PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Why Scientific Creationism?
       Science and Faith?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

and how do you determine design?  What criteria are used?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:41 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does ID presuppose that everything has a designer, or does it allow for the possibility that some things "just happened"?
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 5:44 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***and how do you determine design?  What criteria are used?***

You calculate the probability that something could occur randomly via natural processes verses that it was designed. This is really no differently than an archeologist classifying a find as having been designed.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:44 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

actually, it's quite different.  Archaeology studies human culture and artifacts.  By definition archaeology studies the designed.


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 5:48 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Does ID presuppose that everything has a designer, or does it allow for the possibility that some things "just happened"?****

Oh no. we don't think every pebble has to be designed. Or even a lot of pebbles in a given system. But if I go out in my driveway after a moning rain and find the words, "Good morning, Jerry. Aren't we pretty pebbles?" I'm going to get suspicious that someone or something did this and this did not result in the forces of nature.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 5:50 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So, let me jump ahead here a bit.  Following this discussion to what seems to me to be it's logical conclusion, you're going to say that the odds against people "just happening" are extremely small and/or zero, and therefore there must be a designer?

TQ: actually, it's quite different.  Archaeology studies human culture and artifacts.  By definition archaeology studies the designed.

Slow down there TQ.  Archeologists dig up all sorts of stuff.  They do in fact need to determine what was made be people, and what happened naturally.

(Edited by Kronus 5/6/2004 at 6:07 PM).
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:02 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

****So, let me jump ahead here a bit.  Following this discussion to what seems to me to be it's logical conclusion, you're going to say that the odds against people "just happening" are extremely small and/or zero, and therefore there must be a designer?***

Well yes, this is a fact of math. A human dermal cell contains more information than the 30 books of the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

I think it would be a little illogical to surmise that an Encycopedia would just sit down and write itself.

I know that didn't happen. I may not know exactly who did write it but I can rule out that it just randomly occurred.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:07 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know that didn't happen. I may not know exactly who did write it but I can rule out that it just randomly occurred.


Since no theory of abiogenesis proposes that a cell is spontaneously created, your argument is invalid.  What is proposed is quite different, and frankly facinating.  Look at the most recent Science News for some of the latest in amino acid formation in stellar molecular clouds.


-------
Pogge:Ē This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.Ē
Wikipedia:Ē For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).Ē
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 6:15 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, I would.

That is, of course, if you lived in a universe where printing "just happened", the same way we live in a universe where physics and chemistry just happen.  Chemicals are reacting with each other constantly, all over the universe.  The odds that something "interesting" would happen is almost 100%.  If letters and symbols could drift across paper in the same way, then I'd be amazed if the encyclopedia didn't happen.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:15 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Since no theory of abiogenesis proposes that a cell is spontaneously created, your argument is invalid.  What is proposed is quite different, and frankly facinating.  Look at the most recent Science News for some of the latest in amino acid formation in stellar molecular clouds.***

Doesn't have to be spontaneous. Spontaneous in chemistry means a reaction occurs without outside energy (usually) but amino acids are electrically attracted to one another.

Its the probabiity math involved in just the righ amino acids forming the right proteins and all of this coming together to form a primitive organism that kills this.

Besides, physicists like Redi and Chemist like Stanley Miller killed abiogenesis long ago.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:24 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***That is, of course, if you lived in a universe where printing "just happened"***

Fine, but we dont. <:0)
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:26 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
TQ

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Its the probabiity math involved in just the righ amino acids forming the right proteins and all of this coming together to form a primitive organism that kills this.

What is the probability that you would be born?  If even one of your ancestors was killed before they reproduced, *poof*, nor Jerry-Don_Bauer.  Yet here you are.  It's a miracle!
Another example: what are the chances I'll win the lottery?  What are the chances someone will win the lottery?


-------
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it) but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
 


Posts: 234 | Posted: 6:47 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 6:26 PM on May 6, 2004 :
***That is, of course, if you lived in a universe where printing "just happened"***

Fine, but we dont. <:0)



Exactly.  That's why I believe that people just happened, but the encyclopedia didn't.  Get it?

 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 6:56 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

TQ: Gup, do you not find it telling that those three that you listed are all dead and gone about three hundred years ago?  I'm sure they also didn't believe in the moon landing, the PC, or the supersonic jet

You are so much more fun to talk with when you ask real questions instead of flaming.  It's almost refreshing.  

I don't know what those 3 men's perspective is on the moon landing, the PC, or the supersonic Jet.  You seem pretty sure - wherein does your assurance lie?  What evidence do you have?  Can you give us the quote that convinces you?

Regarding Intelligent Design - call that 'secular creationism' - that may give you a glimpse as the the idea (at least that's how I understand it).  It takes a seculuar almost agnostic view at the obvious design in nature and says 'we ain't saying it's God that did it... but it was certainly designed - we don't know by whom or what'.  

Is that the gist of it, JDM?

Kronus:  Not true.  The theory of science is that through observation and experimentation the underlying cause of phenomena can be discovered.

This is, of course a uniformitarianistic point of view - that things that are now are as they have always been.  The present is the key to understanding the past.  While we can understand the present by observing the present - we must assume that all conditions were identical for the same to be said of the past - this we have to guess at since no one was there to measure or observe the past.  

JDM: You calculate the probability that something could occur randomly via natural processes verses that it was designed. This is really no differently than an archeologist classifying a find as having been designed.

That is a very keen observation.

TQ: actually, it's quite different.  Archaeology studies human culture and artifacts.  By definition archaeology studies the designed.

As a ye-creationist, I would argue that it was all designed by God - therefore all science is the study of the designed.  Would this argument convince you?  Should your argument convince us?

JDM:  I know that didn't happen. I may not know exactly who did write it but I can rule out that it just randomly occurred.

Seems to logically fit with science to me.  After all, isn't the scientific method about excluding the impossibilities until one plausible possibility remains?

Kronus:  Chemicals are reacting with each other constantly, all over the universe.

Natural reactions are the wrong kind of reactions for life to occur.  Natural reactions are what happens when you age, or when something organic decomposes.  This is the wrong directional change for something to 'evolve' or 'come to be'.  Dr. Gary Parker (phd in biology) says that death is the triumph of chemistry over biology.

JDM:  Besides, physicists like Redi and Chemist like Stanley Miller killed abiogenesis long ago.

While I would disagree with abiogenesis, it would be inconsistant of me if I didn't point out that theories and ideas are constantly changing.  One cannot simply declare a thing dead and ignore it.  Many evolutionists argue that creationism was disproven 200 years ago - that gives them leway to ignore it as a viable theory.  Perhaps it is better to say that it has been proven greatly improbable to the point of impossibility.

BTW - please present the work of Redi and Miller that you say disproves abiogenesis.  It may be an interesting addition to the conversation.  

***That is, of course, if you lived in a universe where printing "just happened"***

Fine, but we dont. <:0)


JDM - perhaps you have never read the New York times.  If anything proves that printing 'just happens' in the universe it's that nonsensical jibberish.  

Damned liberal media.  (of course i am being silly and rhetorical)

 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 7:01 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***What is the probability that you would be born? If even one of your ancestors was killed before they reproduced, *poof*, nor Jerry-Don_Bauer. Yet here you are. It's a miracle!
Another example: what are the chances I'll win the lottery? What are the chances someone will win the lottery?***

Your dropping some logic with this posit, TQ. One cannot do probability after the fact. Thatís reversing timeís arrow.

What are the odds a random number generator will generate a complex number? 100% It will generate a number every time. So you canít hold up the number after the fact and say, ďsee, your odds are off because it just occurred.Ē

Had you sat down before the generation and written down a number for the machine to generate it may never happen. This is probability in reality.

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 7:04 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Before we go too much further, I have a small laundry list of questions.  Would you mind answering them Jerry?  It would really help frame the debate.

Do you think that the odds of people "just happening" are really really small, or exactly zero?

Are people the only designed things?  All creatures?  What about the Earth and the universe?

How old is the Earth?  4.5 billion years?  6000?  Other?

Are people the "point" of the design?  That is, are we the end product, or just one step along the way?

How is the design implemented?  Were we built from scratch the way you see us now?  Did we evolve from premordeal ooze, but with God guiding the process?  Something else?

If I missed something that you feel is important, please include it.  I find these discussion often flounder because of mistaken assumptions about what the other person is thinking, and settling these points early on should help to avoid confusion.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:06 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***That's why I believe that people just happened, but the encyclopedia didn't.  Get it?***

Yeah. But I think you're overlooking something here. In this case the people ARE the encyclopedia.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 7:07 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Before we go too much further, I have a small laundry list of questions. Would you mind answering them Jerry? It would really help frame the debate.***

Sure. And this is a very pertinent question if anyone is to really understand the subject. There is always 1 chance something can happen. Even the stark odds of dembskiís complex specified information that has been publicly well accepted as the ultimate barrier of design; there is still a 1:10^125 that something can happen.

But the deal is it WONíT happen. I forget exactly how many quarters he based that on. Someone can do the math if they want, but say 500 quarters---and that is the odds of flipping those quarters and having them all come up heads.

You have one chance in 10^125 this will happen, but the possibility of doing so in reality is zero. Because there are not anywhere near 10^125 seconds in the universe since the big bang in order for it to happen.

Before Dembski came along statisticians used the figure of 1:10^50 as the reality barrier. But, I was a chemistry major so why not just base this reality barrier on science. Once a chemical reaction has less than 1 in 10^67 chances of occurring, it will not do so in reality anywhere in the universe in 50 billion years. To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that there are only 10^80 atoms in the universe.

***Do you think that the odds of people "just happening" are really really small, or exactly zero?***

Theyíre really, really small--in fact, according to math, so small it can never happen in reality.

***Are people the only designed things? All creatures? What about the Earth and the universe?***

No, people arenít the only designed things. Sweaters, cars and motorcycles are also designed. When we consider design, we have to investigate each object or system under the guidance of the scientific method in order to know. I do know this much. All tissue is designed.

***How old is the Earth? 4.5 billion years? 6000? Other?***

I believe slightly less than 5 billion years. Thatís just my opinion. I think most Idists also subscribe to this, but certainly not all.

***Are people the "point" of the design? That is, are we the end product, or just one step along the way?***

Well, I donít know. I have beliefs in this area, but beliefs are not empirical facts.

***How is the design implemented? Were we built from scratch the way you see us now? Did we evolve from premordeal ooze, but with God guiding the process? Something else?***

Youíre asking me things I donít really know. But it seems logical to me we weíre built from scratch, then evolution took over and, according to the second law of thermodynamics, we devolved into less than perfect genomes than we were.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 7:41 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 7:07 PM on May 6, 2004 :

Yeah. But I think you're overlooking something here. In this case the people ARE the encyclopedia.



Hang on.  When did you slip into analogy here, I missed it.  I thought your initial argument was based on striaght forward, literal logic.

Encyclopedias are too complex to "just happen."
People are more complex, have more information,  than encyclopedias.
Therefore, people couldn't "just happen."

To illustrate my point, I will most definately delve into analogy.  Imagine that encyclopedias and people are the output of computer programs.  And these programs are being written by monkeys pounding on keyboards.  Now, over in the encyclopeida room, the computers are running the BookMaking OS (operating system).  You have to give really specific instructions for anything useful to happen.  And it takes a really long program to produce useful output.  And the whole program has to be written in one go with no mistakes.  Obviously, we're not expecting much from that room.

Over in the People room, they're running the BioChem OS.  With this operating system even little snippets of code are likely to do something.  And the OS saves interesting snippets of code, and mixes them with other snippets without the monkeys having to do anything.  So with the same random pounding on keys, these monkeys are much more likely to come up with something useful.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 7:54 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Hang on. When did you slip into analogy here, I missed it. I thought your initial argument was based on striaght forward, literal logic.***

Hey, youíre a good debater. Canít believe I got lucky in here the first time around.

Letís see if I can boil it down. Itís true that the DNA of a human cell contains more information than the encyclopedia. Some really bored guy calculated that. And people are constructed of these cells. So do you see my point that the people ARE the encyclopedias?

***Encyclopedias are too complex to "just happen."
People are more complex, have more information, than encyclopedias.
Therefore, people couldn't "just happen."***

This works as well because people, composed of billions of these cells, are more complex than any single human cell.

***To illustrate my point, I will most definately delve into analogy. Imagine that encyclopedias and people are the output of computer programs. And these programs are being written by monkeys pounding on keyboards. Now, over in the encyclopeida room, the computers are running the BookMaking OS (operating system). You have to give really specific instructions for anything useful to happen. And it takes a really long program to produce useful output. And the whole program has to be written in one go with no mistakes. Obviously, we're not expecting much from that room.

Over in the People room, they're running the BioChem OS. With this operating system even little snippets of code are likely to do something. And the OS saves interesting snippets of code, and mixes them with other snippets without the monkeys having to do anything. So with the same random pounding on keys, these monkeys are much more likely to come up with something useful.***

But do you really think the monkeys will ever randomly type an encyclopedia? As we delve further in into this, Iím hoping youíll see that IDists are not 8th grade drop-outs and none of this is based on creationism--just good, solid logic and math.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 8:10 PM on May 6, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JDB:  Iím hoping youíll see that IDists are not 8th grade drop-outs and none of this is based on creationism--just good, solid logic and math.

Indeed it is more than extremely logical.  If I did not have the Bible or Faith to move me in the direction of YEC (young earth creationism), ID-ism would seem the most logical to me.  

If you take away the Bible and rely strictly on the observable, I would say that ID would be the way to go.  
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:31 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***Indeed it is more than extremely logical.  If I did not have the Bible or Faith to move me in the direction of YEC (young earth creationism), ID-ism would seem the most logical to me.  

If you take away the Bible and rely strictly on the observable, I would say that ID would be the way to go.***

I also hope you understand that I'm not 'dissing' YEC. There are IDists who still embrace a young earth and it don't bother me and I won't debate them, because they may be right and me wrong. Anyway, will it make a difference in the long-run? Nah.

As an OEC, I too go by the Bible in my theology, just interpreting a bit differently.

But I keep theology within myself and only chemicals in my test tubes. ;)
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 01:41 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

As we delve further in into this, Iím hoping youíll see that IDists are not 8th grade drop-outs

I am sure (but hope) that noone thinks that.

But do you really think the monkeys will ever randomly type an encyclopedia?

If they are programmed too (instinct) then sure. I calculate the odds to be around 12:1

(Edited by Void 5/7/2004 at 05:18 AM).
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 05:16 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Morning all.
If you don't mind Jerry, I'll answer both of your above posts together.

JDB: No, people arenít the only designed things. Sweaters, cars and motorcycles are also designed

Well, yes, I knew that about the sweaters.  You say all tissue is designed.  What about single celled creatures?  And what about the Earth?  Did the designer work on that too, or did he just wait for the right raw materials to "happen" before starting work on us?  

JDB: So do you see my point that the people ARE the encyclopedias?

Not really, no.  Maybe encyclopedias are a bad example, because they're both reposetories of knowledge and constructed aritfacts.  I'm thinking of them strictly as 30 complex constructed objects.  Is your argument based on the fact that they also contain information?  Or is their information content all you care about?


JDB: ***Are people the "point" of the design? That is, are we the end product, or just one step along the way?***
Well, I donít know.

Bravo!  It is so refreshing to see someone willing to admit they don't know something.  Thank you!

JDB:  But do you really think the monkeys will ever randomly type an encyclopedia?

Before I answer that I just want to make one thing clear.  In my analogy, the people represent people, and the encyclopedias represent encyclopedias, and never the twain shall meet.  That having been said; will it never happen?  Depends on how strictly you mean never.  If you mean absolutely, positively, no way ever, than no, I won't say that.  However, if, as I suspect, you mean never in the more practical "sometime in the lifetime of the universe" than I would say it won't happen.

JDB: just good, solid logic and math.

Well, your logic is solid.  If it's impossible for people to have evolved by chance then, a'la Sherlock Holmes, whatever possibility remains(it's not chance) must be the case.  You have yet to convince me of your math though.  How can you demonstrate that people are statistically impossible?

Back to the questions: When did people happen?  You say we've devolved to our current state from our more perfect starting point.  When was that? By the way, your use of the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect.  As a chem major, you should know that entropy doesn't decrease in a closed system.  If you input energy, either from a bunsen burner or the sun, then you can decrease entropy locally.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 09:33 AM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A few musings on your responses Gup20:

Quote from Gup20
I do, indeed, accept that the Bible can be viewed in terms of some sections being historical and some being poetic. †It is often very clear which is which. †However, it is all truth. †The account of creation in Genesis, for example is clearly written in a 'matter of fact' historical tone. †There is no sensationalism or 'story telling' nature to it. †Job, on the other hand, is a play and IS written in poetic verse. †Psalms is a book of songs written by David - obvious poetic nature there.


The view that Genesis is history as opposed to poetry is not universally accepted by Christians.

Sin is still sin. †God determined what was and was not sin. †He made the rules. †God doesn't change - the rules don't change. †It's like saying a murderer or rapist is getting a raw deal cause they go to jail for their crimes. †After all - they were born that way, or they had a rough childhood - shouldn't we go easy on em? †Shouldn't we just accept them for who they are?

The bible paints the right picture - Love the sinner, Hate the sin.


Many things defined as sin in the Bible are regarded as such by Law in many countries with a Christian background. Murder/homicide/manslaughter, rape, assault and theft are a few straightforward examples. It is also quite clear why such are regarded as crimes and carry a (typically) custodial sentence for a convicted offender. However, not everything the Bible defines as sin is regarded as an offence in Law in many countries. Also, Law departs from the Biblical view that all sin is equally bad (for need of a better term).

Satan has been using humanism a lot longer than that. †We see the birth of Humanism in the garden of Eden when Satan tempts Eve. †It starts with a questioning God's word, and always ends, ultimately in disobedience to God's word. †Satan asked Eve "hath God said thou shalt not eat". †After the initial quesiton it moves to the lie/contradicition "surely god has not said". †It often involves a tempting or seemingly good result. †In this case "you shall be as God's decerning wright and wrong". †Notice that this wasn't a lie by Satan - it was thr truth - but it had dire consequences that were not revealed until the disobedience was complete. †Namely that in doing so, Adam would give away Eden, and his dominion over the earth and over Satan away, as well as life. †

Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.


So you imply humanism is the tool of Satan. An interesting relationship you propose, or should I call it a juxtapostion?

Is the implication here that religion forced this false view on the world? †I would agree. †It is not the role of religion (or christianity) to force anyone to do anything.


Is this not the very thing the Creationists are attempting to do?

The very concepts of freedom we cherish in this country come from men who were christians who had a more appropriate view. †They knew that they couldn't worship God correctly under that sort of control. †Where do you think the idea of the freedom in America comes from - it comes from the Bible. †The Bible supports the position that all persons were created equal. †That is what USA was founded on - this BIBLICAL principle. †Obviously, this truth has been lost since the founding of our country... many religous freedoms have been worn away and the ideas striped of their heritage.


I thought the USA was about offering freedom to all, regardless of their individual religous leanings? I would still appreciate some specific examples of religous freedoms that have been lost in the USA.

That is exactly what humanism does. †It tries to tear down truth and blur the line between right and wrong.


I suppose that is one way of looking at it ;)

Yes, however, I think you would agree that the USA has a great deal of influence on the rest of the world as well.


Indeed the USA does. Which is why the activities of some Creationists in the USA is such cause for concern to both people from the States and those outside of the country.

I am referring to the US (what is PRC?).


PRC= Peoples Republic of China, a country where Christians really do face persecution and opposition to the holding of their beliefs.

In the US, anti-christian organizations such as the ACLU are fighting and litigating to have monuments with religious symbols removed from all public view. †They are trying to have any reference to God or christianity removed. † Many public schools can no longer celebrate Christmas - we have to say 'winter holiday'. †The 10 commandments are removed from many public buildings - public school teachers are fired from their jobs for wearing a neclace with a cross (that person did eventually get their day in court and their job back). †The list goes on.


Out of interest, what would you say if the campaign was to have all public buildings display text/imagry of all religions worshipped in the USA?

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/7/2004 at 1:03 PM).

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/7/2004 at 2:56 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 12:50 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***If they are programmed too (instinct) then sure. I calculate the odds to be around 12:1***

Mind telling me how you came to this figure, void?

 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 2:30 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***You say all tissue is designed. What about single celled creatures?***

JDB: Certainly. That first single celled critter goes off the chart, when calculated and contrasted with a barrier.

***And what about the Earth? Did the designer work on that too, or did he just wait for the right raw materials to "happen" before starting work on us?***

JDB: I donít believe the Earth could be calculated. Of course, common sense would tell us that the universe didnít just poof itself into existence. But thatís another thread. As to the process, I wouldnít see that this could ever be known, scientifically. Therefore, I donít really muse about it. What if the designer were an astronaut rather than a deity? Either way, I would have no way of empirically knowing much.

***Is your argument based on the fact that they also contain information? Or is their information content all you care about?***

JDB: Information content is certainly one concern. Another, is calculation of that cellís probability of existence via natural processes. But, yes, I gave you the encyclopedia analogy to show the difference in information of a living cell and say, a water molecule.

***Bravo! It is so refreshing to see someone willing to admit they don't know something. Thank you!***

JDB: LOLÖIf you liked that one, then stick around because the older I get, the more I figure out how much I donít know.

***You have yet to convince me of your math though. How can you demonstrate that people are statistically impossible?***

JDB: Sure. I need to do this. I get irritated with people on both sides of this subject who seem to want to vaguely throw out posits. Let me get caught up on the posts I owe people around the Net this morning and I will start a new thread going into the science and math of origins for the forum.

***Back to the questions: When did people happen?***

JDB: I would refer you to the fossil record to answer that question. From this I can glean maybe 100,000 years or so. Please remember Iím a student of science, not a theologian. ;)

***You say we've devolved to our current state from our more perfect starting point.***

JDB: Yes, thatís the conclusion Iíve arrived at after looking at the empirical evidence.

***By the way, your use of the second law of thermodynamics is incorrect. As a chem major, you should know that entropy doesn't decrease in a closed system. If you input energy, either from a bunsen burner or the sun, then you can decrease entropy locally.***

JDB: Well, the thermodynamics of ID is my specialty. Please remember that the earth, the body nor a cell are closed or isolated systems. And while entropy can decrease locally, that doesnít extrapolate to the conclusion that it did. We have to calculate each entropic change mathematically, to precisely know what happened in each event or reaction.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 3:10 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

JDB:  Please remember that the earth, the body nor a cell are closed or isolated systems.

I'm afraid that isn't right at all.  The earth recieves a huge amount of energy from the sun,  people eat and breath, and cells absorb things from the surrounding blood (or sap, or pond, depending on the cell)  A closed system, to a thermodynamists, means nothing goes in or out.

JDB: And while entropy can decrease locally, that doesnít extrapolate to the conclusion that it did.

True, and while I do believe that it did, that's not what I was saying.  If I understood your argument, you were saying that entropy had to increase.  I was just pointing out that in an open system, that isn't true.

JDB: Please remember Iím a student of science, not a theologian. ;)

Heh.  That's what I thought, but I figured I should make sure.

JDB: I will start a new thread going into the science and math of origins for the forum.

Excellent idea.  I'm looking forward to it.
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 3:32 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR:  ... universally accepted by Christians.

Is everything in the Theory of Evoluton universally accepted by evolutionists?  Would you be willing to consider this as evidence that Evolution didn't happen?  I think not.  

People are people.  People don't always agree on everything.  It doesn't mean anything except that people don't always agree on everything.  

OR:  Also, Law departs from the Biblical view that all sin is equally bad (for need of a better term).

Technically, law doesn't depart from this, but punishment does.  Law is pretty indiscriminant.  Either you broke it or you didn't.  The punishment, however, is often measured to fit the level of the crime.  Speeding and murder are both crimes - you get very different punishments for those crimes.  

You are, however correct - to God Sin is Sin.  The Bible does mention several times that one mans sin is not greater than another's in that ALL have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.  

OR:  So you imply humanism is the tool of Satan. An interesting relationship you propose, or should I call it a juxtapostion?

I am sometimes not so good at communicating.  It was not my intention to imply that humanism was a tool of Satan.  Rather, I meant to directly state through example that humanism was the tool of Satan.  

OR:  Is this not the very thing the Creationists are attempting to do?

Not particularly.  In essence we are trying to provide a plausible alternative explanation for those who need to rationalize God in order to accept him.  We are laying the proper foundation for understanding the Bible and the message/reason for Christ.  We are doing as we were instructed in 'telling every creature the good news of Jesus Christ'.  

When you see McDonalds commercials on TV, do you get offended?  How dare the jolly clown shove their fattening food down my throat!  ??   Does McDonalds commercials mean you HAVE to eat at McDonalds?  No - they are (albeit inticingly) trying to make you aware of an alternative choice.  You ultimately have the decision to go there or not.  (I get there are obvious differences between christianity and McDonalds... this is an analogy)

OR:  I thought the USA was about offering freedom to all, regardless of their individual religous leanings?

Indeed.  Freedom is a Biblical principle.  Have you ever wondered why those in the middle east oppose it so much?  Because it is a christian principle.  Where freedom exists, Christianity flourishes.  Why?  Because people are free to make their own choice.  

OR:  I would still appreciate some specific examples of religous freedoms that have been lost in the USA.

Certainly - 'under god' being attacked for being in the pledge of alligence, 10 commandment monuments being removed all over the USA, teachers getting fired for wearing cross neclace, public christmas displays taken down, schools changing christmas holiday to 'winter holiday', chagnig easter break to 'spring break'.  Pretty much just look at the ACLU - just about everything they are doing now (in the courts) is to try to remove any and everything christian from the public square, separation of church and state construed to mean that those in public positions can't practice their religionopenly, etc.  Removal of prayer from public schools.  Removal of creationism from public schools.  

OR:  PRC= Peoples Republic of China, a country where Christians really do face persecution and opposition to the holding of their beliefs.

In Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, you are killed for being a christian.  Interestingly enough, I was reading something lately from a man who was speaking about conditions over there since the 'War on Terror' began in that country.  The man (a christian and leader of an underground church) was saying what a relief it was to have a taste of the freedom that has touched that nation since Bush sent troops there.  He said that the government has been very soft on killing christians because they are afraid of Bush.  He said it was not that way with Clinton or Bush Senior.  Here is a clear example of what I am talking about - how christianity can thrive in the instance, and because, of freedom.  

OR:  Out of interest, what would you say if the campaign was to have all public buildings display text/imagry of all religions worshipped in the USA?

I would celebrate the new found freedom.  Let people decide for themselves what they want to believe - allow them access to all the choices.  But all the religions would not be necessary - just the ones represented in that particular place or consticuancy.  Public officials have just as much a right to freedom of expressing their religion as any other citizen does.  The constituion says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the separation of church and state... it says only that the 'government shall make no laws' concerning creating a 'state religion'.  Basically - the government can't force you to believe any religion.  This has been grossly mis-interpreted to mean freedom FROM religion (again - humanistic influence there) instead of freedom OF religion.  

- I will get to the rest of you guys later... short on time at the moment.
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 6:03 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Jerry-Don-Bauer

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

***JDB: Please remember that the earth, the body nor a cell are closed or isolated systems.

I'm afraid that isn't right at all. The earth recieves a huge amount of energy from the sun, people eat and breath, and cells absorb things from the surrounding blood (or sap, or pond, depending on the cell) A closed system, to a thermodynamists, means nothing goes in or out.***

Please reread that. Iím saying they are not closed systems. They are open systems. But for the record, you described an isolated system rather than a closed one. But that is a common mistake youíll find on probably 99% of the web sites out there that discuss the matter.

An isolated system can exchange no matter or energy. This also doesnít exist in reality. Thatís just an abstract concept of chemistry.

A closed system can exchange energy but not matter. Picture an area enclosed by glass, such as a biosphere.

An open system exchanges both.
 


Posts: 47 | Posted: 6:06 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Gup20 wrote: Is everything in the Theory of Evoluton universally accepted by evolutionists? †Would you be willing to consider this as evidence that Evolution didn't happen? †I think not.

People are people. †People don't always agree on everything. †It doesn't mean anything except that people don't always agree on everything.


Well, I think all Evolutionists and old earth Geologists would agree that:

-The Earth is 4.6 billion years old, give or take a small margin of error associated with the dating technique.

-Reliable evidence of tectonic events and ancient life is found is rock formations preserved on the Earth today.

-The history of life on Earth can be described through the detailed analysis and comparison of the fossil record and the type of rocks the fossil are found in.

Sure, debate continues in the field (as in any area of science), but the basics have been established as fact.

You could also write a list of fundemental beliefs that all Christians would accept (probably!).

Now, as a comic aside the next bit you wrote gave me a bit of a laugh!

When you see McDonalds commercials on TV, do you get offended?


Yes, well no. I get annoyed. You are talking to a person who bought the "McLibel: Two worlds collide" documentary for their video collection! †

How dare the jolly clown shove their fattening food down my throat! †??


Precisely. Never trust a clown. †

Seriously though, you never see a McDonalds advert saying Burger King food is rubbish, do you? well, at least not those that avoid litigation that is.

Thats my problem with Creationism's attitude to Evolution. The Creationist advert all to often says "Evolutionists: you're wrong! we can't give you exact reasons why, but we are right!"


Anyway, thanks for your other responses. I find you are definately a dichotomy to me Gup20...

(Edited by OccamsRazor 5/7/2004 at 9:08 PM).


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 9:05 PM on May 7, 2004 | IP
Gup20

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR:  You could also write a list of fundemental beliefs that all Christians would accept (probably!).

I was going to say - does this prove or disprove evolution or creation, but I think we get it.

OR:  Thats my problem with Creationism's attitude to Evolution. The Creationist advert all to often says "Evolutionists: you're wrong! we can't give you exact reasons why, but we are right!"

Well, we have to be defensive sometimes, don't we?  With evolutionists calling us laughable and saying we are promoting 'bad science' all the time.  

Perhaps our new slogan should be 'Creationism - one third less carbs than Evolution'.  ??  Think that will get them to change their minds?

OR: I find you are definately a dichotomy to me Gup20...

Just call me 'a dic' for short - I know TQ probably does.  But seriously - I had to look up dicotomy to try to figure out of that was a veiled insult.  I think it just means we are opposites and mutually exclusive.  I can live with that.  

The grinding may be annoying, but don't you feel sharper for the wear?
 


Posts: 233 | Posted: 01:14 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
Kronus

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 6:06 PM on May 7, 2004 :
***JDB: Please remember that the earth, the body nor a cell are closed or isolated systems.

Please reread that. Iím saying they are not closed systems.


Ah, did you perhaps mean to have a "neither" before "the earth"?  That would make the rest of your post make more sense.


Quote from Jerry-Don-Bauer at 6:06 PM on May 7, 2004 :
They are open systems. But for the record, you described an isolated system rather than a closed one. But that is a common mistake youíll find on probably 99% of the web sites out there that discuss the matter.

An isolated system can exchange no matter or energy. This also doesnít exist in reality. Thatís just an abstract concept of chemistry.

A closed system can exchange energy but not matter. Picture an area enclosed by glass, such as a biosphere.

An open system exchanges both.


Ok, I'll buy that.  Most of my heat transfer, thermodynamics, and entropy studies were in the realm of engineering, and the distinction between closed and isolated was never particullarly emphasized.  I think we tended to use the word "closed" because, well, it's shorter, and engineers are always looking for shortcuts.  


 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 10:57 AM on May 8, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

OR: I find you are definately a dichotomy to me Gup20...

Gup20 wrote: Just call me 'a dic' for short - I know TQ probably does. †But seriously - I had to look up dicotomy to try to figure out of that was a veiled insult. †I think it just means we are opposites and mutually exclusive. †I can live with that. †

The grinding may be annoying, but don't you feel sharper for the wear?


I did not intend only any insult by dichotomy, and I wasn't trying to be a smart ass with fancy words (this time ) .... it just neatly summed up how I felt.

I agree though.... the debate is good!


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 1:07 PM on May 8, 2004 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

©†YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.