[Godstud]

Genius? Biggest lie I've ever seen on Pofo!!! A guy who dismisses science is not a genius.

If you're a genius, then so's my nice little black dog.

Creationism is religion, not science. Stupid people mistake religion for science.

[Hindsite]

Genius, my ass!

Your ass needs a boot up it. HalleluYah

[Drlee]

Christians that are young earth creationists believe the following:

1. God created spiritual creatues including the angels in the spiritual heaven before the creation of the physical world that we live in.

Whatever.

2. The creation days of Genesis 1 were six literal (24-hour) days, which occurred 6,000–12,000 years ago. (I personally believe it was closer to 6,000 years ago.) God supernaturally created the first animate and inanimate things fully formed and mature. He did not have to wait millions of years for things to come into existence.

And the overwhelming majority of Christians reject this.

2. God created the earth covered with water and the physical heavens (sky and space) before light. Then God gather the water over the earth into one place so that dry land appeared. Then vegetation was created before our sun, moon, and stars. Then sea creatures and flying birds were created before any land animals. Lastly, in God's image, He made humans (male and female). God created all these life forms with programmed seed with the ability to reproduce after its own kind. That is, the seed from an apple tree will not produce an oak tree, nor will a fertilized egg of a bird produce an alligator, and so on

.

And the vast majority of Christians reject this as nonsense. The smart ones see it as a limit to God's infinite power and a challenge to the very nature of the faith Jesus called us to have.

3. God made a special garden with special trees with fruit for man to eat, except from a forbidden tree that God commanded not to be eaten. But man sinned against God and ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree resulting in death and a curse over all creation.

And the vast majority of smart Christians see this as the allegorical story that it is.

4. About 2,300–3,300 years before Christ, the sky just above the earth and the surface of the earth was radically changed with a worldwide Flood, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes (i.e. Grand Canyon, high mountains, deep ocean valleys). Most (but not all) of the sedimentary layers with buried fossils are a result of that flood. This also resulted in an ice age and the dividing of the earth into continents.

And the vast majority of Christians reject this as preposterous. Why? Because much of this can be categorically disproved.

Real science (biogenesis) shows that life does not arise from non-life. And real science does show that the reproductive process results in slight changes in subsequent generations, and selective breeding can speed up those changes. However, none of those changes are of the magnitude necessary for the molecule to man theory of evolution. Science studies have shown and the programming in DNA puts a limit on any changes and that over time living creatures do not gain genetic information, but instead lose genetic information. So instead of evolution that would be devolution.

Pseudo scientific clap trap.

This is not stupid. Any question?

Well yes. The vast majority of Christians and all of the reasonably smart ones see it as monumentally stupid.

Someone has to speak for the majority of religious people. The especially devout ones realize that we are not called to 'prove for God'. In fact the attempt to do it is sacrilegious. We are called to have faith in the God who made us and to trust him with out lives and our souls. We are called upon FIRST to love him and to care for our fellow man. That is what religion is about.

[Godstud]

Your ass needs a boot up it. HalleluYah

Your ass is filled with your head, so I wouldn't be able to get a boot up it. (I mean that in the nicest way possible)

Someone has to speak for the majority of religious people. The especially devout ones realize that we are not called to 'prove for God'. In fact the attempt to do it is sacrilegious. We are called to have faith in the God who made us and to trust him with out lives and our souls. We are called upon FIRST to love him and to care for our fellow man. That is what religion is about.

Thank you for standing up for reasonable religious people, everywhere.

[Ganeshas Rat]

And the overwhelming majority of Christians reject this.

You cannot make this argument against him. Young Earth creationism belongs to specific radicalized American protestant sects, the ones that in one way or another already believe that the overwhelming majority of Christians is mistaken.

[Godstud]

Belief, and reality, are two different things. They might believe it, but that doesn't make it any more likely.

Creationism is nonsense. There are no real facts to support it. It's pseudo-scientific garbage.

[RhetoricThug]

Would it bother you if I didn't have an agenda
Would it bother you if I didn't want to divide what is
Would it bother you if I didn't fragment experience
Why are you so bothered by life?

Wait, are you guys still flogging a dead horse? What a shallow cesspool, filled with conclusions. Before you 'debunk' intelligent creation, consider the following:

1. Science must rely on faith to explore the unknown.
2. Nature is the first cause, man didn't create the material world (he is a side-effect of the world).
3. The scientific pursuit of the unknown (not the known) leads to scientific break-through.

If we look at causality and discovery/invention- the pursuit of the unknown manufactures the new, the known becomes a tool for exploring the unknown. Yesterday's thoughts become tomorrow's program. We're in a feedback loop with the total program we call reality. Thinking and being are not separate, and being present creates an information bias. Evolution and creationism can co-exist, because human knowledge is nothing more than the re-organization of what is already present.

It's in our language, RE-SOURCE. Everything is a redistribution of the original source. God is a cognitive construct and nothing coming from nothing (double negative makes a positive, the paradox beyond 1 or everything & 0 or nothing. 1X0=0, Ouroboros happening NOW) is the same kind of cognitive construct. Try not to confuse being humble with being ignorant, and try not to confuse being intelligent with being arrogant. God is in a book, God is in a geometric structure, God is in the air, God is everything... Infinite consciousness endlessly dividing itself only to rediscover itself. Again, One more time... Fish, bird, man, woman, child, ape, mouse, insect = variations of the metaphysical MONAD. It doesn't matter how genetic evolution unfolds or if we're fish, bacteria, etc; All of it, including your thoughts, operate inside the all at once happening or grand scheme of things. You're consciousness having a human experience. Consciousness is the medium, we're its message.

[B0ycey]

Evolution and creationism can co-exist...

Actually, I total agree with this. The problem is that neither side will accept the other because Darwin was an atheist. We all know what causes evolution - mutations in genes. But what we cannot say for certain is what actually causes germline mutations - only what they are and what they do. For living organisms that can mend, adapt and be perfect in many ways, perhaps it isn't unreasonable to expect complete perfection in replication - or at least in the view of a creationist. But we don't. And even more debatable is to expect any mutation to be beneficial, at least to the extent in diversity we are on the planet. Perhaps creationists could even suggest that mutations are devine intervention. If that was the case both ideas could exist with only the conclusions being different. Creationists could say god caused evolution and evolutionist could say that natural selection caused evolution. Problem solved.

[mikema63]

We all know what causes evolution - mutations in genes.

Mutation is only one of five generally understood forces that drive evolution over time and is one of the weaker ones at that.

Selection and drift are by far the strongest forces in evolutionary change, not mutation.

[B0ycey]

Selection and drift are by far the strongest forces in evolutionary change, not mutation.

True, but without mutations, these would not be a factor.

[RhetoricThug]

Actually, I totally agree with this. The problem is that neither side will accept the other because a dead person was a label.

Fixed.

If that was the case both ideas could exist with only the conclusions being different. Creationists could say god caused evolution and evolutionist could say that natural selection caused evolution. Problem solved.

Nature doesn't produce conclusions, life is a process. Natural selection occurs within the framework of nature, correct? Perhaps God and Nature are one, yet the linguistic trivia compresses the happening to fit a standardized perspective. Perception and Identity itself is an abstraction- "Individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness." Since we're enfolded in a simultaneous happening, it is impossible to perceive the whole happening. Environments can be invisible. "We don't know who discovered water, but it wasn't a fish. I don't know who discovered water, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a fish. The fish will be the last to discover water."

Mutation is only one of five generally understood forces that drive evolution over time and is one of the weaker ones at that. Selection and drift are by far the strongest forces in evolutionary change, not mutation.

Don't worry, Mikema, like the rest of us, you're a blockchain of thought- side-effect of everything else. Nonetheless, thank you for the insightful clarification.

[mikema63]

Without selection mutation wouldn't be a factor either. Mutation doesn't cause evolution any more than any of the other forces do and to call it the most important is arbitrary and risks hiding the actually important non random processes behind a random one.

[B0ycey]

Without selection mutation wouldn't be a factor either. Mutation doesn't cause evolution any more than any of the other forces do and to call it the most important is arbitrary and risks hiding the actually important non random processes behind a random one.

I didn't call it the most important thing only that it is the driving force for evolution. If I recall I said true. If everything was the same, you would not be spreading any genes by drift and selection would be identical whoever won.

[LehmanB]

But to your point on facts and theory, technically even a fact perhaps isn't a fact. To accept that we could be wrong even when we are certain allows people to understand things better. I for one genuinely believe that the speed of light is not absolute depending on where you are in the universe. I have done basic (admittedly poor) research on this and still reached that conclusion. If I was to be right and the scientific communtity was wrong, that is a fact that would be actually be wrong (though I don't believe I am). My point is, in some ways it is quite smart to question things. To not is naive (and gullible). The good thing about forums is that you can question anything without consequence. Try not to take things to heart. Perhaps 99% of the audience will disagree with you, but you will always have their ear and that will give you a response to enhance your thinking on things.

BTW, there is the phenomenom of Quantum entanglement; Where particles reacts faster than the speed of light. This phenomenom is unclear, and there is a guess these particles are one unit and not seperate so they change symultaniously and don't "react".. We also know electrons appear and disapper, rather than move. Anyhow, it is easier to get conclusions on things you can test and feel, rather to abstract things that people tell you. So we live in a world where most of our knowledge can't be tested by us. In a primitive world you can check consumption, and learn the wolfs are in fact dangerous and it is cold during the winter as your mother told. But nowdays we can't really check things we are been told. I do believe the earth is round, but we must be aware of the problem.

[RhetoricThug]

BTW, there is the phenomenom of Quantum entanglement; Where particles reacts faster than the speed of light. This phenomenom is unclear, and there is a guess these particles are one unit and not seperate so they change symultaniously and don't "react".. We also know electrons appear and disapper, rather than move. Anyhow, it is easier to get conclusions on things you can test and feel, rather to abstract things that people tell you. So we live in a world where most of our knowledge can't be tested by us. In a primitive world you can check consumption, and learn the wolfs are in fact dangerous and it is cold during the winter as your mother told. But nowdays we can't really check things we are been told. And even if we can most of us don't go and repeat the kown experiments ourselves, and don't speak mathematics to discuss science. I do believe the earth is round, don't worry, cause it fits everything else, but there is a problem with the knowledge we have that we don't really check it validity by our own hands anymore.


And its very good that physicians test every common conception and agree they have limit and holes in their theories. Perhaps there are other dimentions that explains the things.. who knows.

Bothered by the details, the whole thing bugs itself. A fragment of the universe ends a thought sequence with 'who knows.' You guys are simply beautiful.

[Beren]

I think the take-home message from this thread can be summarised as follows: it's not okay to be stupid, but it is okay to be a fish.

It's the opposite actually, because only man can be stupid, so stupidity is a special gift from God to man. Meanwhile, God doesn't care about the fish and it's absolutely not okay to be fish.

[B0ycey]

BTW, there is the phenomenom of Quantum entanglement; Where particles reacts faster than the speed of light. This phenomenom is unclear, and there is a guess these particles are one unit and not seperate so they change symultaniously and don't "react".. We also know electrons appear and disapper, rather than move. Anyhow, it is easier to get conclusions on things you can test and feel, rather to abstract things that people tell you. So we live in a world where most of our knowledge can't be tested by us. In a primitive world you can check consumption, and learn the wolfs are in fact dangerous and it is cold during the winter as your mother told. But nowdays we can't really check things we are been told. I do believe the earth is round, but we must be aware of the problem.

I believe I did a thread on this some time ago. But I think there is some doubt on tachyons anyway. My hypothesis works on the assumption that light has no speed and expands at the rate the universe does at that point. Like a balloon, expansion in the universe is different depending on where you are in it. The speed of light is fixed in our galaxy due to the massive blackhole in the centre. But due to E=mc2 and the fact we are missing matter to understand gravity in other galaxies if we use c as a variable and change it depending on the distance you are from a galaxy and also consider a time difference (as light to are eyes related to time) you can actually explain missing matter. Sounds complicated I know and I'm not sure I totally understanding, but If you are interested look in Agora for my thread.

[RhetoricThug]

It's the opposite actually, because only man can be stupid, so stupidity is a special gift from God to man. Meanwhile, God doesn't care about the fish and it's absolutely not okay to be fish.

God as some kind of divine individual? You're funny, Beren. God is the fish, God is the man. Only humans care to care about things, because care is a form of control. An omnipresent entity wouldn't need to control anything, because it would be everything.

I believe I did a thread on this some time ago. But I think there is some doubt on tachyons anyway. My hypothesis works on the assumption that light has no speed and expands at the rate the universe does at that point. Like a balloon, expansion in the universe is different depending on where you are in it. The speed of light is fixed in our galaxy due to the massive blackhole in the centre. But due to E=mc2 and the fact we are missing matter to understand gravity in other galaxies if we use c as a variable and change it depending on the distance you are from a galaxy and also consider a time difference (as light to are eyes related to time) you can actually explain missing matter. Sounds complicated I know and I'm not sure I totally understanding, but If you are interested look in Agora for my thread.

Problems, problems, problems all day long
Will my problems work out right or wrong?

-Everly Brothers

[B0ycey]

Problems, problems, problems all day long
Will my problems work out right or wrong?

-Everly Brothers

I expect my problems will work out wrong @RhetoricThug. I haven't looked into it for ages, and like Newton I am quite happy for my work to remain hidden from the world.

[foxdemon]

I didn't call it the most important thing only that it is the driving force for evolution. If I recall I said true. If everything was the same, you would not be spreading any genes by drift and selection would be identical whoever won.

Mutation is needed to create variation in the first place.

Variation + fitness difference + selection = evolution.


An interesting point. Earlier people mentioned the randomness of evolution. Well, to some extent. Yet there appears to be mechanisms to retain successful gene code. At least in sexually reproducing organisms.

At sexual cell division (meiosis) chromosomes cross over and swap sections of DNA. This occurs at a greater rate in one gender (males in mammal, females in birds). The result is one gender provides a conserved genome and the other provides a mixed genome.

A parallel can be drawn with race car teams. Generally they have two cars, an innovative one that might beat the standard, and a car that represents what won the race last year. So success is preserved until a new successful design replaces it.

The analogy with monkeys randomly typing to eventual get Shakespeare isn’t quite accurate. It’s more like monkeys randomly typing, any coherent passages are set aside, more typing, eventual useful passages are combined into a literary work. But not Shakespeare. There is no foresight. But yeah, it’s not completely random.

Sexuality this way allows large complex organises to evolve sufficiently quickly to cope with changing environments. Monkeys randomly typing would need more time than the universe has to accidentally code the genes to build a human if they stareted from scratch each time.