Hobbits are a real species

[John Dibble]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

What? First off, I think that's supposed to apply to physics, not biology. Second, it can be contended that outside forces were present in evolution, regardless of what the statement above is supposed to apply to. For instance, the creation of amino acids in the primordial earth - the chemicals were initially in a less complex form, and the various forces on the planet(heat, other chemicals present, and whatnot) would have provided the proper conditions. Second, a central part of evolution, natural selection, in highly dependent on outside forces - say a change in climate causes species to die off, and other to have parts of them die off while those with the traits needed for survival live. Then there's mutation - mutation can happen due to outside forces as well, such as radiation. The whole reason evolution would need to happen is because the world changes, and since it does change life must change with it or die off. If the world did not ever change, you would see very little change in the composition of the world's biota.

[senatortombstone]

No offense, but those are terrible examples.  The Bible was written by several different authors over the course of nearly 2000 years.

So, it being old and written by many makes it true? Sorry, but there are other holy books out there that are old and written by many people, but apparently they aren't accurate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's a ton of archaelogical evidence for all those events, not just written word. As for stuff in the Bible, there's far from a great amount of evidence, especially for some of the old testament stuff - Noah, for instance. You'd think there would be a junkload of evidence that the world was once entirely flooded, and furthermore there are millions of species in the world - how could Noah fit two of all of them on an single boat? It was four hundred fifty feet long, seventy-five feet wide, and forty-five feet high - no way in hell that it could have held two of every animal species on the planet. How is that even logistically possible?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly the reason I could never take up your brand of Christianity. I absolutely refuse to worship a god that would send people to hell simply for not believing in him, completely disregarding what type of person they are - that type of God is unjust and evil. Many other Christians believe that their God saves all good people, regardless of their religion - meaning he judges them on who they are, not what whether they hold a particular religious belief while they were alive. That's the kind of God I could respect - he's reasonable. If they are right then I'm in no danger, and would gladly worship their God in the afterlife. If you are right I'll be sent to hell simply for not worshiping him in life, so I'll be glad to give your God the finger as I'm going down to hell. But I find it more likely that neither of your sides are right about God, so I'll just keep up with the agnostic thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? What's your point? Others used the Bible as justification for slavery. Other religions caused other people to change for the better. Christianity doesn't have exclusive rights to making people better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, you ignore the possibility of God having been active in evolution and other proposed scientific theories - you've no doubt heard of intelligent design. Also, *poof* it exists is what takes more faith in my opinion.

I am not insecure about my beliefs, therefore I don't require the condenscending of skeptics who say "a God might've been involved, but not your God"

If it's proof you need, then look no further than the state of the world, a state which the Bible predicted 2000 years ago.

The Bible predicted everything:  the denial of God and creation, the wars, the disrepsect for authority, everything is described in the Bible.  I cannot help it if you don't believe it.  I wish you would, but I cannot make and God won't either.
 
The Bible says hat the ways of God are foolishness to the world.  Therefore if an unbeliever calls me a fool for believeing in God then I know I am on the right track.

But I am finished with this debate, for now at least.

[John Dibble]

I am not insecure about my beliefs, therefore I don't require the condenscending of skeptics who say "a God might've been involved, but not your God"

When did I say 'but not your God'? Heck, the Bible says the world was created in six days, right? What are six days to an immortal, timeless being like God? Could have been millions or billions of years in our own time.

[opebo]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

This is why Intelligent Design is on the rise as an accepted theory.

It isn't on the rise as an accepted theory, it is just that religion is on the rise and more people are turning off their minds again.  Like in the Dark Ages, when christianity was rampant.

[John Dibble]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

This is why Intelligent Design is on the rise as an accepted theory.

It isn't on the rise as an accepted theory, it is just that religion is on the rise and more people are turning off their minds again.  Like in the Dark Ages, when christianity was rampant.

Ever consider that people like you are to blame? You aren't exactly a shining example of reason and enlightenment, opebo - if I was to pick a representative of the secular community as an example to the world, it wouldn't be you.

[ATFFL]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

This is why Intelligent Design is on the rise as an accepted theory.

It isn't on the rise as an accepted theory, it is just that religion is on the rise and more people are turning off their minds again.  Like in the Dark Ages, when christianity was rampant.

Here is one famous example.  He is the visible tip of the iceberg.  There are more former atheists moving on to the Intelligent Design bandwagon.  Most of them don;t make the news, however.

John, Biology is a subset of Chemistry which is a subset of Physics.  All of them have to obey the same standard rules that all of physics must obey.  This includes systems not getting more complex unless acted on by an outside source.

[John Dibble]

John, Biology is a subset of Chemistry which is a subset of Physics.  All of them have to obey the same standard rules that all of physics must obey.  This includes systems not getting more complex unless acted on by an outside source.

And I showed that there were many outside forces at work.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

This is why Intelligent Design is on the rise as an accepted theory.

What typically happens is specialization, something very simple evolvles, and then once you have that simple thing, it can gradually get better. The first animals capable of detecting light did not have our eyes, for example.

Anyways, this should tell you all you need to know about Intelligent Design. The people who actually study biology (have bachelor's or graduate schools from reputable universities) don't believe in Intelligent Design.

[angus]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

What? First off, I think that's supposed to apply to physics, not biology. Second, it can be contended that outside forces were present in evolution, regardless of what the statement above is supposed to apply to. For instance, the creation of amino acids in the primordial earth - the chemicals were initially in a less complex form, and the various forces on the planet(heat, other chemicals present, and whatnot) would have provided the proper conditions. Second, a central part of evolution, natural selection, in highly dependent on outside forces - say a change in climate causes species to die off, and other to have parts of them die off while those with the traits needed for survival live. Then there's mutation - mutation can happen due to outside forces as well, such as radiation. The whole reason evolution would need to happen is because the world changes, and since it does change life must change with it or die off. If the world did not ever change, you would see very little change in the composition of the world's biota.

I think y'all are thinking of entropy, which is disorder.  Haven't we gone over this before.  In any spontaneous process, entropy increases.  this is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  So, in physics, things do ALWAYS move from a more ordered state to a less ordered state.  Think:  a pile of bricks will not become a building spontaneously, but a building will become a pile of bricks spontaneously.  And the same is true in biology.  Physics is just smaller bits of chemistry, just as chemistry is smaller bits of biology.  If a Law holds for physics, it must also hold for biology, or we have a really big problem on our hands.

Once again, I'll repeat:  Religion and science do not compete.  they operate in different realms.  I have talked to priests who have no qualms with the Big Bang, and scientists who have no problems with the existence of gods and afterlives and spirituality. 

Why must the Left always insult religion?  Why must the religion refuse to accept scientific evidence for the origins of species?  I make it for the same reason.  Exactly the same reason, in fact.  I just haven't figured out what that reason is, being that I'm neither Left nor Religious. 

One other point.  Perhaps some of you have heard of Shiva.  One of the three manifestations of god in what the Hindu call "the trinity"  Shiva is the Destructor.  Entropy, as it were.  Hindu have absolutely no weird juxtapositions when studying physics, and the origin of the universe.  Christians and Jews and Muslims needn't either. 

"free yo mind, and the rest will follow"
 --90s black music lyric (I can't remember the artist)

[senatortombstone]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

This is why Intelligent Design is on the rise as an accepted theory.

It isn't on the rise as an accepted theory, it is just that religion is on the rise and more people are turning off their minds again.  Like in the Dark Ages, when christianity was rampant.

Here is one famous example.  He is the visible tip of the iceberg.  There are more former atheists moving on to the Intelligent Design bandwagon.  Most of them don;t make the news, however.

John, Biology is a subset of Chemistry which is a subset of Physics.  All of them have to obey the same standard rules that all of physics must obey.  This includes systems not getting more complex unless acted on by an outside source.

I read about this guy.  He seems pretty arrogant to me and I am not impressed.  It took him 81 years to figure out there was a God?  I don't even have 1/100th of his education and I've known that snce I was a child.  To make matters worse he is still denying the Authority of the one true God of the Bible.  I don't think he has another 81 years to come to that conclusion, let alone 81 days, so I'll pray for him.

 

[senatortombstone]

The biggest flaw in evolution is that it flies in the face of accepted science.  Things do not move from a less complex state to a more complex state unless acted upon by an outside force.

What? First off, I think that's supposed to apply to physics, not biology. Second, it can be contended that outside forces were present in evolution, regardless of what the statement above is supposed to apply to. For instance, the creation of amino acids in the primordial earth - the chemicals were initially in a less complex form, and the various forces on the planet(heat, other chemicals present, and whatnot) would have provided the proper conditions. Second, a central part of evolution, natural selection, in highly dependent on outside forces - say a change in climate causes species to die off, and other to have parts of them die off while those with the traits needed for survival live. Then there's mutation - mutation can happen due to outside forces as well, such as radiation. The whole reason evolution would need to happen is because the world changes, and since it does change life must change with it or die off. If the world did not ever change, you would see very little change in the composition of the world's biota.

I think y'all are thinking of entropy, which is disorder.  Haven't we gone over this before.  In any spontaneous process, entropy increases.  this is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  So, in physics, things do ALWAYS move from a more ordered state to a less ordered state.  Think:  a pile of bricks will not become a building spontaneously, but a building will become a pile of bricks spontaneously.  And the same is true in biology.  Physics is just smaller bits of chemistry, just as chemistry is smaller bits of biology.  If a Law holds for physics, it must also hold for biology, or we have a really big problem on our hands.

Once again, I'll repeat:  Religion and science do not compete.  they operate in different realms.  I have talked to priests who have no qualms with the Big Bang, and scientists who have no problems with the existence of gods and afterlives and spirituality. 

Why must the Left always insult religion?  Why must the religion refuse to accept scientific evidence for the origins of species?  I make it for the same reason.  Exactly the same reason, in fact.  I just haven't figured out what that reason is, being that I'm neither Left nor Religious. 

One other point.  Perhaps some of you have heard of Shiva.  One of the three manifestations of god in what the Hindu call "the trinity"  Shiva is the Destructor.  Entropy, as it were.  Hindu have absolutely no weird juxtapositions when studying physics, and the origin of the universe.  Christians and Jews and Muslims needn't either. 

"free yo mind, and the rest will follow"
 --90s black music lyric (I can't remember the artist)

As a born-again Christian I have no problem with science, cosmology or even evolution.  I am enthralled by science.  I have read many articles and watched many programs featuring explanations of evolution and the cosmos.  Some I beleive, some i don't.  I just have a problem accepting theories such as the big bang and macro-evolution.  micro-evolution and linguistic evolution are both proven facts.  That is why we have 200 different types of dogs instead of one wolf and why we all speak different langauges.  There are boundaries for micro andlinguistic evolution.  All human lanaguages operate within certain parameters and follow a basic universal grammar of sorts.

[senatortombstone]

http://www.halos.com/

Here is a site featuring Robert V Gentry's study of Polonium Halos which prove the young age of the Earth.  Keep in mind that Gentry is a brilliant scientist who began his research as an evolutionist and became a creationist.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

http://www.halos.com/

Here is a site featuring Robert V Gentry's study of Polonium Halos which prove the young age of the Earth.  Keep in mind that Gentry is a brilliant scientist who began his research as an evolutionist and became a creationist.

Refuted here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/age.html#polonium

[senatortombstone]

From Gentry's site

Replies to Objections
Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
---------------------------------------------

Talkorigins may have made an arguement against Gentry's work but it has never been proven. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From Gentry's site

Replies to Objections
Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
---------------------------------------------

Talkorigins may have made an arguement against Gentry's work but it has never been proven. 

It's up to Gentry to prove his claims. Science doesn't work by making everyone prove that you're wrong.

[senatortombstone]

From Gentry's site

Replies to Objections
Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
---------------------------------------------

Talkorigins may have made an arguement against Gentry's work but it has never been proven. 

It's up to Gentry to prove his claims. Science doesn't work by making everyone prove that you're wrong.

Gentry has already proved his claims and all attempts to refute them thus far have failed.

http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm

Why has the scientific communtiy censored this creationist's work?  Do theyhave soemthing to fear from his findings?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

From Gentry's site

Replies to Objections
Every question regarding the validity or implications of this polonium-halo evidence has been systematically dealt with, in our published reports and in various discussions with those holding differing views. We invite you to peruse the points we have raised in our exchanges, consider them, and decide for yourself the truth of the matter.

Of particular interest will be our recent discussion with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regarding the validity of our work.

Challenge to the National Academy of Sciences
The Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence.

We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science.
---------------------------------------------

Talkorigins may have made an arguement against Gentry's work but it has never been proven. 

It's up to Gentry to prove his claims. Science doesn't work by making everyone prove that you're wrong.

Gentry has already proved his claims and all attempts to refute them thus far have failed.

http://www.orionfdn.org/index.htm

Why has the scientific communtiy censored this creationist's work?  Do theyhave soemthing to fear from his findings?

If you'd  actually read my link, you'd see the following.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

BTW, in order for a big crunch to occur there has to be a change in the laws of physics, specifically the laws of gravity.  Gravitational pull has to become very strong, all of a sudden and on its own, to re compress the matter.

Scotty was wrong, you can change the laws of physics, or more precisely we can improve our understaning of them.  For example, within the ability to measure physical phenomeon and the speeds and masses observable in Newton's day there is no observable difference between Newton's laws of motion and relativity. It is only as our ability to measure velocity and mass improved was it possible to discover that a more complicated theory was needed.  Given that gravity is the least well understoof of the fundamental forces, changes in the theories concerning it are not surprising.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We already had an argument where the anti-big bang theory people were refuted.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW, in order for a big crunch to occur there has to be a change in the laws of physics, specifically the laws of gravity.  Gravitational pull has to become very strong, all of a sudden and on its own, to re compress the matter.

Scotty was wrong, you can change the laws of physics, or more precisely we can improve our understaning of them.  For example, within the ability to measure physical phenomeon and the speeds and masses observable in Newton's day there is no observable difference between Newton's laws of motion and relativity. It is only as our ability to measure velocity and mass improved was it possible to discover that a more complicated theory was needed.  Given that gravity is the least well understoof of the fundamental forces, changes in the theories concerning it are not surprising.

Yes, physics is not understood very well at extremely high energies like that right after the big bang. They have some ideas about how the strong, gravitational, and electroweak (electricity, magnetism, and weak) behave as one force at these energies, but they are unable to test these theories experimentally, so we don't know if those theories are correct.

[Rob]

We already had an argument where the anti-big bang theory people were refuted.

The argument never ends.

[angus]

As a born-again Christian I have no problem with science, cosmology or even evolution.  I am enthralled by science.  I have read many articles and watched many programs featuring explanations of evolution and the cosmos.  Some I beleive, some i don't.  I just have a problem accepting theories such as the big bang and macro-evolution.  micro-evolution and linguistic evolution are both proven facts.  That is why we have 200 different types of dogs instead of one wolf and why we all speak different langauges.  There are boundaries for micro andlinguistic evolution.  All human lanaguages operate within certain parameters and follow a basic universal grammar of sorts.

Okay.  I appreciate the response.  I hadn't heard of Gentry.  I'll take a look at it. 

You know about the Miller-Urey experiment, I assume.  There are plausible explanations about how proteins can organize out of the primordial soup.  And on the surface it looks contradictory to the Second Law, or that Shiva was sleeping that day, or something.  But you have to remember to consider universal entropy, not the entropy of the system.

I also think it's reasonable not to get too hyped up in groupthink, by the way.  I think it's probably best that you're a little skeptical about theories.

[senatortombstone]

As a born-again Christian I have no problem with science, cosmology or even evolution.  I am enthralled by science.  I have read many articles and watched many programs featuring explanations of evolution and the cosmos.  Some I beleive, some i don't.  I just have a problem accepting theories such as the big bang and macro-evolution.  micro-evolution and linguistic evolution are both proven facts.  That is why we have 200 different types of dogs instead of one wolf and why we all speak different langauges.  There are boundaries for micro andlinguistic evolution.  All human lanaguages operate within certain parameters and follow a basic universal grammar of sorts.

Okay.  I appreciate the response.  I hadn't heard of Gentry.  I'll take a look at it. 

You know about the Miller-Urey experiment, I assume.  There are plausible explanations about how proteins can organize out of the primordial soup.  And on the surface it looks contradictory to the Second Law, or that Shiva was sleeping that day, or something.  But you have to remember to consider universal entropy, not the entropy of the system.

I also think it's reasonable not to get too hyped up in groupthink, by the way.  I think it's probably best that you're a little skeptical about theories.

I've heard of the miller-urey experiment and I don't doubt its conclusions.  However showing something that can be done in a laboratory does not mean it occurs naturally in nature, only possibly that it coud have.  I don't know if "could have" is scientific.

i saw a special on 60 minutes about the genetic engineering of tomatoes and salmon.  scientists inserted a gene from a tomato into a fish and the fish grew double its normal size.  I believe that is what happened in a lab; i have no doubt it can be done.  However, i fail to see how that could happen in nature.

[afleitch]

Crazy Americans and their creationism..... No wonder scientists are moving to Europe.

[senatortombstone]

Crazy Americans and their creationism..... No wonder scientists are moving to Europe.

http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/

Uh-oh, it looks like you've got crationists in your own back yard.