until it was finished. Why would nature favour a being with half an eye, when it did nothing ? Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
This is a very famous argument made by Creationists. But there's an explanation for this. On a sidenote, it's funny how Creationists accept the concept of half-live of Po while rejecting others. Anyway, on to the business... Yes, it's true that Po does not exist naturally in natur, but only as a shot-lived byproduct of U(238) decay. All this lead to Gentry (who is the father behind this theory) to conclude that this is hard scientific evidence for the fact that the Granite did not have an origin as slowly cooling molten rock over millions of years because if Po decayed in molten rock, it would not leave a halo. Hence it was, according to Gentry, created as a solid cooled rock. Ergo the rocks of the earth was created in less than three minutes! But, don't worry, no God is involved, the explanation is: "First, all of the granite formations in which Gentry found Po halos, all contain the mineral Myrmekite, which is a replacement mineral intergrowth. Also, while the actual granite where the Po halos are found has no evidence of U238, it is always found NEAR concentrations of U238 deposits. (Gentry 1988, p. 36). Thus, Radon is formed in the nearby U238 deposits. As gas, it moves freely through cracks in Gentry's granite rocks, which themselves have no uranium. Radon is inert, and will not chemically combine with the rock as it moves through it. That's why there's no evidence of Radon decay in the rocks. The Radon sneeks throught the rocks, inert, combining with nothing. The Radon decays into Polonium as it flows through the rock. Polonium is not inert, and forms negatively charged ions with the chemical properties of flouride and hydroxyl ions. The Granite, cooled and crystalline, is thus exposed to a constant supply of Polonium atoms which incorporate themselves chemically into the crystalline structure of the rock, and explode, forming the Polonium halos." ;P
Thank you. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
-
No, it doesn't. It could start as photo-sensitive tissue.
Why am I reminded of the start of the Holy Grail ? 'He could grip it by the husk'...... Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
Christian Graus wrote: You're missing the point. It needs several complete parts to function AT ALL. Given its current design. "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
Reverend Stan wrote: Given its current design. Design being the key word. Christian come on all you MS suckups, defend your sugar-daddy now. - Chris Losinger - 11/07/2002
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
Here's some links: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/moon_isotopes.html http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen http://lordibelieve.org/time/AgeEarthTC.htm ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
I've recently read a online book entitled "Evolution Cruncher" which deals with the scientific facts behind both the Theory of Evolution & The Theory of Creation. What I have found, however slanted given the nature of the book, is a proponderance of evidence which leads me to believe that teh creation theory holds much more scientific water than Evolution Theory. to quote on passage from the book dealing with the age of the Earth: Po-218 HALOS - AND THE ORIGIN OF GRANITE In the late 1800s, scientists began studying rocks with microscopes in order to better understand their crystals and composition. Learning how to cut rocks into thin slices, they turned their microscopes on certain rocks, especially granite,—and found small colored concentric circles inside them. It was eventually realized that these were actually spherical shells that went around a central grain in the center (something like slicing an onion through the middle, and finding circles, circles inside circles.) These circles (actually sliced sections of the spheres) were given the name, "halos." We today call them "radiohalos." (The technical term is pleochroic halos.) A radiohalo is the mark left around a particle of a radioactive substance by the radiation coming from the particle. It can only form in a solid, such as rock, since in a liquid, or in molten rock, the mark would dissipate and could not be seen. 1 - There are many polonium 218, 214, and 210 halos in granite,—in fact, careful specimen counts and extrapolations based on them reveal that there are trillions upon trillions of them in granites all over the world. 2 - The vast majority of these polonium 218, 214, and 210 radiohalos have no uranium 238 halos with them. Therefore they are primary polonium halos, and not daughter products of uranium 238. 3 - The primary polonium 218 (Po-218) halos are totally independent of radioactive parents. They are original in all rock in which they are found. There is no evidence that they were caused by uranium in the central grain or by passing uranium streams. 4 - These independent Po-218 halos develop their half-life halo in only three minutes (in other words, they only emit radiation for only a few minutes), so the radiohalos had to be in those rocks when the rocks were first brought into existence. 5 - The rock in which they are found had to be solid at the time it was brought into existence, or those halos could not form inside it within that three minutes. However, all evolutionary theories say that the earth was molten fo
What makes me sick is Creaitonists calling their half-breed "science". All their arguments are "This and that is weir with Evolution theory, so they must be wrong and we must be right". Crap, if you ask my common sense. Th230(75380) --> Ra226(1600Y) --> Rn-222 (3.8d) -> Po-218 U238 is only one possible ancestor for th-230 How fast is dissipation in molten rock? the book argues itself that it takes only minutes for the Halo to create. Just because it's molten doesn't mean it flowing around. One global event that creates a an Po218 ancestor in a fusion just in the right time before the stone did cool down is still more probable than someone taking a big can of molten granite, speading it over earth and cooling it down under 3 minutes. There was a nice quote in german - I can only repeat it from mind and the translation is weak, but here it goes: "Sure we throw stones at any ridiculous new scientific theory written by an outsider. We even throw stones at new theories written by insiders. If the theory is any good, it can stand that. The habit of Creationists throwing cotton wool balls is what confuses us."
To comply with a request by Mike Mullikin, the US will be given a break from all my statements for the duration of one week, up to and including July 17th, 2002, 19:05 MESZ
[sighist] -
then explain the blueshift phenomenon. Also the fact that in order for the big bang theory to work, angular momentum would have been required. if the big bang actually occured as you suggest, the particles form the big bang woudl have moved outward at a constant velocity and never combined to form stellar gas clouds of hydrogen and helium unless acted upon by angular momentum. It woudl have taken angular momentum to create the universe as we know it. Are the laws of physics supposed to simply stop working because the big bang said so??
It's good to see kids turning their minds to wholesum activities such as programming, instead of wasting their lives in the hedonistic disciplines of Sex, Drugs, & Rock & Roll... or Sex with Drugs, or Sex with Rocks while Rolling in Drugs, or whatever new-fangled perversions you little monsters have thought up now... [Shog9 on Kid Programmers]
the particles form the big bang woudl have moved outward at a constant velocity and never combined to form stellar gas clouds of hydrogen and helium unless acted upon by angular momentum. Or gravity. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
Jim A. Johnson wrote: What people call "creation theory" is just a lame-assed attempt to make the Biblical myth of creation seem reasonable. Ok, that whole paragraph was rather insulting, but i'll let it slide. I do suggest that you find a dictionary and read the entry for the word 'theory'. Jim A. Johnson wrote: Which seems more likely? Ah, well that's the rub though, isn't it? No matter how involved an explanation you come up with, it doesn't mean jack shit until someone believes it. In any case, how is when the Universe was created relevant?
Shog9 --
Maybe Java is kind of like God, it "works in mysterious ways". It seems like your apps are running slowly, because in the backgroud Java is solving world hunger, or finding the cure to cancer. - Ryan Johnston, Don't die java!
I do suggest that you find a dictionary and read the entry for the word 'theory'. The word 'theory' has a different meaning in science than in vernacular english. Parhaps you'd also like to question the validity of 'atomic theory' because it's "only a theory". ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
But what if God simply created everything in an expanding state - mid flight, with the starlight from the receeding galaxies already distributed as we observe it, with the correct doppler shifted wavelength and everything? "Human imagination has been sculpted by the universe within which it was born" Hmmmm...
what if he did not? Once upon a time, the call of scientific progress was not "Heureka", but "look, that's weird!". But everytime something doesn't fit now a creationist pops up and says "See - this was God!" And if something fits scinece it's "Why, god made it this way!" That's not science, that's religion. I don't want to destroy your ability to see God in any equation that leaves a small error remaining. But if you want to do science, keep god out of the equation (unless you find him scientifically - which I seriously doubt).
To comply with a request by Mike Mullikin, the US will be given a break from all my statements for the duration of one week, up to and including July 17th, 2002, 19:05 MESZ
[sighist]