Those crazy creationists

[Ken L]

I don't get it Ken. The evidence to support the Theory of Evolution is overwhelming. Evolution is a fact, just because Wendy Wright and her ilk don't like the fact makes it no less factual. When she says 'not just a theory, but a fact' it is plain to me that she does not understand what the word 'Theory' with a capital T means in science. In science a Theory has to be a coherent explanation that holds true for a large number of facts and observations about the natural world. It has to be internally consistent, based upon evidence, tested against a wide range of phenomena and demonstrate problem solving. A theory is not, as many members of the public think some half baked idea, some unproven conjecture.

 

I agree but he is as he so often points out an educator in addition to being arguably the worlds most prominent and outspoken athiest. The evidence of evolution is undeiably there, but if people are constantly telling they guy that there is controversy, that the evidence isnt compelling, that there are gaps or that they just pain don't believe it, as an educator, his first instinct should be to lay out the evidence out in a way that is both easily understood and persuasive. Hopefully, that's what he's done in his new book. I seriously doubt that it will ocupy the intelectual high ground that his early publications did but if it equips more people to ask appropriate and probing questions when the christian fundamentalists try to dip their oar into education, then more power to his elbow.

[Leon Roskilly]

Just to underline what Cory is saying:

I am not alone in being a Christian who believes in evolution. It all depends on your interpretation of what is written.

I must underline the story of creation in the Bible - It says God created the world and all in it in 6 days? Man is still evolving, so the statement that we are created in His image could still explain this statement. If one of Gods days is, for example (no-one knows) a million years, then the world (and it's inhabitants) are STILL evolving!!

 

A day is the time a planet takes to revolve on it's axis.

 

If one of "God's days" is a million years, he must live on a planet revolving quite slowly.

 

If he lives on a planet, he must be an alien life-form.

 

Hmmmmm! Perhaps we are closing in on something significant here.

[Ken L]

I was going to try to be clever and point out the rather extreme variation of day lengths if you try to fit the Genesis model to the universe as we know it to be today but it's impossible because the timescale proposed by Genesis is nonsence.

Acording to Genesis, there were flowering plants on earth (day three) before the stars were created (day four).

The first evidence for photosynthisis on earth has been dated to approximatly 3.5 billion years ago but the first flowering plants (with fruits and seeds) didn't appear until 130 million years ago. Genesis is therefore telling us that no stars existed until 130 million years ago. This makes no sence when we can image galexies that are billions of light years away.

[kleinboet]

I am going to be a bit deep here.

WE (mankind) use the spinning of the earth as a time reference. Yet we are assuming that everything in the universe MUST use that our measurement of time!

 

What I am about to say is for example only!

Look at the elements, They have nuclei and atoms spinning around them! We have good old Sol and planets spinning around them. Could it be possible that one of the molecules of our blood system has"evolved" and has beings on one of the atoms of blood, wondering about the universe?

 

Laughable, yes, but just as outlandish as saying there is a god/there is no god!

Edited August 9, 2009 by kleinboet

[Ken L]

What I am about to say is for example only!

Look at the elements, They have nuclei and atoms spinning around them! We have good old Sol and planets spinning around them. Could it be possible that one of the molecules of our blood system has"evolved" and has beings on one of the atoms of blood, wondering about the universe?

 

The model of the atom that you describe is nice and simple but only because it's nothing more than a convienient lie for children - that is it's a simplified version of reality designed so that kids can understand some basic concepts before moving on.

 

Atoms with their associated shells of electrons are not mini solar systems even if such concepts did completely weired out an entire generation of dope smoking hippies.

[Leon Roskilly]

I am going to be a bit deep here.

WE (mankind) use the spinning of the earth as a time reference. Yet we are assuming that everything in the universe MUST use that our measurement of time!

 

 

But time is not constant for all reference points.

 

 

A pair of twins on Earth, one stays at home, the other travels the galaxy under almost constant acceleration.

 

After a few years or so the travelling twin returns to find their earth-bound twin has died of old age whilst the travelling twin is still young.

 

 

Although not so noticeable, even if one twin goes and lives up a high mountain, although time seemingly passes at the same rate for both twins where they each live, the higher twin will be slightly (imperceptably) younger than their sibling when they meet again.

 

(An experiment with two atomic clocks, one left eathbound, the other taken up for a high altitude flight proved the prediction made by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity).

 

Time is all to do with where you are and whether or not you are accelerating (with a gravitational field producing the same effects as acceleration).

 

Time cannot be measured the same for all 'observers'.

 

 

A 'day' however describes the period of the time taken for the earth to spin one revolution.

 

If you are talking about a period of time which is greater than 24 hours, it is not a 'day'.

[kleinboet]

Ken - I did say it was an example only!

 

Leon - I agree that is what WE call a day. So it stands to reason that another planet (Mars, Venus etc - and that's only in OUR galaxy) that has a different "day" to Earth, so what do you call them?

Remember people used to assume the earth was flat until proven otherwise, so what gives us the right to call their revolutions X amount of DAYS!

[Emma two]

Ken - I did say it was an example only!

 

Leon - I agree that is what WE call a day. So it stands to reason that another planet (Mars, Venus etc - and that's only in OUR galaxy) that has a different "day" to Earth, so what do you call them?

Remember people used to assume the earth was flat until proven otherwise, so what gives us the right to call their revolutions X amount of DAYS!

 

For someone, who by their own admission is only capable od seeing in black and white, there is an awful lot of fuzzy grey interpretive speculation going on now. Is this a suggestion, in your attempt to defend the validity of the book of brutal supersticious dogma, that the invisible wizard lives far far away on a planet with awfully long days?

[kleinboet]

Emma2 (or whatever your name is) Why don't you read posts before firing off a snipe and making a right Pratt of yourself!! I said (I'll put it in capitals so you just might understand) " I DID SAY IT WAS AN EXAMPLE ONLY". As to the question of the "day" - Do you believe the earth is flat? The fact that it is a globe had to be proved (just like they had to prove that the earth was no the centre of the earth before they believed it!).

Do you believe we are the ONLY intelligent beings in the whole universe (let alone our galaxy)?

So why do we have to use OUR timescale for EVERYTHING. including (dare I say it ) something we don't understand. Ask about the origin of the universe (including Professor Steven Hawking) the answer is "we just don't know"

We are showing total arrogance in doing so!

Edited August 9, 2009 by kleinboet

[Emma two]

Emma2 (or whatever your name is) Why don't you read posts before firing off a snipe and making a right Pratt of yourself!! I said (I'll put it in capitals so you just might understand) " I DID SAY IT WAS AN EXAMPLE ONLY". As to the question of the "day" - Do you believe the earth is flat? The fact that it is a globe had to be proved (just like they had to prove that the earth was no the centre of the earth before they believed it!).

Do you believe we are the ONLY intelligent beings in the whole universe (let alone our galaxy)?

So why do we have to use OUR timescale for EVERYTHING. including (dare I say it ) something we don't understand. Ask about the origin of the universe (including Professor Steven Hawking) the answer is "we just don't know"

We are showing total arrogance in doing so!

 

'kleinboat'or whatever your name is (do people call you that in real time?) Perhaps you could read your own posts before sending them? The above is an incoherent jumble of words, forming questions only loosely linked to the area of discussion. Your using capitals and colouring in doesnt make you any clearer. (nor does it make you look like a grown up with a working grasp of English)

 

just like they had to prove that the earth was no the centre of the earth before they believed it!).... is that supposed to mean something?

 

Why do you ask if I belive we are the only intelligent beings in the universe? is that relevent? unless you are trying to maintain that your god figure is an alien? I don't know if we are the only ones, I havn't been presented with evidence that there are other form of intelligent life, so I simply don't know and nor do you, 'belief' doesnt come into it. You say you follow a middle eastern creation myth which insists that an invisible magical psychopath is responsible for our existence, and you consider scepticism to this explaination as 'arrogence'.