Canadians divided over creation and evolution

benny · May 15, 2009

Yes and there is a light that is different "brighter than the sun" _ I wonder what that could be...it sounds like something that is more than physical - more than mere energy and matter - more that nature - super nature....................supernatural ---when people hear the term supernatural - they imagine a myth a fantacy - super natural does not mean NOT natural or NOT real - it means the extreme real!

Our minds are projecting forms (gestalts or spirits) on everything our fives senses can perceive (energy and matter).

Oleg Bach · May 15, 2009

Our minds are projecting forms (gestalts or spirits) on everything our fives senses can perceive (energy and matter).

It's more than that - the human mind can project and can effect energy and matter - but he higher plain is beyond matter...some people do not give this a lot of thought and suggest that energy can not be destroyed so that makes us immortal creatures - this is limited in concept - once we are dis-assembled though death and decay - the energy and matter still exist - but it is without form - with out thought - just ashes - where as spirit - is not soul - it is the mind of the universe..the mind of God - you can have soul and lack spirit - or holy spirit - holy spirit must be attained though free will - and a will to be eternal - some really don't want salvation from oblivion - some seek salvation and find it...again - it is not a matter of energy - it is beyond that. God or the gernerator of goodness (life) is not energy or matter dependant - nor should we be.

benny · May 15, 2009

holy spirit must be attained though free will

I think so too if you mean a free will to accept a fate.

GostHacked · May 15, 2009

Yes and there is a light that is different "brighter than the sun" _ I wonder what that could be...it sounds like something that is more than physical - more than mere energy and matter - more that nature - super nature....................supernatural ---when people hear the term supernatural - they imagine a myth a fantacy - super natural does not mean NOT natural or NOT real - it means the extreme real!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural

The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to an order of existence beyond the scientifically visible universe.[1] Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, as are spells and curses, divination, the belief that there is an afterlife for the dead, and innumerable others. Supernatural beliefs have existed in many cultures throughout human history.
Characteristic for phenomena claimed as supernatural are anomaly, uniqueness and uncontrollability, thus lacking reproducibility required for scientific examination. Supernatural themes are often associated with paranormal and occult ideas, suggesting for possibility of interaction with the supernatural by means of summoning or trance for instance.

GostHacked · May 15, 2009

It's more than that - the human mind can project and can effect energy and matter - but he higher plain is beyond matter...some people do not give this a lot of thought and suggest that energy can not be destroyed so that makes us immortal creatures -

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can be transfered and transformed. This is a whole other science lesson though.

benny · May 15, 2009

Higgs fields seem so supernatural:

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/Leib-Clk/higgs.html

Oleg Bach · May 15, 2009

So if super means above - then you insist that there is nothing below the realm of nature - natural law or the natural world and inverse - in the alternative some suggest that there is nothing above nature - or the natural world or physics (science) _ To shluff aside the super natural , is saying that all the laws of physics are all discovered and proven and that there is no more - that science has peaked and is now fully frozen in institutionalization - that we have all the answers...superscience..that's a nice term.

GostHacked · May 15, 2009

So if super means above - then you insist that there is nothing below the realm of nature - natural law or the natural world and inverse - in the alternative some suggest that there is nothing above nature - or the natural world or physics (science) _ To shluff aside the super natural , is saying that all the laws of physics are all discovered and proven and that there is no more - that science has peaked and is now fully frozen in institutionalization - that we have all the answers...superscience..that's a nice term.

It still comes back to the fact that not many in this thread understand WHAT science really is. Science does not deal with supernatural things. Simply because there is no test for that, and if there was, it would have to garner repeated results to be validated. Ever what Ghost Hunters at all? These guys are old Roto Rooter guys turned paranormal investigators. They debunk as much as they can, but there are anomilies which cannot be explained.

Superscience?? Yes I am laughing. Science has yet to peek. The more we know shows that science has yet to peek.

benny · May 15, 2009

It still comes back to the fact that not many in this thread understand WHAT science really is. Science does not deal with supernatural things. Simply because there is no test for that, and if there was, it would have to garner repeated results to be validated. Ever what Ghost Hunters at all? These guys are old Roto Rooter guys turned paranormal investigators. They debunk as much as they can, but there are anomilies which cannot be explained.
Superscience?? Yes I am laughing. Science has yet to peek. The more we know shows that science has yet to peek.

What is supernatural is that political science comes first.

GostHacked · May 15, 2009

What is supernatural is that political science comes first.

*.science or science.* ... is anything but science

Mr.Canada · May 15, 2009

People will come to their senses and worship the one true God or burn in hell for all time. It's very simple really. The Bible tells us what we need to do in order to get into heaven. It's man's choice wiether to heed God words or not too. People will be punished or rewarded accordingly.

WIP · May 15, 2009

WIP....WIP....
That long rant about my faith won't do. I never denied what I am and what I believe.

Although I am a Creationist - I don't think I ever did debate about it with anyone.

The only times I mentioned about it or my belief, is when I was pointedly asked specifically about it. And usually in my reply I clarified that I was answering based on my faith.

How many times did I clearly state that "my faith has nothing to do with this?" I think it was with a discussion somewhere with Gosthack.

And what post are you responding to? I never mentiioned "faith" in my last post -- creationism is a scientific claim, and if you are making the claim, you have the responsibility to back it up with evidence, not "faith."

So, don't make cheap appeals to your religious beliefs; if you are advancing a claim of individual creations of living organisms and counter-arguments to evolution from common origins, you have left the world of make-believe and entered the real world, where physical evidence can be used to evaluate the merits of different theories.

My conclusion is that, between the theory of Evolution and the theory of ID, the theory of ID is far more convincing. I've supported it with strong evidence. Now, that's the argument.
Check out the three threads and see I am consistent in that.

No one's asking for your opinon! And I'm not wasting time on your spam threads that have nothing to offer, other than attacking the personal character of a few prominent scientists. Maybe that counts as evidence in church, but it doesn't in the public square.

You've presented a "proof" from this podcast. And I've explained and shown you why that is not proof......it's just another extrapolation this guy's trying to pass for a fact.

You were the one who complained that the six part portion of Zachary Moore's podcast series on evolution was derivative, since he used Douglas Theobold's series on Talkorigins as his template -- so even you should be able to understand that Moore is explaining the evidence, not presenting the evidence -- therefore your objection is totally bogus, and another attempt to dodge your responsibility of providing the creationist explanation for the same research findings.

I don't care what you think of Moore's or Theobold's explanations based on evolutionary theory! The facts remain the same; and you still have offered no creationist explanation for two of the many findings from genomic research that would be considered strong evidence for common origins. Your responsibility as a creationist, is to provide an alternative theory to explain the evidence. Your one single attempt so far, has been to either misrepresent or just plain not understand the question, since you sent me to a creationist site on the unrelated issue of comparing human and chimp genomes.

1. Evidence from endogenous retroviruses:

How did animals such as chimpanzees, gorillas and humans could have common retroviral insertions in their DNA, if they did not originate from a common ancestor. So how did they and other animals, get common ERV insertions? It's a finding from genomic research, and not dependent on theory, evolutionary or otherwise!

If you think they are just making this up, you can access Theobold's links that require membership to PubMed

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...ml#retroviruses

2. Evidence from protein functional redundancy:

You also have not dealt with the question of why a ubiquitous gene - Cytochrome C, should follow a pattern of morphological similarites that are found in other lines of genetic evidence that would lead to a conclusion of evolution from common origins. The special significance of Cytochrome C, as pointed out in Moore's podcast, is that the possible combinations of amino acids are virtually limitless, and every plant and animal could have been given its own unique, signature cytochrome C; and as also mentioned, every formulation of Cytochrome C can be used for metabolic function by every plant and animal that has been tested so far -- so only one version would have needed to have been created! Explaining its pattern of morphological similarities that has been discovered, would fit the prediction of evolutionary theory, so explain why this should be if animals and plants were created separately?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...tein_redundancy

benny · May 15, 2009

*.science or science.* ... is anything but science

Science is nothing but politics.

GostHacked · May 15, 2009

Science is nothing but politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics

Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions. The term is generally applied to behaviour within civil governments, but politics has been observed in all human group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit,[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes termed experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, the application of scientific research to specific human needs — though the two are often interconnected.

MORE COWBE... err umm MORE FACEPALM !!! Learn the difference before you trot out another usless one liner. I dare you. I challenge you.

Evolutionists 2 - Creationists 0.

benny · May 15, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

MORE COWBE... err umm MORE FACEPALM !!! Learn the difference before you trot out another usless one liner. I dare you. I challenge you.

Evolutionists 2 - Creationists 0.

In Wikipedia's wording, no acquisition of knowledge without a process by which a group of people makes decisions.

Edited May 15, 2009 by benny

GostHacked · May 15, 2009

In Wikipedia's wording, no acquisition of knowledge without a process by which a group of people makes decisions.

Dude, another useless one liner. Obviously you are challenged in some way. Lack of logic for one. You are like a minimalist Oleg. But still no substance to the posts. No advancement of debate, simple one liners to pad your post count.

The aquisition of knowledge comes from asking questions, not from making decisions. Please learn the difference. I am still trying to find this ignore feature. ... someone want to remind me where this damn thing is??

betsy · May 15, 2009

And what post are you responding to? I never mentiioned "faith" in my last post -- creationism is a scientific claim, and if you are making the claim, you have the responsibility to back it up with evidence, not "faith."
So, don't make cheap appeals to your religious beliefs; if you are advancing a claim of individual creations of living organisms and counter-arguments to evolution from common origins, you have left the world of make-believe and entered the real world, where physical evidence can be used to evaluate the merits of different theories.

No one's asking for your opinon! And I'm not wasting time on your spam threads that have nothing to offer, other than attacking the personal character of a few prominent scientists. Maybe that counts as evidence in church, but it doesn't in the public square.

You were the one who complained that the six part portion of Zachary Moore's podcast series on evolution was derivative, since he used Douglas Theobold's series on Talkorigins as his template -- so even you should be able to understand that Moore is explaining the evidence, not presenting the evidence -- therefore your objection is totally bogus, and another attempt to dodge your responsibility of providing the creationist explanation for the same research findings.

I don't care what you think of Moore's or Theobold's explanations based on evolutionary theory! The facts remain the same; and you still have offered no creationist explanation for two of the many findings from genomic research that would be considered strong evidence for common origins. Your responsibility as a creationist, is to provide an alternative theory to explain the evidence. Your one single attempt so far, has been to either misrepresent or just plain not understand the question, since you sent me to a creationist site on the unrelated issue of comparing human and chimp genomes.

1. Evidence from endogenous retroviruses:

How did animals such as chimpanzees, gorillas and humans could have common retroviral insertions in their DNA, if they did not originate from a common ancestor. So how did they and other animals, get common ERV insertions? It's a finding from genomic research, and not dependent on theory, evolutionary or otherwise!

If you think they are just making this up, you can access Theobold's links that require membership to PubMed

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...ml#retroviruses

2. Evidence from protein functional redundancy:

You also have not dealt with the question of why a ubiquitous gene - Cytochrome C, should follow a pattern of morphological similarites that are found in other lines of genetic evidence that would lead to a conclusion of evolution from common origins. The special significance of Cytochrome C, as pointed out in Moore's podcast, is that the possible combinations of amino acids are virtually limitless, and every plant and animal could have been given its own unique, signature cytochrome C; and as also mentioned, every formulation of Cytochrome C can be used for metabolic function by every plant and animal that has been tested so far -- so only one version would have needed to have been created! Explaining its pattern of morphological similarities that has been discovered, would fit the prediction of evolutionary theory, so explain why this should be if animals and plants were created separately?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/se...tein_redundancy

Can you provide any other source aside from TALKORIGIN???

benny · May 15, 2009

Dude, another useless one liner. Obviously you are challenged in some way. Lack of logic for one. You are like a minimalist Oleg. But still no substance to the posts. No advancement of debate, simple one liners to pad your post count.
The aquisition of knowledge comes from asking questions, not from making decisions. Please learn the difference. I am still trying to find this ignore feature. ... someone want to remind me where this damn thing is??

- Try one-liner too, it will be easier, faster and less nerve-raking.

- Knowledge comes by making decisions about tools to make and use.

WIP · May 15, 2009

Can you provide any other source aside from TALKORIGIN???

That shouldn't matter, but the sources are highlighted, and others can be found in any google search of the subject.

benny · May 16, 2009

1. Evidence from endogenous retroviruses:
2. Evidence from protein functional redundancy:

The main concept of chaos theory, the strange attractor, can deal with these common elements and functional redundancies.

betsy · May 16, 2009

All these song-and-dance by evolutionists trying desperately to defend their theory is quite useless.

They can quote any supposed-proofs...and extrapolate to their hearts' content. It's futile.

The truth that's finally come out is that evolution does not have anything solid to stand on! Period!

The direction clearly points to ID! Darwin and Dawkins, both acknowledged the possibility! What more, a hard-core Philosopher - apparently a legend among Atheists - had suddenly dropped Atheism and embraced Deism, criticized evolution and endorsed the ID theory!

The evidence I've provided proved that without any doubt!

That Dawkins himself, the self-proclaimed prophet of modern-day Atheism, would grudgingly admit to the possibility of Design, practically knocked the legs off Atheism!

The reaction of the atheists in these discussions is quite understandable.

What we see here on these threads are shell-shocked followers who are in denial!

Edited May 16, 2009 by betsy

WIP · May 16, 2009

What we see here on these threads are shell-shocked followers who are in denial!

A religious fanatic calls every biologist who is working with the principles of evolutionary theory to design new cures for cancer and infectious diseases "in denial."

You are the one in denial, since you make bold scientific claims that you cannot back up with evidence, and have no creationist explanations for genetic artifacts like common retroviral insertions. Who do you think you're kidding?

betsy · May 16, 2009

A religious fanatic calls every biologist who is working with the principles of evolutionary theory to design new cures for cancer and infectious diseases "in denial."
You are the one in denial, since you make bold scientific claims that you cannot back up with evidence, and have no creationist explanations for genetic artifacts like common retroviral insertions. Who do you think you're kidding?

Forget creationism! Don't look any further. Just focus on these three men.....with key-roles in the theory of evolution.

The behaviours and comments of Darwin, Dawkins and Flew speak for themselves.

I've provided clear, consistent, credible evidences to support my claim.

You have not.

A religious fanatic calls every You are the one in denial, since you make bold scientific claims that you cannot back up with evidence,

What more back-up scientific evidence do I need other than the stature and credibility of these two scientific men who both admit to the same possibility, spanning a century between them ?

Darwin, torn and tormented even unto the time of his death?

Not to mention the behaviour of a Philosopher who suddenly - and decisively - dropped Atheism in favor of Deism?

Edited May 16, 2009 by betsy

WIP · May 16, 2009

Forget creationism! Don't look any further. Just focus on these three men.....with key-roles in the theory of evolution.
The behaviours and comments of Darwin, Dawkins and Flew speak for themselves.

I've provided clear, consistent, credible evidences to support my claim.

You have not.

Your focus on these men has nothing to do with the validity of evidence presented on a scientific issue, and therefore does not qualify as any sort of evidence to back up your claims. I don't care if you think Dawkins is the antichrist; that has nothing to do with which theory best explains the fossil, genetic and anatomical evidence of all living creatures. Richard Dawkins has to convince his colleagues that his gene-centered model of evolutionary adaptation is the right one -- just the fact of being a prominent leader in the science of biology does not carry much weight.

And since you are advancing a scientific theory, your creationist theory has a burden of proof to explain fossil and genetic evidence. You can't just hide behind criticism of prominent evolutionary theorists. If plants and animals are unique creations that have not branched off from common ancestors, the theory of creation should be supported by this evidence. If it cannot prove adaptations are irreconcilably complex, and cannot explain some of the findings from genomic research, then it is not a valid theory!

cybercoma · May 16, 2009

WIP, why bother? Seriously. I put "God-Fearing" Atheist under my handle because it scares me that the idea of god can make a person so vehemently ignorant.

Edited May 16, 2009 by cybercoma