|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/8/2008 8:31:58 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Actually, the logic of your example should demonstrate to you the illogic of thinking that warm temperatures have anything to do with the explosion of phyla, body plans, structures and systems. Animals and plants 'appear' on Volcano Island because said animals and plants already exist elsewhere.
When an island is cleared of all life, it's fertile ground for new life to come in. Seeds randomly land on the island, and eventually, seeds that can survive in the soil start growing there and form the plant life that can eventually support the animal life.
Over the past 5000 years, humans have evolved to the point where Moses had more in common with Neanderthals than he did with modern humans. If we can evolve that quickly in 5000 years, surely we can have an explosion of life- given a few million. Indeed, that tends to be the case after any major cataclysmic event on earth.
quote:
Though, in a sense, I agree with you about 'miracles' in as much as one equates miracles with magic - where we differ is that the understanding that the life in the Cambrian required something more than warmth (or time, or any ordinary process). This is not only logical, but necessary.
Well, research shows that it's pretty natural for evolution to accelerate after a cataclysmic event or when there's lots of competition (actually, these usually tend to happen both at the same time), so at least to many natural historians, seeing a burst of evolution immediately after a 150 million year period where earth was void of life except for a few volcanic vents and a narrow band around the equator where algae could grow isn't necessarily a big of a suprise. We saw similar periods of evolution after the Permian-Triassic extinction and the Cretacious-Tertiary extinction.
quote:
What it required was the knowledge and intention of a mind. That's pretty straightforward, and certainly reasonable.
Well, the Sun being a God named Ra is certainly straightforward and reasonable, as well. But ultimately, science usually has a better explanation.
I guess my real question here is why God would suddenly decide to blatantly leave his fingerprints over the fossil record where he hasn't in other areas of science.
Science can't explain why random processes on earth are effective at producing life- and why cataclysmic events that lead to periods of increased evolution happen at just the right times to facilitate the development of intelligent life. However, it generally is good at finding the holes, gaps, and questions about whether (at least seemingly) random natural processes were in control of earth's natural history.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 7/8/2008 8:50:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/8/2008 8:44:13 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
Well, I agree that modern science excludes non-materialistic explanations, but that it does so does not mean there is not evidence for such things, or that they constitute better explanations.
Well, I think the first thing we need to realize is that if we're going to teach modern science in our classrooms, we probably shouldn't be teaching the supernatural.
quote:
And while I am not sure how pi points towards God (Although if you ever saw the movie Pi, it suggests as much ) I think the universal constants certainly indicate the universe was no accident.
Well, the real question here is why is pi 3.14159? Why not 3.14157? Well, like every number, it had to have come about in one of three ways:
1.) It had to have come from another number. (1)
2.) It had to have come from a function that takes numbers as inputs. (1)
3.) It had to have come from a random distribution that is defined by a function that requires numbers. (Saying "Pick a random number" doesn't make sense unless you tell me how to pick it- and you need a function with numbers in it to do so.) (2)
4.) It had to have been picked by something.
You'll note that the only way to really get another number is to either have a number or "pick" one. At some point, a number- or a set of numbers had to have been "picked". We call this thing that picked these numbers that provide the numerical basis for our Universe God.
I can formalize this as a proof- at least to standards good enough for most Computer Science/Algorithms research if you need me to. (A graduate level mathematician would be disappointed, however.)
<This explanation/proof is copyright blessedinnyc and may not be used in any way, shape, or form by the Discovery Institute or as material in a science class (philosophy class is OK; evangelism to hard-nosed "atheism is more logical than theism" folks is also OK).>[/size=1]
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 7/8/2008 8:51:05 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/8/2008 9:49:12 PM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2019
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
I think that a philosophical explanation of God's work in creation is OK. In theology class in high school we spoke of God as the un-caused cause in a cause-effect relationship or the natural law lawmaker and such.
Science can explain the How but God explains the Who and the Why! God lit the fuse on the Big Bang and like a fireworks technician designed how the pyrotechnics would be fashioned! In this, I don't see why there is so much friction between the theists and scientists. Although there are many an astronomer who is a theist!
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/8/2008 11:05:12 PM
|
|
|
Jhud
Posts: 7384
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Lake Wobegon
Status: offline
|
quote:
When an island is cleared of all life, it's fertile ground for new life to come in. Seeds randomly land on the island, and eventually, seeds that can survive in the soil start growing there and form the plant life that can eventually support the animal life.
All of which has nothing to do with the origin of phyla.
quote:
Over the past 5000 years, humans have evolved to the point where Moses had more in common with Neanderthals than he did with modern humans. If we can evolve that quickly in 5000 years, surely we can have an explosion of life- given a few million. Indeed, that tends to be the case after any major cataclysmic event on earth.
Hmmm..in what sense do you think humans have 'evolved' beyond Moses? What do you base this on?
quote:
Well, research shows that it's pretty natural for evolution to accelerate after a cataclysmic event or when there's lots of competition (actually, these usually tend to happen both at the same time), so at least to many natural historians, seeing a burst of evolution immediately after a 150 million year period where earth was void of life except for a few volcanic vents and a narrow band around the equator where algae could grow isn't necessarily a big of a suprise. We saw similar periods of evolution after the Permian-Triassic extinction and the Cretacious-Tertiary extinction.
Actually, research seems to show that cataclysmic events are pretty detrimental to most life. But none of this of course explains the origin of numerous novel phyla - association isn't cause.
quote:
Well, the Sun being a God named Ra is certainly straightforward and reasonable, as well. But ultimately, science usually has a better explanation.
I guess my real question here is why God would suddenly decide to blatantly leave his fingerprints over the fossil record where he hasn't in other areas of science.
God's fingerprints seem to be all over the universe, from the structure of galaxies down to the molecular code in every living cell. I don't think one has to look that hard.
quote:
Science can't explain why random processes on earth are effective at producing life- and why cataclysmic events that lead to periods of increased evolution happen at just the right times to facilitate the development of intelligent life. However, it generally is good at finding the holes, gaps, and questions about whether (at least seemingly) random natural processes were in control of earth's natural history.
I am not sure how a random process can be in control of anything.
quote:
Well, I think the first thing we need to realize is that if we're going to teach modern science in our classrooms, we probably shouldn't be teaching the supernatural.
Who said we should?
quote:
Well, the real question here is why is pi 3.14159? Why not 3.14157? Well, like every number, it had to have come about in one of three ways:
1.) It had to have come from another number. (1)
2.) It had to have come from a function that takes numbers as inputs. (1)
3.) It had to have come from a random distribution that is defined by a function that requires numbers. (Saying "Pick a random number" doesn't make sense unless you tell me how to pick it- and you need a function with numbers in it to do so.) (2)
4.) It had to have been picked by something.
You'll note that the only way to really get another number is to either have a number or "pick" one. At some point, a number- or a set of numbers had to have been "picked". We call this thing that picked these numbers that provide the numerical basis for our Universe God.
I can formalize this as a proof- at least to standards good enough for most Computer Science/Algorithms research if you need me to. (A graduate level mathematician would be disappointed, however.)
I don't doubt mathematical concepts are a product of design, but why would it make a difference from the perspective of God's existence if pi was 3.14157? Why not 3.14159? I sincerely don't understand your reasoning here. I mean pi is rounded down at any decimal place.
_____________________________
Jack
“I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth”
William F. Buckley Jr. 1925-2008
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 2:40:28 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 523
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Well, the real question here is why is pi 3.14159? Why not 3.14157? Well, like every number, it had to have come about in one of three ways:
1.) It had to have come from another number. (1)
2.) It had to have come from a function that takes numbers as inputs. (1)
3.) It had to have come from a random distribution that is defined by a function that requires numbers. (Saying "Pick a random number" doesn't make sense unless you tell me how to pick it- and you need a function with numbers in it to do so.) (2)
4.) It had to have been picked by something.
You'll note that the only way to really get another number is to either have a number or "pick" one. At some point, a number- or a set of numbers had to have been "picked". We call this thing that picked these numbers that provide the numerical basis for our Universe God.
I can formalize this as a proof- at least to standards good enough for most Computer Science/Algorithms research if you need me to. (A graduate level mathematician would be disappointed, however.)
<This explanation/proof is copyright blessedinnyc and may not be used in any way, shape, or form by the Discovery Institute or as material in a science class (philosophy class is OK; evangelism to hard-nosed "atheism is more logical than theism" folks is also OK).>[/size=1]
Where did you get those three (or four) ways for a number to come about? In mathematics, numbers don't "come about." They are assumed to exist. Alternatively, all numbers can be constructed from just the null set using the axioms of set theory.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 8:24:58 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2019
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Well, the real question here is why is pi 3.14159? Why not 3.14157? Well, like every number, it had to have come about in one of three ways:
1.) It had to have come from another number. (1)
2.) It had to have come from a function that takes numbers as inputs. (1)
3.) It had to have come from a random distribution that is defined by a function that requires numbers. (Saying "Pick a random number" doesn't make sense unless you tell me how to pick it- and you need a function with numbers in it to do so.) (2)
4.) It had to have been picked by something.
You'll note that the only way to really get another number is to either have a number or "pick" one. At some point, a number- or a set of numbers had to have been "picked". We call this thing that picked these numbers that provide the numerical basis for our Universe God.
I can formalize this as a proof- at least to standards good enough for most Computer Science/Algorithms research if you need me to. (A graduate level mathematician would be disappointed, however.)
<This explanation/proof is copyright blessedinnyc and may not be used in any way, shape, or form by the Discovery Institute or as material in a science class (philosophy class is OK; evangelism to hard-nosed "atheism is more logical than theism" folks is also OK).>[/size=1]
Where did you get those three (or four) ways for a number to come about? In mathematics, numbers don't "come about." They are assumed to exist. Alternatively, all numbers can be constructed from just the null set using the axioms of set theory.
Actually nothing is assumed in mathmatics and there is a proof for everything. The concept of zero was unknown in the west until introduced by Islamic mathmaticians (interestingly enough though the Aztecs also had this concept and had a more accurate calendar too). Science (good science anyway and this excludes environmental science) NEVER assumes anything. Because you know what they say about assuming! 
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 9:21:58 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Where did you get those three (or four) ways for a number to come about? In mathematics, numbers don't "come about." They are assumed to exist. Alternatively, all numbers can be constructed from just the null set using the axioms of set theory.
It's true that all numbers can be constructed from just the null set, but my question is why some constants are the way they are. Surely, 3.15157 is also a number, right? Why doesn't that number show up as much as 3.14159?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 9:46:57 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Well, I think the first thing we need to realize is that if we're going to teach modern science in our classrooms, we probably shouldn't be teaching the supernatural.
Not just probably . . .
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 9:48:58 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jhud
All of which has nothing to do with the origin of phyla.
Well, it sort of does- it also relies on random processes. I mean, what are the odds that a tiny seed can make it all the way out to a deserted island and grow into a fern?
quote:
Hmmm..in what sense do you think humans have 'evolved' beyond Moses? What do you base this on?
We have essentially evolved into a different species, according to research by Hawks of UW Madison and Harpending of the University of Utah:
quote:
In fact, people today are genetically more different from people living 5,000 years ago than those humans were different from the Neanderthals who vanished 30,000 years ago, according to anthropologist John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN1043228620071210?feedType=RSS&feedName=healthNews&rpc=22&sp=true
In particular, we find the creation of new information in a few genes:
quote:
In Europeans, there is a gene that makes them better able to digest milk as adults. In Asians, there is a gene that makes ear wax more dry.
quote:
Actually, research seems to show that cataclysmic events are pretty detrimental to most life. But none of this of course explains the origin of numerous novel phyla - association isn't cause.
Yes, cataclysmic events do cause extinctions. But researchers aren't suprised when they see bajillions of species all appear in a short window after a cataclysm. In fact, after the Permian-Triassic extinction- where planet earth was basically a literal volcanic island being covered on a global scale by lava (evidenced by 251 million year old flood basalts), it took about 30 million years for random evolutionary processes to help earth fully recover the 95% of its biodiversity that it lost:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event
Surely the same thing can happen in 80 million years, right?
quote:
God's fingerprints seem to be all over the universe, from the structure of galaxies down to the molecular code in every living cell. I don't think one has to look that hard.
Yes, but he doesn't take obvious credit for them. We don't find stamps on bones we dig up that say, "Created by Jehovah, 68,015,143 BC". Thus, an objective scientific approach would have difficulty making conclusions about God's intervention in the universe.
quote:
I don't doubt mathematical concepts are a product of design, but why would it make a difference from the perspective of God's existence if pi was 3.14157? Why not 3.14159? I sincerely don't understand your reasoning here. I mean pi is rounded down at any decimal place.
It doesn't, but someone still had to pick what the value of that constant is. A lot of the rules that govern how the universe works are pretty arbitrary- they probably could have been different. Still, the fact that we have these rules indicates that something had to "pick" them.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 9:52:39 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2019
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
Well, I think the first thing we need to realize is that if we're going to teach modern science in our classrooms, we probably shouldn't be teaching the supernatural.
Not just probably . . .
My kids go to public school where they learn about science in a godless fashion and that's OK. It up to me to bridge the gap left by science that is filled by God.
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 10:00:07 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 523
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
\
Actually nothing is assumed in mathmatics and there is a proof for everything. The concept of zero was unknown in the west until introduced by Islamic mathmaticians (interestingly enough though the Aztecs also had this concept and had a more accurate calendar too). Science (good science anyway and this excludes environmental science) NEVER assumes anything. Because you know what they say about assuming!
Incorrect. The axioms are assumed without proof. There is no proof that there is a number 0 such that a + 0 = 0 + a = a. It is assumed without proof. There is no proof that a + b must equal b + a. It is assumed for commutative systems and not assumed for non-commutative systems.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 10:06:08 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
My kids go to public school where they learn about science in a godless fashion and that's OK.
. . . In fact, I would say that it is necessary, otherwise they are teaching that science is not a discipline.
quote:
It up to me to bridge the gap left by science that is filled by God
Exactly.
I find it odd that the same parents who don't want public schools to even mention sex to their kids because it's too personal, nonetheless want religion taught to them in biology class.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 10:08:53 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Incorrect. The axioms are assumed without proof. There is no proof that there is a number 0 such that a + 0 = 0 + a = a. It is assumed without proof. There is no proof that a + b must equal b + a. It is assumed for commutative systems and not assumed for non-commutative systems.
I really don't see what this has to do with the real number that defines the relation between a circle's radius and circumference.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 10:09:15 AM
|
|
|
mapachito13
Posts: 2019
Joined: 10/1/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
I find it odd that the same parents who don't want public schools to even mention sex to their kids because it's too personal, nonetheless want religion taught to them in biology class.
Good Point! Besides a lot of the teachers at my son's public school are Mormon!
_____________________________
Three Nails to protect us!
And Justice for all!
Peace Sells....But Who's Buying!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 10:12:10 AM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 317
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
My kids go to public school where they learn about science in a godless fashion and that's OK.
. . . In fact, I would say that it is necessary, otherwise science has no discipline without parameters.
quote:
It up to me to bridge the gap left by science that is filled by God
Exactly.
I find it odd that the same parents who don't want public schools to even mention sex to their kids because it's too personal, nonetheless want religion taught to them in biology class.
As the father of 2 teenage boys I'd say - Science at school, religion at home, and sex education EVERYWHERE & ALL THE TIME.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 10:14:35 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mapachito13
My kids go to public school where they learn about science in a godless fashion and that's OK. It up to me to bridge the gap left by science that is filled by God.
I think this is probably the right approach. For those parents who have difficulty bridging the gap, they may want to consider private school.
Science's job is to get the facts- it isn't necessarily designed to reconcile itself with philosophy. When I was in public school, I understood that science couldn't explain how something could come from nothing, and I also understood that Genesis 1 &2 doesn't necessarily mean that the earth was created 5700 years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/9/2008 7:36:13 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 647
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
As the father of 2 teenage boys I'd say - Science at school, religion at home, and sex education EVERYWHERE & ALL THE TIME.
. . . The right kind of sex education, that is!
Many already get the "everywhere and all the time" kind . . .
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/10/2008 11:18:16 AM
|
|
|
TaoPoohBear
Posts: 317
Joined: 1/18/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear
As the father of 2 teenage boys I'd say - Science at school, religion at home, and sex education EVERYWHERE & ALL THE TIME.
. . . The right kind of sex education, that is!
Many already get the "everywhere and all the time" kind . . .
Sorry! Should have qualified that!
I totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution - 7/12/2008 9:55:13 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 1353
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
What transitional fossils are you referring to?
There are too many to list.
quote:
I remember studying many different types of macro/microfossils, some of which are identical to modern species.
No. Ancient fossils are not 100% identical to modern species; although, some are very similar.
quote:
It's called the Precambrian Explosion.
The Cambrian explosion does not disprove the age of the earth.
quote:
I was pointing it out as a fraudulent example. I've read that some school districts have the textbooks with it as fact in them still.
Some high school text books are not worth the paper that they are printed on.
quote:
And yes I know scientists corrected that error/fraud.
And that is all that matters: it proves that science is self-correcting, contrary to creationists' claims.
quote:
Yes I know again. These fraudulent attempts should remain in the textbooks so the students have a balanced understanding that some researchers are willing to use fraud to prove their theories and obtain funding.
No. The afore-mentioned frauds were not committed by scientists, but rather by hucksters looking for publicity and a quick buck. They did not "prove" anyone's theory except, prehaps, P.T. Barnum's.
quote:
You keep bringing up creationism with me when I haven't.
You apepar to be defending creationism in the classroom. That is the theme of this thread.
quote:
Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple
Note the word "most", not all.
quote:
In the following 70 million to 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude,2 and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.
Or else fossils became exceedingly more abundant; this is also a distinct possibility.
quote:
The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere
No. Fauna does not appear "out of nowhere" within the fossil record.
quote:
Interpretation is difficult
. . . Therefore, conclusions based on it are inconclusive.
How about posting the top 20 then or top 10 transitional fossils.
Please note that you are arguing with me over Wikipedia's article on this. I didn't write it. You seem to be having an argument with me based on other people's opinions. Try reading what I have posted and not reading into it what you please. You basically calling me a liar   by saying you know what I am defending even though I have told you what I am taking exception to. Not allowing the cons of a scientific theory to be discussed isn't following scientific method.
< Message edited by Marcus. -- 7/12/2008 10:04:59 PM >
_____________________________
Blessed is He who comes in the Name of the Lord.
Hosea Project Care Net
Google
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
You are right and I am wrong! But proofs do exist for zero's proper usage in mathematics. 
