Canadians divided over creation and evolution

[DogOnPorch]

The big problem for YEC is that The Flood 4000 years ago is supposed to be the first mass extinction event, so all of the "kinds" of animals that are preserved in the rocks (including dinosaurs) would have had to be given a spot on that ark. It's beyond me why they haven't moved to the fallback position of old earth creationism! Some fundamentalists figuratively drive a stake in the ground and tie their legs to it as Plains warriors would do to show their defiance against overwhelming odds. At least the rhetorical version isn't a life or death struggle, but the end result is a further retreat from science and rational thinking....which could be more dangerous in the long run!

These questions may not disprove the Abrahamic version of creation in themselves, but a vast, empty universe almost devoid of complex life forms does not make sense with the Biblical version of a designed creation. Even the Mormon argument that the human race was created to explore and conquer the universe is bogus now that we are aware that the rate of expansion is increasing, and exploring distant galaxies will be impossible as they keep moving away from each other faster and faster.

The age of the earth is another thing that doesn't fit "design" since the oldest bacteria microfossils discovered are over 3.6 billion years old. This means that "God" dilly-dallied for two billion years before figuring out how to make more interesting complex life that would lead to the desired creatures who worship and and make burnt offerings to him.

for people who don't believe in evolution, they have to accept an almost instant creation of different races and ethnic features....although when I was young, there were still white Southern Baptists and the Mormons teaching that Africans were cursed black for being the descendents of Noah's cursed third son - Ham.....they don't talk about this particular racial diversification theory much anymore for some reason!

I don't want to hear the answer to that one! Blowing up the world is a bad thing to everyone except for endtime Christians and Muslims anxiously awaiting salvation.

A thoughtful response. Thanks WIP. Re: End of the Earth, science has already figured out that bit. Stellar evolution is pretty well understood...at least along the Main Sequence. After a long life, our star will go through 'rapid' changes...expand to a Red Giant...perhaps twice...go nova...perhaps several times...then contract into a White Dwarf until the end of the Universe....whenever or whatever that is.

This Java page shows the progression...

http://janus.astro.umd.edu/astro/stars/SunsLife.html

This page shows how solar mass affects star life.

http://janus.astro.umd.edu/astro/stars/StarRace.html

Our star (a type G2V) is a 'metal-rich' Population I star...which means that it was formed from the supernova remains of Population II stars of our early galaxy. These stars were 'metal poor' being made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium...perhaps some lithium. The heavier elements (especially thode elements beyond iron on the periodic table) created during supernovas via nucleosynthesis.

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

Many Population II stars still exist...especially in globular clustars...the oldest found so far being some 13.5 billion years old...older than anything in our Solar System.

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

Hypothetical Population III stars have been speculated during the earliest days of star formation in our Universe, but these stars would have been hyper-massive and if you tried the Star Race java ap, you'll see that the bigger the star, the quicker it burns all of its nuclear fuel.

[benny]

Time is not a good measuring rod.

[betsy]

Here's why, courtesy of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:

Human endogenous retrovirus K solo-LTR formation and insertional polymorphisms: Implications for human and viral evolution

This research paper - one of the minority that include the full text available without subscription, primarily deals with the possibility that some of the endogenous retroviruses, that usually lie dormant as junkDNA in our genomes, (like the HERV-K group) have remained intact and capable of coding new copies of themselves and subsequently altering the course of human evolution.

Once again, they show ERV's that we have in common with other primates, and imply a common ancestor (unless you can find that creationist explanation for these common insertion patterns):

At least 8% of the human genome is made up of endogenous retroviruses and related sequences, which form ≈200 distinct groups and subgroups (1–3). Most of these elements represent ancient retroviral infections, as evidenced by their wide distribution in primate species, and no infectious counterparts of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are known to exist today. Many HERV elements have been found to be at identical sites in both Old World monkeys and apes, which diverged ≈25 million years ago (4, 5), implying that the virus that gave rise to them existed at least that long ago.

The elements in our genome that appear to be the most recently active belong to the HERV-K family. The oldest members of this family entered the genome before the Old World monkey–ape divergence, but HERV-K elements have undergone several periods of expansion throughout primate evolution (7, 8). For example, there are many HERV-K elements that are present in the African great apes and humans but not in orangutans and the lesser apes, indicating a relatively recent integration time of 8–15 million years (4, 9).

Explain!

No! If there's any explaining to do....it will have to come from you! After all the evidence that your theory is going down the toilet were provided by these men who play key roles behind that theory!

You explain why Darwin, at one point capitulated and acknowledged Design....and all through his life, until the time of his death....was torn and tormented about it!

Explain why Antony Flew - a long-time hard-core Atheist, known as a legend - just decided to drop Atheism and embraced deism! Not only that, he criticized Evolution and flatly concluded that the theory of ID is far more convincing! His renouncement of Atheism is very consistent with his statement!

A century later after Darwin , explain why Dawkins grudgingly admitted to the possibility of Design!

[DogOnPorch]

Time is not a good measuring rod.

Thanks to fellows like Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Thorne, et al...time is an excellent measuring rod.

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

Sagan's old Cosmos gives a superb layman's introduction to general relativity.

[DogOnPorch]

No! If there's any explaining to do....it will have to come from you! After all the evidence that your theory is going down the toilet were provided by these men who play key roles behind that theory!

You explain why Darwin, at one point capitulated and acknowledged Design....and all through his life, until the time of his death....was torn and tormented about it!

Explain why Antony Flew - a long-time hard-core Atheist, known as a legend - just decided to drop Atheism and embraced deism! Not only that, he criticized Evolution and flatly concluded that the theory of ID is far more convincing! His renouncement of Atheism is very consistent with his statement!

A century later after Darwin , explain why Dawkins grudgingly admitted to the possibility of Design!

I can't wait for the photocopier to break in your brave new world sans science.

[benny]

I can't wait for the photocopier to break in your brave new world sans science.

"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme" (François Rabelais)

[DogOnPorch]

"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme" (François Rabelais)

benny would fix it w/ French...and a copy of Baudelaire.

[benny]

Baudelaire.

You have to understand why the romanticism of the 19th century was a legitimate response to the rationalism of the 18th century.

[WIP]

No! If there's any explaining to do....it will have to come from you! After all the evidence that your theory is going down the toilet were provided by these men who play key roles behind that theory!

Forget about the theory then! How does your theory explain the common retroviral gene insertions in humans and apes, with at least one being present in all ape, old world and new world monkey species, that were discussed in that PNAS report?

You explain why Darwin, at one point capitulated and acknowledged Design....and all through his life, until the time of his death....was torn and tormented about it!

Let me ask you something: if the Pope, Billy Graham, James Dobson, Rick Warren etc. etc. declared tomorrow that there is no such thing as the god of the bible, would that make you an atheist?

It appears that you accept teachings of trusted authority figures rather than doing your own thinking. This is the pattern taught in church, but that's not how science works! I already gave you one link that refuted a number of false quotes attributed to Charles Darwin -- but that would have no bearing one way or the other on how I understand the theory of evolution.

Explain why Antony Flew - a long-time hard-core Atheist, known as a legend - just decided to drop Atheism and embraced deism! Not only that, he criticized Evolution and flatly concluded that the theory of ID is far more convincing! His renouncement of Atheism is very consistent with his statement!

Another argument from authority! If Anthony Flew was such a legend, how come I never heard of him before fundies started trumpeting him as a convert to their cause?

Explain to me why you keep mentioning Anthony Flew as a source, even though he is a philosopher, not a scientist? And, he cites philosophical reasons, not scientific ones, for his baby steps towards intelligent design. His conversion from atheism to deism, still leaves him closer to atheism than to Christianity, and much of what you have quoted by him is probably a lie, since he has clarified many claims that were falsely attributed to him by Gary Habermas and other Christian apologists. http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369

And whatever Anthony Flew's thoughts are on cosmic origins, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

A century later after Darwin , explain why Dawkins grudgingly admitted to the possibility of Design!

Because there is not enough known about the formation of the universe to disprove design.....and once again, that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

[WIP]

A thoughtful response. Thanks WIP. Re: End of the Earth, science has already figured out that bit. Stellar evolution is pretty well understood...at least along the Main Sequence. After a long life, our star will go through 'rapid' changes...expand to a Red Giant...perhaps twice...go nova...perhaps several times...then contract into a White Dwarf until the end of the Universe....whenever or whatever that is.

Whenever I read stuff about stellar evolution, I think back to my early years, stuck in the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, which taught that most of the survivors of Armageddon would not go to heaven, but instead live forever on earth! Forever is a mighty long time! I wonder if they are now teaching their followers that God will have to relocate the earth during the red giant phase, and maybe replace our sun when it becomes a cool white dwarf......and ofcourse, Jehovah would have to put the brakes on dark energy and stop the expansion of the universe. No wonder so many of these wacky cults don't want their children reading anything about science.

Our star (a type G2V) is a 'metal-rich' Population I star...which means that it was formed from the supernova remains of Population II stars of our early galaxy. These stars were 'metal poor' being made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium...perhaps some lithium. The heavier elements (especially thode elements beyond iron on the periodic table) created during supernovas via nucleosynthesis.

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

Now couldn't an intelligent designer figure a way to create a universe that began with metal-rich stars, rather than having a cosmic fireworks show to create heavy elements and the kinds of star systems that could produce planets or moons capable of developing life? Fine Tuning is a deists kind of design argument! It doesn't make a good fit with the Abrahamic God that can snap his supernatural fingers and instantly get whatever he wants!

Many Population II stars still exist...especially in globular clustars...the oldest found so far being some 13.5 billion years old...older than anything in our Solar System.

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

Hypothetical Population III stars have been speculated during the earliest days of star formation in our Universe, but these stars would have been hyper-massive and if you tried the Star Race java ap, you'll see that the bigger the star, the quicker it burns all of its nuclear fuel.

I didn't know that there could still be Population II stars in existence. I thought they were all massive stars that burned quickly and went supernova. I'll have to try the java aps. tomorrow since I just cancelled a java update because I would have had to close my browser for the installation -- thanks!

[betsy]

Forget about the theory then! How does your theory explain the common retroviral gene insertions in humans and apes, with at least one being present in all ape, old world and new world monkey species, that were discussed in that PNAS report?

Phooey! All that nonsense about us all coming from one is the most ludricous fairy tale that's being touted about. The theory of ID by other equally qualified scientists (like as if evolutionist scientists are the only ones) and the admissions by these three men clearly bust that one!

Never proven then....not proven now....will never be prooooven!

Let me ask you something: if the Pope, Billy Graham, James Dobson, Rick Warren etc. etc. declared tomorrow that there is no such thing as the god of the bible, would that make you an atheist?

Of course not. I don't even really follow these men....am I an Atheist now?

I do my own research of the Bible, remember?

BUT when Darwin, the man who gave the theory of evolution questions his own theory, capitulated to Design (and was torn and tormented by it until his death), and several EQUALLY-QUALIFIED scientists debunks Evolution and supports the theory of ID, and a long-time Philosopher said to be a legend among Atheist suddenly does a 180 degree and embraced deism.....and when the "bulldog of Darwin," himself starts admitiing the possiblity of Design....no, that don't make them Christians. That, however, puts Atheism in a very shakey situation.

After all, two of these men are scientists behind a theory that would have debunked the existence of any god!

It appears that you accept teachings of trusted authority figures rather than doing your own thinking. This is the pattern taught in church, but that's not how science works! I already gave you one link that refuted a number of false quotes attributed to Charles Darwin -- but that would have no bearing one way or the other on how I understand the theory of evolution.

Am I relying on just mere quotes of Darwin????

Read the letter exchanges of Darwin and Asa Gray! You should....so you can verify the whole context!

Another argument from authority! If Anthony Flew was such a legend, how come I never heard of him before fundies started trumpeting him as a convert to their cause?

Have I heard any of those men I enumerated in "REJOICE ON THIS DAY" thread?

Being such important men they've become to Christianity?

Explain to me why you keep mentioning Anthony Flew as a source, even though he is a philosopher, not a scientist?

It's because he is a PHILOSOPHER and not a scientist!

Also, see the meaning of Deism below. Hint: rational.

And, he cites philosophical reasons, not scientific ones, for his baby steps towards intelligent design.

What a distortion!

Suddenly believing in the existence of a god is not "baby steps!" From Atheism to Deism, I call that

a giant leap indeed!

His conversion from atheism to deism, still leaves him closer to atheism than to Christianity,

According to Webster:

Deism - belief in the existence of a God on purely rational ground without reliance on revelation of authority.

Keep in mind the important fact that this Antony Flew is a Philisopher, therefore this life-changing decision did not just happen without any serious thought.....very, very, very serious rational thinking invovled.

Being an Atheist, do you believe in any god? Being a Christian, I do!

So that leaves him closer to where? What do you think?

He is as closer to Christians and to Muslims and anyone who believes in God......than ATHEISTS!

What a silly question, really!

I don't really care what he believes in....it just so happens that his sudden change to deism from atheism (and the reason behind it) supports my argument. But I'm glad he did change to Deism. That's a start. He is on a spiritual journey....hopefully, his travel will lead him to Christ.

Either you don't mean what Deism means or..... you're lashing out blindly. You're in denial.

Edited May 17, 2009 by betsy

[WIP]

Phooey! All that nonsense about us all coming from one is the most ludricous fairy tale that's being touted about.

In other words, you haven't been able to find a creationist explanation yet for common ERV insertions in different genomes.....and that would likely be BECAUSE THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION BESIDES A COMMON ANCESTOR.

According to Webster:

Deism - belief in the existence of a God on purely rational ground without reliance on revelation of authority.

Being an Atheist, do you believe in any god? Being a Christian, I do!

Either you don't mean what Deism means or..... you're lashing out blindly. You're in denial.

A dictionary is not going to provide much information about what deists believe, and how they view their beliefs in comparison with other's, like Christianity for example. To find that out, you have to go directly to the source: http://www.deism.com/atheisttodeist.htm

Read this: Deism vs. Atheism and Christianity and some of the other essays, and then tell me who is closer to deism, an atheist or a christian!

And once again, this is a sidenote that has nothing to do with evolution vs. creationism.

[betsy]

What irony!

Sometime ago, Atheists like archeologist Ramsey, Morrison, Greenleaf set out on an investigative mission to debunk Christianity.....only to find themselves believing and converted to the belief they've sought to disprove. Refer to the thread REJOICE ON THIS DAY.

Sometime ago, Atheist Darwin set out on a mission - presenting a scientific theory - that would've proved that there is no God....only to find himself doubting his own theory, conflicted, capitulated and tormented by the possible existence of God. Refer to the thread DARWIN.

A century later, some highly qualified Atheist scientists veered away from that same theory that would've proved there is no God.....and found themselves not only believing in God, but also converting to Christianity. Refer to thread REJOICE ON THIS DAY.

About the same time, some scientists veered away from the same theory that would've proved that there is no God....and found themselves facing an "Intelligent Design"....or an "Intelligent Designer."

They prefer to call Him "ID" instead of GOD.

About the same time, an Atheist Philosopher known to be a legend among Atheists embarked on several debates....only to find himself converted to the belief that there is a God.

About the same time, Atheist Dawkins, "the bulldog of Darwin," set out on a mission to confirm the evolution theory (and more so to debunk the existence of God)....only to find himself manifesting the beginnings of symptoms similar to that which had plagued his master, Darwin. He publicly admitted to the possibility of Design. Refer to the thread on DAWKINS (Fundamentalist Preacher)

History repeating itself..... and persistently...consistently showing the Faith that endures.

Edited May 17, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

Christianity says don't play with life like if could become less fragile, you may well make things worst in the long run. Christianity seems to be looking at the big picture, and science bedevils by details.

[GostHacked]

No! If there's any explaining to do....it will have to come from you! After all the evidence that your theory is going down the toilet were provided by these men who play key roles behind that theory!

You explain why Darwin, at one point capitulated and acknowledged Design....and all through his life, until the time of his death....was torn and tormented about it!

Explain why Antony Flew - a long-time hard-core Atheist, known as a legend - just decided to drop Atheism and embraced deism! Not only that, he criticized Evolution and flatly concluded that the theory of ID is far more convincing! His renouncement of Atheism is very consistent with his statement!

A century later after Darwin , explain why Dawkins grudgingly admitted to the possibility of Design!

These are philysophical questions. Not scentific ones. I am sure many scientists go through this dilemma, as do many pastors preachers and leaders of faith. Even the Pope admits that evolution happend.

And what kind of design is he talking about, a top down designer, or a bottom up designer.

About the same time, some scientists veered away from the same theory that would've proved that there is no God....and found themselves facing an "Intelligent Design"....or an "Intelligent Designer."

They prefer to call Him "ID" instead of GOD.

Because the courts truck down anything with creationism, so they had to find a new term for the same ol shit which is not science.

Creationism, Intelligent Design, and whatever it is called next, is all the same. It is all faith based, and there is absolutley no science involved. And you don't find it funny that most supporters of Darwin and Dawkins don't really care about the faith the two men had.

[Molly]

Why should one even address such tripe as the proposal- nay, insistence- that the notion of natural selection would 'prove that there is no god', much less that Darwin set out to prove non-existence?

That's a falsehood on it's face... preposterous. Rediculous.

To reply at all is to expect that a self-claimed irrationalist should transform to become, at least for the duration of your reply, rational.

Ain't going to happen.

[benny]

Why should one even address such tripe as the proposal- nay, insistence- that the notion of natural selection would 'prove that there is no god', much less that Darwin set out to prove non-existence?

That's a falsehood on it's face... preposterous. Rediculous.

To reply at all is to expect that a self-claimed irrationalist should transform to become, at least for the duration of your reply, rational.

Ain't going to happen.

The Occam' razor can only cut indeed.

[GostHacked]

Why should one even address such tripe as the proposal- nay, insistence- that the notion of natural selection would 'prove that there is no god', much less that Darwin set out to prove non-existence?

That's a falsehood on it's face... preposterous. Rediculous.

To reply at all is to expect that a self-claimed irrationalist should transform to become, at least for the duration of your reply, rational.

Ain't going to happen.

What I find funny is that is was never science's intent to prove or disprove god. That is simply not what they are working with. There simply is no god question in science. Science deals with the natural world. Not the supernatural. There are no tests to perform for the supernatural. So guess what, they simply do not deal with devinity. But yet the creationists like to call their approach scientific by nitpicking at holes in any scientific theory that is not 100% complete. Scientists say, "I don't know". Where IDers say .. "AHA gotcha!!, you don't know and that is where 'the creator' did the work."

Whatever you call it, creationism, I.D. ect ect ect .. it is all based on the devine, which science does not test.

Betsy

Phooey! All that nonsense about us all coming from one is the most ludricous fairy tale that's being touted about. The theory of ID by other equally qualified scientists (like as if evolutionist scientists are the only ones) and the admissions by these three men clearly bust that one!

Never proven then....not proven now....will never be prooooven!

Never say Never. I made that mistake a few times.

I do my own research of the Bible, remember?

How about doing your own research on a couple other topics as well. I couldn't resist.

QUOTE

Explain to me why you keep mentioning Anthony Flew as a source, even though he is a philosopher, not a scientist?

----

It's because he is a PHILOSOPHER and not a scientist!

If you are to be taken seriously, Philosophy needs to be checked at the door as well. Philosophy is not science.

[betsy]

If you are to be taken seriously, Philosophy needs to be checked at the door as well. Philosophy is not science.

This coming from someone who deliberately took my statement out of context! I no longer have any intention of discussiing or debating with you!

[betsy]

As for the rest of the responses to my last post....to quote Molly...."a'nt gonna happen." Nothing worth replying to. Bye. I've said my piece. That's fact. Take it or remain in blissful denial!

[benny]

That's fact. Take it or remain in blissful denial!

By definition, a fact is always a bit factitious.

[WIP]

What irony!

Sometime ago, Atheists like archeologist Ramsey, Morrison, Greenleaf set out on an investigative mission to debunk Christianity.....only to find themselves believing and converted to the belief they've sought to disprove. Refer to the thread REJOICE ON THIS DAY.

etc. etc. etc.

It appears that the point is lost on betsy that other people's conversion and de-conversion stories are just arguments from authority, and not empirical evidence.

When confronted by such a Christian, as I was a week and a half ago, when one of my wife's old friends stopped by and decided to giver me her testimonial, they do not talk about evidence in any meaningful way, just what they believe and what other like-minded people believe. Wikipedia has a list of prominent former Christians that have deconverted or converted to other religions. It's certainly not a complete list because they somehow missed former Pentacostal evangelist and songwriter - Dan Barker, who is now co-chairman of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The only reason why the Theory of Evolution is a hotly contested issue, is because fundamentalist Christians, Muslims and Orthodox Jews, have drawn a line in the sand and declared that they will not budge from a literal interpretation of their mythologies.......they gave in on that flat earth and revolving around the sun thing, but that's it! No more accomodations for any new learning that doesn't coincide with what scribes wrote over 2000 years ago.

Well, I wonder if there are any other creationists out there who will offer up a theory that explains common endogenous retroviral genes in different species of animals....since that is the question I wanted an answer for over the last five or six posts!

[WIP]

And what kind of design is he talking about, a top down designer, or a bottom up designer.

From what I've read of his statements made over the last five years, Anthony Flew has nothing to say on evolution, but questions whether the first original life could organize itself without a designing force. But most of his attention is on the Fine Tuning question - whether the finely balanced conditions that allowed our universe to unfold as it has could have come about through natural, emergent forces in nature. The only reason why he is celebrated by Christian evangelists is because of mis-attributed statements that evangelist Gary Habermas claims he made to him that got Christians all excited that he was going to become one of them.......but, what the hell difference would that have made on the question of evolution/creationism anyway?

[benny]

Well, I wonder if there are any other creationists out there who will offer up a theory that explains common endogenous retroviral genes in different species of animals....since that is the question I wanted an answer for over the last five or six posts!

I have given different answers to your question and here another one: to understand what a virus is, one has to understand what can be a non-human intentional virility.

[ToadBrother]

Dawkins says that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

This "appearance" is fundamental in the sense that there is no science without it; appearance is the product of consciousness.

God has only to say something to create it because appearance and consciousness are the product of symbol manipulations.

This has to be the most pathetic word game I've ever seen. "Appearance" means "resemblances". Dawkins gives an example in Climbing Mount Improbable of a naturally weathered stone outcropping which resembles John F. Kennedy. There is an appearance of design in this, but there is no consciousness, and no real design, because the stone's appearance is simply the product of various erosive forces.

Perhaps, rather playing moronic semantics games with the writings of people who you have clearly not read, you might try actually reading what they write. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you know nothing about evolution, and certainly know nothing about what Dawkins was saying.