[stone monkey]

The Culture's not even close. A number of sf authors refer to the science of post-Singularity entities as "Applied Theology"...

[Illuyankas]

Just pulling an example of a benign possiblity out of a hat. Personally, I can't wait.

[stone monkey]

Anyway...back on topic...Sort of.

I think the main things that really bother the fundies about evolution as a theory are:

a) It's such a good fit for the observed evidence.
It's so easy to understand.

If it was hard to understand they could ignore it as so much ivory tower science but because anyone with even half a brain can get, at least, a handle on it they see it as a threat to their hegemony.

[cauthon]

Stone, I think that everybody is entilted to believe as he or she sees fit. Some believe in evolution others in creation. Sometimes, I think that people denying the existance of a god simply would not like yielding to him/her, or obey his/her laws. But then again, that's my opinion.

[Kallor]

OMG ... what can i say? i couldn't even finish listening to that crap ... the creationist has a creation-inspired dinosaur park ... lmao ... the guy should be selling snake oil ... this kind of argument does not ever occur in canada ... does it happen in other (western) countries or is it limited to america? ... and if so, does america's puritan roots blind it to certain truths?

[Dave]

A question about the Great Flood, for those who believe in it, which is sort-of related to evolution vs creation. As noted by Dough Boy in the contradictions thread:

Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth, some in Siberian cliffs, others in Siberian and Alaskan ice. In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating they died suddenly. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously.

My question is this: if all animal life was created on the same creative day, and if most if not all of these animals survived until the time of the Great Flood, then why don't we have all these lions, tigers, bears, etc mixed up with all sorts of animals that the evolutionists believe became extinct thousands of years beforehand (dinosaurs, for example). Why was the disaster selective? Why are fossil layers so stratafied, without, say, a modern rabbit turning up in the pre-cambrian layer?

If all these fossils were created during the Great Flood, couldn't we expect to find the largest fossil remains at the bottom, proceeding to smaller and smaller fossils towards the top layer? I don't think evolutioonary theory really relies on dating methods, when the stratafication of fossil layers is so evident, and there are distinct differences in the life forms found in each layer.

[D Man]

I've asked that question many times, baphomet.

Expect it to be ignored, evaded, twisted and otherwise not answered.

Edit: I'm pretty sure I asked it in this thread, actually. Scan through and see if you get a better answer than me!

[cauthon]

@baphomet: A good question. I'm not sure, but a possible explanation might be this. A creative day can take as long as was required. The bible does not say if that is 24 hours, one year, a 1000 years, a million years, ... But clearly, the period must have lasted quite some time, in order for life to spread across the globe. Why then cannot certain species get extinct years before others do? Perhaps God preferred that animals turned the world into a habitable place, instead of snapping his fingers to make it happen. Who knows what tasks those extinct species may have fulfilled.

On the other hand, if the stratafication contains the evolution of species in the layers, why then are there no gradual changes found?

[Cause]

Cauthon: what you describe to baphomet is excactly what evolution is. what than is the problem.

Also just to bring in some jewish ideas. The hebrew word for day as used in genesis is used several times elsewhere in the torah. Its meaning is awlays taken to mean day. A period of twenty four hours. Their are several other hebrew words in the bible however which mean undisclosed periods of time. A day as used in genesis has therfore alwasy been taken to mean a period of literal 24 hours.

However to provide the counter side. I recently heard a lecture by Dr shroeder the author of genesis and the big bang. I went curius to see what he had to say about science matching biblical creation. He put forward an argument based on einsteins theory of reletivity. The idea that time is measured diffrently from diffrent places or places moving at diffrent speeds. It seems ,according to him at least, (I have not had time to check it out but I will) that according to this theory if times is mesured from the epicentre of the big bang and what with the universe expaning a phenomen of time delation occurs. Meaning that while on earth billions of years have passed from this epicentre only 5 and half days have passed was the number he gave. It was intresting but too short a lecture to go into the details of it and I was not the only one present but as I said I hope to check it out. I will let you know more if your inrested.

As to your question on strata can you explain it a bit better. Im not sure I understand what you mean

[rlfcl]

this video was too funny not to put in this thread

did you think that picture of 4 successively taller monkeys and a man was harmless or even erotic? well you're wrong, it was EVIL.

Darwinism = Nazism!!!

"if you read any book about the holocaust you'll come across the word selection!"

and my favourite quote: "to put it simply: no Darwin, no Hitler!"

[Cause]

Team atheist just discovered it theme song. That was brilliant.

[Dave]

cauthon;149045 said:

@baphomet: A good question. I'm not sure, but a possible explanation might be this. A creative day can take as long as was required. The bible does not say if that is 24 hours, one year, a 1000 years, a million years, ... But clearly, the period must have lasted quite some time, in order for life to spread across the globe. Why then cannot certain species get extinct years before others do? Perhaps God preferred that animals turned the world into a habitable place, instead of snapping his fingers to make it happen. Who knows what tasks those extinct species may have fulfilled.

I disagree with the idea that a creative day can be any given length of time, and have had a very lengthy argument with another JW at another message board (the Doctor Who Club of Australia board) about this topic, which resulted in me arguing purely from the biblical text and him mostly relying on science; something I found (and find) quite amusing.

When the word 'day' is used in the 'back in the day' sense, the context provides the modification of meaning of the word. Looking at the context of the Genesis 1 passage, I don't think the writer could have used any more contextual cues to suggest 24 hour days than he does. We see the division of light and dark, with light called day, and dark called night (Gen 1:4-5). Then we have every day, but for the last (which is a special case in the passage) ending with "And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, a xth day" (New World Translation). This suggests very strongly, to me, a literal day. I know morning and evening can both also have alternate meanings, but the context here doesn't support that usage in this passage.

The last day is a special case because nothing was created on that day and it's described as a special day. Suggesting this day continues to today I find ludicrous because that undermines the whole idea of the Sabbath Day. The actual NWT text (Gen 2:3): "And God proceeded to bless the seventh day and make it sacred, because on it he has been resting from all his work that God has created for the purpose of making." If God's still resting, and has been since creation, He can't have had a hand in Jesus' birth, IMO. And by specifying 'the seventh day', the context is most strongly supportive of the 24 hour variety of day.

My JW friend at DWCA resorted to stating that because the text didn't specify 24 hours, it doesn't mean a literal day. He also claimed this wasn't an interpretation of the text made after recent scientific studies; that it wasn't an interpretation at all, it's what the Bible says. All of which I find to be fairly dubious reasoning. I'm pretty sure early Jewish culture didn't divide the day into 24 hours, and his take (and any take) on the Bible is an interpretation.

I used to believe the Bible literally, and I know it very well. I enjoy these kinds of arguments. Of course, I was a 'false christian' (do you JW people realise how offensive that term is?) not a follower of 'The Faith' (which is how JW's refer to their own religion amongst themselves, to convince themselves it's not a religion, and similar to what many evangelical christians do when they state they have a 'relationship with christ', not a religion. To an external observer, it all looks like religion, smells like religion, etc.)

Forgive the deviation from topic, please, mods, I'll get back to evolution/creation now.

cauthon;149045 said:

On the other hand, if the stratafication contains the evolution of species in the layers, why then are there no gradual changes found?

How could you see a gradual change in a fossil? A fossil's structure is permanent, it's not going to change. There's quite a bit of evidence for gradual change in the fossil record, like feathered dinosaurs and the evolutionary tree of the modern horse is quite complete (http://en.wikipedia....n_of_the_horse), but if you choose not to accept that this evidence suggests gradual change, then that's your choice. No amount of evidence or argument will change that choice.

[stone monkey]

Re: Dr Shroeder,the Big Bang and Relativity... Hahahahaha! That's actually really funny. It's always amusing to watch people completely missing the point of something.
For those who think I'm overstating the case, that particular hypothesis is wrong in two completely different ways.

1) The whole point of the Standard Model (and why it explains the expansion of the observable universe) is that there was NO spatial centre to the Big Bang. Everything's retreating from everything else.

2) In order for less local time to have happened at the "epicentre" of the Big Bang (Sorry, the ridiculousness of that statement still makes me laugh;) ) than has been perceived here on Earth then it's the frame of reference of this mythical epicentre that has to be retreating from our frame of reference at a high fraction of the speed of light not the otherway round.

The upshot of all of this is that if you want to keep both the Standard Model of the Big Bang and Special Relativity (and BTW; you do, because they both work pretty well and I suspect Shroeder knows this which is why he's trying to cheat) then Shroeder's "epicentre" will be retreating at approx. c from all of the universe at once which means it really doesn't matter how much time has taken place there, because the entirety universe will then definitely be 13 billion (or so) years old in its own frame of reference. Which is, of course, the only one that counts...

Which I suppose show that if you're going to try and bend real science to Creationist purposes, you should at least make sure you understand it first...

[Cause]

Thanks Stone if we can Ill like to discuss it with you later. Perhaps by pm or msn. whatever suits you if it does.

I actually asked why god would date the torah using a clander irrevelant to all man. And he answered 'my ways are not your ways'. Whenever I hear that line I feel cheated. Its such a cop out as to be ridiculous.

[D Man]

Kallor;148548 said:

OMG ... what can i say? i couldn't even finish listening to that crap ... the creationist has a creation-inspired dinosaur park ... lmao ... the guy should be selling snake oil ... this kind of argument does not ever occur in canada ... does it happen in other (western) countries or is it limited to america? ... and if so, does america's puritan roots blind it to certain truths?

In the developed world such retardedness is a mainly yank thing. Statistically, anyway.

I know quite a few literal creationists here in the UK, but its got nowhere near the level of visibility it does in the states. More of an underground clan of happy-clappys that are loud in person, but disorganised and way in the minority.

[Cause]

Have any of you checked out some of the evolution vs creation videos on you tube. They are in the related content box. They even quote our beloved Dr Hovind.

Basically the show speaks of a conspiracy by a minority of scientists to present evolution as fact when its not. Most scientists know the truth. What gets me angry is that the excact opposite is true when they say such outright lies on tv. Worse is that its allowed to be said.

My favrouite part, and forgive me I forget the excact words, but the host of the show says people of forgot to use their own minds in judging what sounds plausible or not. For too long we have trusted people with a dr infront of their name and a white lab coat on matters of science. Whilst its true science does not advacate believing blindly what a person says few are more qualified than scientists tos peak about science I would think. Especially odd since the quote came minutes after she used Dr hovind (hes a reall dr apparently) as a proof.

[Ivan the terrible]

Hey, havn't been around in a while, and i don't wanna read all 22 pages, but it seems that everyone is focusing on the incompatibility of the two doctrines. Specifically science/atheism Vs Creationism/religion but no seems to mention that they are quite compatible; one of my philosophy lecturers is a Catholic priest who just taught a course on evolution. Just thought i would mention it as this thread seems to become an exchange of ridicules

[D Man]

Cause;149496 said:

Have any of you checked out some of the evolution vs creation videos on you tube. They are in the related content box. They even quote our beloved Dr Hovind.

Basically the show speaks of a conspiracy by a minority of scientists to present evolution as fact when its not. Most scientists know the truth. What gets me angry is that the excact opposite is true when they say such outright lies on tv. Worse is that its allowed to be said.

The shear magnitude, the audacity, the blatentness of this lie never fails to amaze me.

Saying shit like that they have to know that most of their audience

A: believe any garbage they say
B: Know nothing about science

Liars and propagandists. Its depressing that so many people look to these preachers as a first recourse for information on science (and, indeed, everything else), and then look at scientists as liars because the liars said that scientists lie about science.

And, yes, they get away with it! Incredible.

I'm not sure whats worse though: lying on such a scale or blindly accepting whatever youre told...You decide!