Evolution? How?

The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, was recently quoted as saying: "This case in Pennsylvania is going to nail the coffin shut on this whole approach to teaching intelligent design. Intelligent design will ultimately die when this case is ultimately resolved, because it will be exposed for what it is -- religious doctrine masquerading as science."

This is why the home schooling movement has taken off with such gusto. Now what happened to the original theme of this thread. It has gotten somewhat off topic again.
BTW Farmerman...what is C12 sediment? (saw it in the biodiesel thread)

wandeljw. I hope hes right. The way that all t5his stuff is getting introduced into the legislature, the reps and senators are really not helping the very thing they want to endorse. As you so cleverly outed Rep Hershey, they did introduce a lot of religious based bills on the same day, by the same dudes. Dont think that wuch introductions havent gone unnoticed by the ACLU.
Many times the best offense is to just let your oponent shoot himself in the foot. :wink:


Jack, my comment about C12 sediments were that certain long chain aliphatics with 12 or more carbons exist in deep ocean sediments from biological action. A biodiesel would create a long chain ester out of that by an alcohol process.

According to scientists a black hole has never been seen...

Yet I thought black holes were solid science! Now I find that scientists have been guessing and putting these guesses into our school textbooks... I am not saying these guesses are not "educated" but they are still guesses put forth as fact... Absolutely no different than God being taught to students...Scientists tell us that after the "big bang" all there was in the universe was hydrogen... who went back in time and tested and analyzed this to make it "science".

Are scientists the only ones permitted to guess? So the elements "evolved" too through fusion?
In order for hydrogen to mass together into a star there need to be gravity... So did gravity exist before the big bang?

What the heck is "science" when we are not sure anymore what is a guess and what is "true" science...

Just because they can model a black hole in a three dimensional program on a computer and make a cool graphic of it doesn't not mean they exist...

I think physical science (if you even want to call it "science" more like science fiction) needs an overhaul.
They say "some scientists believe" such and such... Well many more well educated people (including many scientists) believe in God too... Why shouldn't this be given some credence?

I think both disciplines deserve to be heard and should not be squashed by the other opposing theories... Until physical/evolutionary scientists can prove there is not also a "spiritual" universe then they should not be excluding "God" from their physical models of the universe... Yet they omit "God" from their speculation with no "scientific" basis to do so... Until evolutionists can prove that no part of humans whatsoever were "created" by some force/intelligence unknown, they should give some consideration to the idea...

God is not a creation of man... We are led by science to believe that rocks are dead... but then we realize they may well have "evolved" too... We consider intelligence to be an ethereal human concept but we do not realize that intelligence is quite reasonably and possibly the living God of all creation...

When a scientist speculates they call it theory...
When a christian speculates they call it religion...

RexRed, you are just plain wrong on too many points. On other points I just disagree.

Black Holes seem to be there, their influence can be measured. They cannot by definition be seen, it's why we call them black. Visible light entering the eye is not the only form of measurement we have.

They are not written into the classroom texts as "facts" they are written in as theoretically and mathematically likely.

Scientists give "consideration" to every idea presented to them. The problem is they have to apply the scientific method to test the theory and the problem with the scientific method is ...it works.

There are plenty of scientists who are religious. Why haven't they proved your creation theory?
(please don't post any pseudo-scientific bullshit)

Scientists don't need to exclude gods from physical models of the universe. On the contrary, signs of the presence of gods in the universe need to be there for scientists to identify. No matter how hard they look they just can't find anything at all. How frustrating that must be for the religious ones!

That leaves you with three possibilities:

1)Any gods who exist want to make it look like they do not exist.
2)The evidence is there and any day now we are suddenly going to find it.
3)There are no gods.

It's like in 2001 the movie. If we found a monolith like that we would have a mystery...proof that something is there besides us that we can try to understand...but there is no monlith...no big mystery at all, just things that seem pretty normal that no doubt will be understood eventually. Boring

When a scientist speculates he calls it a theory and starts to look for evidence.

When a christian speculates he calls it the truth. When you've got faith you don't need evidence.

I prefer not to flame, but you are truly a fool. In 1911 Einstein published the Theory of General Relativity, which he had painstakingly derived from two basic physical postulates - (1) the invariance of the laws of physics under coordinate transformations, and (2) the impossibility to locally
distinguish gravity from acceleration. The theory is written in the language of tensor calculus. In 1915, physicist Karl Schwarzchild noticed black holes in a solution to the equations for certain boundary values. Whether the theory is correct or not, this type of rigorous, mathematical step by step derivation from clearly stated assumptions is the precise opposite of the magical thinking involved in religion. You sound very much like someone who has never taken a Physics class. Do some research before you speak.

I must make a small correction. When a scientist speculates, he calls it a hypothesis. When it is regarded as verified, he calls it a theory.

Also, many hypotheses arise from inspection of equations, known results of prior experiments, or the addition of a well defined postulate or two to prior mathematical theory.

What makes you think a Christian doesn't look for evidence?

Scientists have their own word for truths they call them "proofs"... assumptions, corollaries, postulates, theorems.. again just words no different than faith, truth, belief, doctrine or testaments, just the stigma you let get to you that I have not let these words become an obstacle out of preconceived perceptions. I think that is rule number one in science and religion... never go into observation with a preconceived notion. Don't go to God and tell him what you want then after ask what God wants...The same in science... you are not writing science but recording science.

But if God doesn't want to or can't be seen... "like a black hole" then it leaves the Christian to only speculate just as the scientist speculates and measures the physical, the Christian observes the spiritual in the same detail and diligence. Because the Christian can perceive this world and observe it they can measure it possibly provoke it and record the results. Through this observation a picture emerges of a God, a heavenly place and the desire in every human to touch infinity. Whether if this is speculation or not, well just like a black hole it can not be observed but we firmly believe in it's presence in our world...

Actually, a proof or a mathematical derivation are the exact opposite of faith.

We believe that things which appear in physical theories may exist because they have been rigorously derived mathematically from basic, clearly enunciated assumptions, and the theories confirmed by experiments and measurements.

I know Brandon, I was quoting and appending to an earlier post Rex:

RedRex:

Oh, I see.

I am just rambling so please excuse me and do correct me if I am grievously wrong in any personally offensive way.

I think the number one rule in science is that just because we cannot see it it does not mean that it does not exist...
If that were the case we would never have looked for bacteria and atoms.

People though that mold spontaneously grew out of food... They did not believe there could be life forms, i.e. diatoms, that tiny and unique. Life forms that were "invisible" to the eye but we could see the effects of them when people would contact with these life forms and plague would result. Yes, some thought these were sent by God... Well what is God? Another thing you cannot see? How wise they were... Then we go into atoms... They cannot be seen either (with the naked eye)... but they go even deeper into physics by a magnitude of thousands I believe. Atoms are thousands of times smaller than bacteria... Correct me if maybe it is millions instead of thousands. But I understand that atomic clock is quite in itself like a life form. Like a heart beat and a complexity and beauty that is animated and has infinite form and architecture.

It is most definitely this atomic particle that had a part in making life arise once the earth became conducive (this is one of my own "theories") .. So the atom (and it's constituents) can make life... Life does not have to come from the universe though it may have. The atom made life and the star (sun) made the earth.. The big bang made the atoms tiny particles charged and in a complex bond and strata..

If we take and atom and disturb it it ensues great energy...

So the big bang was first in a stable state... then it was "disturbed" and it being made of particles much smaller than the atom ensued great energy and particles we can only dream of that made the atom (big bang) and it's sub atomic particles.

Billions of galaxies formed... The universe is where elements evolved and the big bang is where sub atomic particles evolved. But these must be smaller particles that made the sub atomic particles. If it takes fusion to make elements and it takes a big bang to make sub atomic particles then it must take an enormous explosion of incalculable power to have made these particles that make up the substance that the sub atomic particles are formed from.

What could be so powerful to be smaller in an exponential magnitude to sub atomic particles of the big bang?
There are only a few things like that... time itself...God, intelligence, the boogie man... We see enormous power contained in the most stable of stages biology, atomic, subatomic, but what makes electrons and neutrons and protons? This is another stable thing on a magnitude even smaller than the sub atomic particles. If not billions of times smaller.

These tiny particles are there. Just like bacteria and atoms... these are what make up the protons the sub atomic particles.

So what would we call these really tiny particles of incalculable energy? sprites? What seems so striking is that as things get smaller the get simpler and seem to exhibit less intelligence...

For instance we move from humans to other creatures which do not have the same capacity for tool making and crafts.

Maybe humans are just more autonomous to the energy of the universe.
Then to bacteria and sea cucumbers and creatures that are more like vegetables. The intelligence seems to diminish as "things" get smaller. So our hopeless trek for God in science seems to lead to the imperceptible and the all powerful but dumb universe we live in... It seems hopeless... unless these "sprites" as I will refer to them, in some form are everywhere in our eyes and our minds and are somehow an all consciousness... they are in the rocks and in the air and spread through the entire cosmos of an impossible perceptibility of nature. Like "dust in the wind" dust thou art...God formed us from the dust... Humans did not make this world but we are a product of vastly greater design...

Unless your are referring to blind faith which I do not think is biblical... theologians use logic too to decide matters of faith and practice.. God expects a Christian to use their minds and anything less would be an insult to their intelligence... It is the added benefit of communication (along with science) with this God that provides the Christian with another possibly more relevant point of view.

Science requires a postulate to be tested in an experiment for it to be a valid theory.

It will be tested as much as possible, but the theory derived from it will also be tested.

Evolution as a way of origins, has no proof at all, as far as fossils go. To my knowledge, they still have not found one fossil from a species that was a cross of two different species, or between evolutionary stages.

thunder runner, would you like to debate that position? You talk with an unusual amount of conviction Are you educated in any of the sciences? or are you just a friend ofjacks who's trying to give him a rest?

Its easy to make broad generalizations like you do. Its harder to sound intelligent and be in denial at the same time.

Wrong, Thunder.
There are hundreds of fossils of intermediates. One is right now making news.

Toumai" is indeed oldest known hominid

found by Neutron on 7-Apr-2005

In 2002 scientists discovered a 6 million to 7 million-year-old jaw fragments, some isolated teeth and a skull in Chad (Central Africa), later nicknamed "Toumai" (a Goran language name that means "hope of life"). This fossils came from around the time of a major split in the evolutionary tree, with one branch leading eventually to humans and the other branch leading to chimps.

The researchers argued that the creature belongs on the human branch and so is the oldest known hominid. Some others disagreed.

The new findings - two jaw bones and an upper premolar tooth and a computer skull reconstruction bolster the case that an ancient creature really is the earliest known ancestor of modern humans, researchers say in Nature.