The BIBLE and SCIENCE

[GostHacked]

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/02/the_bible_vs_sc.html

Tom Vail is the author of the creationist book at issue. The book, Grand Canyon: A Different View, riles the science-minded, Vail claims, because "if we're right, if the Grand Canyon is the result of a global flood and the Bible is true, then there's a God. And if there's a God, then there's a God that they might be [answerable] to."

Vail's point, however, begs a question that he and like-minded creationists might not want asked. If they're objectively wrong about the genesis of the Grand Canyon and other geologic matters — you'll be hard-pressed to find a mainstream scientist who says they aren't — must they concede that God does not exist?

That, of course, is a rhetorical question. No amount of scientific evidence will convince an ardent creationist of the validity of human evolution or that the Earth is billions of years old.

Nevertheless, the question frames a problem with the stance of the anti-science creationists that threatens not only their version of the world's origins, but also the credibility of their religion itself.

This is an opinion peice mind you. But it does have some logic to it. It is actually funny to say that science has evolution wrong, but yet science is used by creationists to prove their point. Like cake and eating it too.

No, religion shouldn't be picking this particular fight with mainstream science. Can't the Bible literalists concede matters of empirical evidence and rational inquiry to science and devote themselves to the questions of ultimate meaning — the mighty questions that rightly occupy religion? Their religion doesn't need any scientific proof. Why should their own faith?

Who wrote the Bible? God? Or did god write it through man?

Purple monkey dishwasher.

http://www.bible.ca/b-science-evidences.htm

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...25061508AAMa0ww lol

http://www.tftw2.org/Articles/scienceprovesbible.htm

SCIENCE PROVES THE BIBLE

The Bible begins with these words. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." There are many people in the world who do not believe that statement. Some say God does not exist, and therefore, the Bible cannot be His Word. Sometimes we are led to believe that all true scientists do not believe in God, or the Bible. However, this is not correct. True science is not opposed to the Bible. In fact, science, properly applied and understood, proves the Bible to be inspired. The Bible is not a science book. However, whenever it makes a statement relating to a a scientific principle or fact, it is completely accurate.

That does not make sense to me, but I guess I don't have the faiths.

[sharkman]

I've been watching his other vids, he is pretty damn smart, and really breaks it down. And yes, full of information in a short time. It's like the 25 Creationist Falacies vid I linked previously, but each point givin 10 minutes of details.

The guy has a great speaking voice as well.

Look, there are many smart articulate types on the ID side and I could provide links, but you wouldn't change your mind one inch. This is because it's actually not about science with you. If the creationists are right, then there is a God and you'd have to change your way of thinking. Much easier to doubt.

But the bottom line is there is no absolute proof of creation or all of the several options evolutionists come up with. They have just as much faith as any religion.

Your line:

Once creationists have a unifying hypothesis then we can talk. Which creationist view is right??

is odd. Evolutionists have many different hypothesis theories and yet you don't seem to have a problem with the conflicts. Only with the creation ones, and that's fine, but to pretend both sides have differing views is to fool yourself. I earlier mentioned some of evolution's disagreements, and since it seems to have slipped your mind, here they are again:

The best they can come up with is that matter on CRYSTALS began the first cells as the crystals did some hocus pocus on them. I am not making this up.

Or if the evolutionists really trust you, in a moment of weakness they will say it's possible that ALIENS SEEDED THE EARTH with life. Again, I am not making this up. They offer no word on who created the aliens, however.

Another theory is that a bolt of lightning hitting mud started the process of life, but in the 50's some schmuck scientist proved to himself that he could not get any life to start when he experimented with lightning and mud over and over again repeatedly. Some say it started to smell good, which is where mud pies came from.

[Oleg Bach]

Oh my GOD - I mean oh my science - LOOK the sun has gone nova ------------------------------------ahhhhhhhhh - I guess it does not matter at this point if we evolved or were created....ahhhhhhhhh _ it's getting dark - and very hot...............I feel a song coming on..

I feel the earth - move - under my feet...Here is what is strange - it really does not matter if we were created or evolved by some super natural accident -----------------what would happen if we had the full and true answer? Would all the religious people be put in the nut house - if science totally disproved creationism ? OR - if the religious ones proved creationism with out a doubt - could and would they burn all the scientist at the stake? Just a thought.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh my GOD - I mean oh my science - LOOK the sun has gone nova ------------------------------------ahhhhhhhhh - I guess it does not matter at this point if we evolved or were created....ahhhhhhhhh _ it's getting dark - and very hot...............I feel a song coming on..

The Sun is too small a star to go supernova (G2V). It will, however expand to a Red Giant when it burns the last of its hydrogen fuel. The Sun sits on the Main Sequence @ about 5 billion years of age...halfway through its life-cycle. The ultimate fate of the Sun is that of a White Dwarf.

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

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

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

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

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

I feel the earth - move - under my feet...Here is what is strange - it really does not matter if we were created or evolved by some super natural accident -----------------what would happen if we had the full and true answer? Would all the religious people be put in the nut house - if science totally disproved creationism ? OR - if the religious ones proved creationism with out a doubt - could and would they burn all the scientist at the stake? Just a thought.

The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) mapped the cosmic microwave energy left over from the Big Bang...380,000 years post event. This is as far back as we've been able to 'see' at this point. About 13 billion years plus change. Post 380,000 years to 400 million years, the Universe was opaque. This diagram will help you visualize what this means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Mic...nisotropy_Probe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microw...round_radiation

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

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

Edited May 31, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[Oleg Bach]

Visualize this wise guy - plouooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooph................that was a fart - it's about as useful as all of your links....I don't need an education in cosmology...find another student.

[DogOnPorch]

Visualize this wise guy - plouooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooph................that was a fart - it's about as useful as all of your links....I don't need an education in cosmology...find another student.

It appears you do. Paleontology, as well.

What's this Oleg?

But ignorance is bliss.

[Oleg Bach]

It appears you do. Paleontology, as well.

What's this Oleg?

But ignorance is bliss.

I could not wait for your reply - maybe I should take my sorry self educated ass and enter univeristy - in my mature years I could be tagged with a doctorate fairly quickly ....and I am not that blissful - or anti-education - I love to learn - but a peering though the Hubble telescope was enough to keep me going for a while - thanks anyway professing one.. You want to sponsor a man about to turn 59 and send this grey fox to school - go head - but I need all expenses paid...then I will have bliss and not be ignorant and IGnore you...kisses*

[DogOnPorch]

No skin off my azz.

[Oleg Bach]

No skin off my azz.

Come one DOP - it's Sunday - I just don't want to go to school...today - I do appreciate the links and YOU kno I am interested - and the proper spelling for AZZ is ...jeee.......I forgot - send me a link on ass...please no strange ones. Don't look at me as the defiant rube - I am getting over my inferiority complex and bitter hate of aging school boys such ass you self...I don't mean that - just hoping to amuzzz...send me a link on amuse - the spelling and the route - you do the work - I'm relaxing.

[GostHacked]

Look, there are many smart articulate types on the ID side and I could provide links, but you wouldn't change your mind one inch.

Because there is no science involved in ID or creationism.

This is because it's actually not about science with you. If the creationists are right, then there is a God and you'd have to change your way of thinking. Much easier to doubt.

It is about science and that is what you fail to understand.

But the bottom line is there is no absolute proof of creation or all of the several options evolutionists come up with. They have just as much faith as any religion.

Bingo, now you are getting it, and evolution deals with ife changing over time, not how it all started.

is odd. Evolutionists have many different hypothesis theories and yet you don't seem to have a problem with the conflicts. Only with the creation ones, and that's fine, but to pretend both sides have differing views is to fool yourself. I earlier mentioned some of evolution's disagreements, and since it seems to have slipped your mind, here they are again:

Well, science will eventually weed out the bad hypothesis. That is how it works. And this is why ID was kicked to the curb.

[WIP]

QUOTE

3. Electricity: lights do not turn on because of science. Science means knowledge. We found out enough about electricity to learn how to harness it. Science did not invent electricity, and science does not turn on lights. A completed electrical connection turns on lights. Science discovered how to do it. There is a difference. If the electrons did not have the charge and the properties they do, science could never have done anything about learning how to fashion an electrical circuit. But the properties and charges within atoms are part of something that is intricately and intelligently designed. Science cannot take credit for doing anything but having scratched the surface of knowledge concerning this.

http://www.carm.org/secular-movements/evol...tion-myth-right

Without science, harnessing existing electricity would have been impossible at best. Science did turn on the light, and kept them on. This is the discovery and knowledge process. We could have sat around and wished for it to happen. But humans are not like that at all. We make it happen. And we use science to make it happen. And harnessing the electricity was a long ride.

The only thing that's right about the CARM statement is that science has to be based on an a priori assumption that we are capable of learning about and understanding our world. We have to assume that phenomena that appears reliable, like electricity, is really based on underlying principles that we can depend on for reliability. But CARM makes the assumption that the laws which govern things like electric charge have to be intelligently designed, and the Fine Tuning arguments made by creationists are making that assumption on a lack of information -- just as they have made ID assumptions of design for complex biological features such as eyes, bacteria flagella, and the blood-clotting cascade -- and each one of these assumptions have been unravelled as biologists have learned more about the evolution of these features.

So, just because Cosmology is a new science, and little is known about the conditions of the early Universe (or possible other universes), they assume that the physical laws had to be put there by a creator. I usually just let them go ahead and argue for this case, because what they are doing is making a case for Deism -- a creator that makes the initial conditions for a universe to unfold and eventually become complex, with stars, planets and galaxies that produce carbon based molecules that also eventually become living creatures. The god of deism is remote or has abandoned his creation after giving it the push start.

If the Bible-based creationist can't figure out the difference between this kind of limited, remote tinkering sort of creator, and the one they are arguing for, which is constantly meddling and watching human affairs -- then they really are too thick to make logical arguments. After all, an omnipotent creator could have immediately created a world with intelligent creatures; and he didn't have to wait billions of years, and create a vast, empty wasteland of a universe to do it! And why would he create a physical universe with so many imperfections (including us)? He could have stopped after he made his heavenly realm, where we are told, everything is perfect and immortal -- what the hell was the point of making this place, if he had complete control over the process?

http://www.about-building-in-canada.com/discovery.html

You can bet your ass the Bible does not tell us how to harness electricity. It is not a science book.

And it doesn't tell about even more important things, like the germ theory of disease -- imagine how many lives could have been saved or how many people could have been saved from the ravages of disease if that theory found its way into one of the ancient holy books!

[GostHacked]

And it doesn't tell about even more important things, like the germ theory of disease -- imagine how many lives could have been saved or how many people could have been saved from the ravages of disease if that theory found its way into one of the ancient holy books!

And we see many bible references claimed as scientific fact when there is not even any math in the bible. Understanding of mathmatics, 1+1=2 is key to understanding science. 1+1 cannot equal 3 for obvious reasons. If I have to explain even just that, then there is no way to convince anyone.

BTW, have not seen betsy in a some time. Can we expect a 5th thread?

Edited June 1, 2009 by GostHacked

[sharkman]

Get back to me when the evolution brain trust finally agree on which unprovable theory they believe started life. Was it the crystals? The lightning? The aliens?

[noahbody]

Get back to me when the evolution brain trust finally agree on which unprovable theory they believe started life. Was it the crystals? The lightning? The aliens?

You could start with the obvious. That man created Gods.

As far as probability goes, what is more likely, that a mortal can evolve out of nothing or that an all-powerful god can be created out of nothing?

[sharkman]

How about aliens were created out of nothing, then seeded the earth with life?

[segnosaur]

Look, there are many smart articulate types on the ID side...

You're right in that there are many 'articulate' types on the ID side. But that's all they are... articulate.

You see, the vast majority of real scientists accept evolution. However, their acceptance is based on science, and sadly, Science is often hard (especially much of the cutting edge stuff) and, to many people, boring. However, we live in a world where real decisions involving science often have to be made by non-scientists. Unfortunately, far too many people, when presented by arguments made by an articulate a creationist/ID believer (who spreads just enough buzz-words around to make their faulty arguments sound legitimate to the uninformed), and arguments made by a scientist (who has the duty to ensure the data he presents is accurate, which can make for a very boring presentation), many people will side with the creationist.

That's why when we find a scientist/educator who is actually good at explaining evolution/debunking creationism, their contributions (or, in this case links to a video presentation) are so valuable.

Evolutionists have many different hypothesis theories and yet you don't seem to have a problem with the conflicts.

Actually, there are no 'different theories' on the process of evolution itself... we now understand that greater reproductive success by individuals better suited to the environment can lead to modifications and, eventually, new species, and that this has taken place over billions of years. There may be arguments about some of the minor details (e.g. are species X and Y related, how quickly can speciation occur, etc.) but pretty much everyone is in agreement over the broad details.

Compare that with the god-believers, where there is a complete disparity between old earth creationists, young earth creationists, and ID believers. They can't even agree on the broad strokes, much less the fine details.

[sharkman]

Look, ID supports some evolution, it's not the cut and dried world you picture. Evolution does exist, as any scientist studying bacteria and antibiotics can tell you. I'm not opposing that.

But you counter an argument I didn't make, although I could have been more clear, that there are no different theories on evolution. Why did you ignore the differing theories that exist on the genesis of life? Must I type them out again? Why did you ignore them?

Those who oppose ID do not agree on the beginnings of life. Plain and simple. Tell me which one you believe in, that aliens seeded the earth, that matter on crystals started life, or that a lightning bolt striking mud started life?

[DogOnPorch]

Look, ID supports some evolution, it's not the cut and dried world you picture. Evolution does exist, as any scientist studying bacteria and antibiotics can tell you. I'm not opposing that.

But you counter an argument I didn't make, although I could have been more clear, that there are no different theories on evolution. Why did you ignore the differing theories that exist on the genesis of life? Must I type them out again? Why did you ignore them?

Those who oppose ID do not agree on the beginnings of life. Plain and simple. Tell me which one you believe in, that aliens seeded the earth, that matter on crystals started life, or that a lightning bolt striking mud started life?

I'd say #3 is the most likely as amino acids have been created in laboratory conditions using that method (Miller-Urey Experiment). However, there are chances that amino acids already existed inside comets that struck the Earth, arriving that way. That 'aliens' were involved is highly improbable due to the Drake Equation (the modified Drake Equation, even re: new exo-planets).

[sharkman]

I'd say #3 is the most likely as amino acids have been created in laboratory conditions using that method (Miller-Urey Experiment). However, there are chances that amino acids already existed inside comets that struck the Earth, arriving that way. That 'aliens' were involved is highly improbable due to the Drake Equation (the modified Drake Equation, even re: new exo-planets).

But that doesn't quite explain the genesis of life. How did these acids spark life? They are all just theories without proof, same as ID.

[M.Dancer]

They are all just theories without proof, same as ID.

With the exception one relies on magic

[segnosaur]

Look, ID supports some evolution, it's not the cut and dried world you picture. Evolution does exist, as any scientist studying bacteria and antibiotics can tell you. I'm not opposing that.

Yet you fail to define just how far 'natural' evolution can go, and where abouts you are forced to insert the phrase 'goddidit'.

But you counter an argument I didn't make, although I could have been more clear, that there are no different theories on evolution. Why did you ignore the differing theories that exist on the genesis of life?

How about because the issue of Abiogenesis (the actual origin of life) is not strictly part of the theory of evolution. Neither is the big bang. (Granted, most scientists who accept the theory of evolution are likely going to accept natural explainations for those other items.)

How about because any explainations about how life might have formed are currently on the cutting edge of science, and as such probably outside the comprehension of most people not working in the field?

How about because I recongized the 'theories' you presented as nothing more than ignorant bunk not really worthy of comment?

Must I type them out again?

No need... I recognized your 'arguments' as the bunk they were.

However, since you seem to be so interested in answers, let me address them from your previous post:

The best they can come up with is that matter on CRYSTALS began the first cells as the crystals did some hocus pocus on them. I am not making this up.

The fact that you label any sort of interactions with crystals as 'hocus pocus' illustrates ignorance on your part.

Crystals have a regular formal structure, and as such could have served as a template for early organic molecules to organize on. No 'hocus pocus' needed.

Or if the evolutionists really trust you, in a moment of weakness they will say it's possible that ALIENS SEEDED THE EARTH with life. Again, I am not making this up. They offer no word on who created the aliens, however.

More ignorance on your part.

There is no serious belief in the scientific community that "aliens seeded the earth with life". Such ideas are in the realm of crackpots and sciencie fiction writers. There are hypothesis that early life and/or some key components have extra-terrestrial origins, however, no 'aliens' are needed. Material could have been deposited through comments/asteroids.

Another theory is that a bolt of lightning hitting mud started the process of life,

Horrible over-simplification.

but in the 50's some schmuck scientist proved to himself that he could not get any life to start when he experimented with lightning and mud over and over again repeatedly.

I assume you're referring to the Urey-Miller experiments.

First of all, it wasn't mud that was used, it was a mixture of methane, water, and other chemicals that are common in the universe and which might have been common in our early atmosphere.

Secondly, it wasn't really the point to get 'life to start'... instead, he managed to get ammino acids (the building blocks to protien) to form. This is a step by step process... in order to test various hypothesis on the origin of life, we have to check whether minor steps are plausible (rather than assuming 'goddidit'.)

Frankly, your arguments are irrelevant. As I said before, abiogenesis is a different issue than evolution. Plus, even if we can't exactly prove any particular mechanism was the actual start of life, even coming up with one feasible mechnanism shows that there is no need for an invisible sky-daddy to get things going.

[segnosaur]

But that doesn't quite explain the genesis of life. How did these acids spark life? They are all just theories without proof, same as ID.

Actually, protiens are composed of amino acids, and can form randomly.

We've also obverved protiens which are capable of self-replicating. (See: http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html)

So, what might have happened:

- Lightning in the early atmosphere creates amino acids (observed in the lab)

- Amino acids combine to form random protien segments

- Some protien segments are capable of self replicating (observed in the lab)

- imperfect replication would have allowed those protien segments to 'evolve'

- The most successful protien segments would have evolved faster, taking on more and more charactistics of early 'life' (including organizing a containing membrane, etc.)

Is that the way things happened? Nobody will ever know. But since most stuff here has been observed in nature and/or the lab, its a bit more plausible than a big sky daddy starting things out.

[sharkman]

Ah, perhaps you haven't heard of Francis Crick. Won a Nobel Prize? Considered a genius? He supported the theory that aliens started life on earth. I don't believe he is either a 'crackpot' or a science fiction writer.

As far as the crystal theory, how many proteins do you need to support simple life? A number I've heard is 250. The idea that molecules and amino acids could form enough proteins to support life is right up there with Goddidit.

The whole thing hinges on the origin of life, how it started. And seriously, the thought that single molecules evolved and grew and became amino acids on the backs of crystals and evolved into proteins is about as likely as aliens doing it. Then these proteins somehow over milions and billions of years became cells and simple forms of life and yada yada yada, sorry but the God theory sounds actually less bizzare.

At any rate, if you can't provide any more 'realistic' theories than goddidit, maybe a better strategy is to treat those who support ID as practitioners of a particularly unusual form of quackery, so you feel superior by comparison.

[segnosaur]

Ah, perhaps you haven't heard of Francis Crick. Won a Nobel Prize? Considered a genius? He supported the theory that aliens started life on earth. I don't believe he is either a 'crackpot' or a science fiction writer.

The fact that someone may have had success at one point in their career does not mean that they are immune from being a 'crackpot' at some other point in their life. It happens. (Heck, I could also point out that John Nash, subject of the biography "A beautiful mind", also made anti-semetic remarks. And Apollo 14 astronaut Mitchell has claimed there is an alien conspiricy coverup.)

As far as the crystal theory, how many proteins do you need to support simple life? A number I've heard is 250.

The idea that molecules and amino acids could form enough proteins to support life is right up there with Goddidit.

Go back and read my description. You do NOT need to have a full complement of protiens/nucleic acids to begin with at the start. Self-replicating protiens can and do exist, and a single protien capable of replicating itself could be considered the 'start' of life. Additional arrangements (i.e. the remaining protiens) would not have been necessary at the beginning.

We already know of cases where 'genetic' information is carried by single protiens... prions (such as those that cause mad cow).

The whole thing hinges on the origin of life, how it started. And seriously, the thought that single molecules evolved and grew and became amino acids on the backs of crystals and evolved into proteins is about as likely as aliens doing it.

Ah, this is known as 'proof by (ignorant) assertion'. When you don't actually have any actual evidence/proof supporting the creatiionism/ID side, just jump in and label all the hypotheses regarding abiogeneis as "unlikely", even though they have, you know, evidence supporting them.

Oh, and by the way, lets point out your mistakes, OK?

- You said that 'single molecules became amino acids'...wrong... amino acids ARE single molecules

- I never claimed amino acids evolved into protiens... protiens are COMPOSED of strings of amino acids

You can't even get such basic science correct, and yet you are trying to suggest your explainations have some sort of scientific merit?

At any rate, if you can't provide any more 'realistic' theories than goddidit, maybe a better strategy is to treat those who support ID as practitioners of a particularly unusual form of quackery, so you feel superior by comparison.

The fact that you consider such hypothesis as 'unrealistic' is more an illustration of your ignorance than the quality of the hypothesis themselves.

[WIP]

How about because the issue of Abiogenesis (the actual origin of life) is not strictly part of the theory of evolution. Neither is the big bang. (Granted, most scientists who accept the theory of evolution are likely going to accept natural explainations for those other items.)

Frankly, your arguments are irrelevant. As I said before, abiogenesis is a different issue than evolution. Plus, even if we can't exactly prove any particular mechanism was the actual start of life, even coming up with one feasible mechnanism shows that there is no need for an invisible sky-daddy to get things going.

And how many times has this point been made over and over and over again with Christian fundamentalists like this one, just regurgitating "evolution doesn't explain where life came from" every time! If you take a look at Christian forums and so called apologetics forums, it becomes clear that ignoring answers and asking the same questions over and over again is an actual debate strategy for those who cannot prove their claims.

There has been a number of breakthroughs recently in the study of abiogenesis which clearly demonstrate that life pre-existed the DNA molecule, in an RNA world, where it was the method for transcribing and copying information. I have been gathering a number of articles published recently (four so far) on abiogenesis research here. The latest breakthrough is from a chemist who has figured a pathway for nucleotides to self-organize as an RNA molecule.

One by one, the gaps in understanding the path from organic chemistry to self-replicating, living organisms are shrinking, and by present trends, will eventually disappear when a complete theory of abiogenesis can be proposed. Looking at the history of life on Earth, paleontologists have discovered microfossils of Archaea bacteria which are over 3.7 billion years old, and this means that life began very early on in Earth's history -- and that's why it is reasonable assumption to make that conditions were exceptionally good for organic chemistry and creating life during that time.