posted
in fact? we actually know much more about evolution than we do about gravity.......
nobody has explained gravity yet.....
we have only described and measured it....
we can explain how evolution works quite well, but will only be able to "prove" it by keeping careful records for tens or probably hundreds of thousands of years....
as far as dogs and hogs go? 10 to 20K years is nothing in terms of the millions we are looking at in evolution....
the development of feathers from scales is not a difficult "theory" to accept...
the problem is that the bible says the earth is what? 6000 years old? think longer.....
the earth is about 4 billion years old, and life showed up about 1/2 billion years later...that is the ONLY really strong scientific argument for intelligent design, that life showed up on earth so fast.....
unfortunately? many ( OK, almost ALL)of the papers that are written are subscription services and i can't post them...i can only post news articles (that are lame) announcing the work...
if we force the schools to teach intelligent design are we gonna tell the kids that God spoke and it was so? or are we gonna show his/her lab? or shall we also suggest that it coulda been little green men in spaceships???
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Evolution is not A theory. Just because you can claim it hasn't done things does not make it unable to do them.
We know without a doubt that evolution "manipulates" living things so that they may function more easily withing restricted environments. Cattle and horses have been "altered" in many ways to conform to what we prefer rather than their natural invironment. We restrict their environment, particularly with respect to opportunities to reproduce, and they adapt to function within those restriction. We do the same with farm crops and pets and, unwittingly, with microbes.
And yes, man is getting bigger, faster, etc. due to better diet, exercise, etc. (I don't believe we are significantly idf any brighter than Kepler or Aristotle). Provide him with a better diet, protect him from multitudes of harmful deseases and other medical care so he lives longer, and many other "permutations" of his environment and we can actually measure some of the actions of evolution.
Evolution is not a theory. Though, it remain so to some. That doesn't make it a theory in fact. It is not a theory to me that there are not fewer points in a two diminsional metrizable complete metric space (like a plane) that there are in one of three dimension, (like the normal three dimensional space you percieve to live in). It may be, at best, just a an unproved theory to some......perhaps you. If so, then I point out that your inability (or maybe lack of concern) that make it a theory to you does not make it similarly beyond or outside the grasp of others, i.e., it is a fact, not a theory, even though some individuals may not percieve and understand it.
posted
Yep, we must insist that along side of "intellegent design" the kids in school be taught that little green men brough life to the earth. And Glass...., they didn't come in space ships 'cause they didn't need any. Little green men can do most anything they want!
IP: Logged |
The Universe as a Hologram Author unknown (apparently attributed to Michael Talbot)
Does Objective Reality Exist, or is the Universe a Phantasm?
In 1982 a remarkable event took place. At the University of Paris a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed what may turn out to be one of the most important experiments of the 20th century. You did not hear about it on the evening news. In fact, unless you are in the habit of reading scientific journals you probably have never even heard Aspect's name, though there are some who believe his discovery may change the face of science. Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing. The problem with this feat is that it violates Einstein's long-held tenet that no communication can travel faster than the speed of light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light is tantamount to breaking the time barrier, this daunting prospect has caused some physicists to try to come up with elaborate ways to explain away Aspect's findings. But it has inspired others to offer even more radical explanations. University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.
we are all just a hologram in Gods mind....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I may be mis-remembering, but I think that was first "prophesied" by Linus Pauling, either in his book "The Nature of the Chemical Bond", which was the signarture work that led to his first Nobel Prize, or shortly thereafter. Then it took a bit of time for experiments to be designed to confirm the fact. Real brilliance....both the prophesy and the eventual "proof".
IP: Logged |
posted
"Aspect and his team discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. Somehow each particle always seems to know what the other is doing."
This is where I got my theory that sending binary messages to/from the future is possible. You take one of the particles and you accelerate it, the theory goes that the faster it moves, the slower times moves for it. Therefore it is now in the past relative to it's partner particle. Now you can send the binary messages between the two and there should be a time difference.
But of course, what happens when you actually start sending messages? You change the future? Change the past? Does Scott Bakula appear out of nowhere and try to change it back? Or do you skip between quantum realities everytime you send a message?
IP: Logged |
Gravity itself remains a fact, you can measure it, we know it exists. You are correct that there are theorys of how it works, that has not been explained. In other words we know it exists, we simply do not understand fully why it exists.
I don't disagree with you that evolution exists. I find it to be a valid theory in many applications and I have no conflicts between my faith and evolution.
I do not believe the Bible specifically says the earth is 6000 years old. People have read the Bible and taken much of it literally and said the Bible says the earth is 6000 years old. I've always gone on the premise that much of the Bible is written in terms that primitive man could understand. The concept of millions or billions of years would be alien to the common uneducated man of Biblical times. God's day in the Genesis stories could be billions of years long, we don't know. A lot of religious people today don't want to accept that because they don't grasp that God may have chosen evolution as his means of creating man. Thus the earth becomes 6000 years old despite all the measurable indications that it is billions of years old.
The intelligent design which is currently in the courts in Pennsylvania doesn't mention God at all. It is a very simple statement which says that the Theory of evolution is not fact, that it has unexplained gaps and then refers the kids to a book called People and Pandas or something like that. I haven't read the book so I don't know what the contents are but the book itself is not going to be taught, just made available in the school library.
bdgee,
Evolution is a theory.
Here is an article which explains scientific theory:
What is the ``scientific method''? The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe. 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed. 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions. 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results. 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.
The differences between fact, theory and hypothesis:
What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis? In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact and a hypothesis is often used as a fancy synonym to `guess'. But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones. For instance, suppose you see the Sun rise. This is an existing observation which is explained by the theory of gravity proposed by Newton. This theory, in addition to explaining why we see the Sun move across the sky, also explains many other phenomena such as the path followed by the Sun as it moves (as seen from Earth) across the sky, the phases of the Moon, the phases of Venus, the tides, just to mention a few. You can today make a calculation and predict the position of the Sun, the phases of the Moon and Venus, the hour of maximal tide, all 200 years from now. The same theory is used to guide spacecraft all over the Solar System.
A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.
IP: Logged |
posted
gravity we simply do not understand fully why it exists.
that's a huge understatement....
we don't know jack about how gravity works... we just accept that it's there....
intelligent design is still on the "radar" of every serious research scientist in the field.... as a matter of fact? serious molecular biologists are working towards being able to do it themselves...
BUT?
if you are going to deny that intelligent design proponents are not pushing a religious agenda? then you are not being honest, and there is no point in trying to discuss the issue....
the current case is just the "ax blow" to make a crack to insert the wedge into the cordwood....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
if you are going to deny that intelligent design proponents are not pushing a religious agenda? then you are not being honest, and there is no point in trying to discuss the issue....
[/QB]
Indeed!
And that line of bull is aimed at destroying the Constitution, even if you are too dense to see it.
IP: Logged |
I have no doubts that it is a religious agenda, yet it also is a valid theory and simply shouldn't be discounted because is has a religious connection.
bdgee,
How is this going to destroy the Constitution? Remember, the Constitution says we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
IP: Logged |
Of course there isn't going to be any religious test for qualification to serve in government. The Constituion expressly provides for the free practice of religion, they aren't going to say that and then restrict someone from serving because he or she is of a certan religion or has certain religious beliefs.
Nowhere is there any mention of seperation of church and state. You cannot take away a mans religion because he serves in the government. He is guarenteed the RIGHT to freely practice his or her religion. That does not end when he walks through the courthouse door. To say it does violates the clause which expressly forbids the enactment of any law regulating or establishing a religion.
The entire theory of seperation of church and state did not exist until the 1960's unless you want to buy into the propaganda. Our government openly supported religious schools in the founders time. They take oaths on the Bible and have from the beginning. In God We Trust is on our currency. They even included "under God" as recently as the 1950 to the pledge of allegience and that has withstood several tests of the Supreme Court.
Our founders also wrote the Declaration of Independance. Try searching for references to God or our Creator there. You will find several.
I've also listed numerous quotes from our founders which obviously support both God and religion.
There is nothing clear about the framers intent other than they were different men with differing opinions. The Constitution would never have been ratified without the Bill of Rights. That is where our rights and our freedoms are specifically outlined. Freedom of RELIGION, remains one of them.
IP: Logged |
posted
heir of Isuldur says:They even included "under God" as recently as the 1950 to the pledge of allegience and that has withstood several tests of the Supreme Court.
glassy eyed bozo says: prove it.... you really have some imagination/reality issues...
you are so wrong.... you want things to be this way, but they aren't... the supreme court has never seen the case...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
since you bring up the decalration? you might want re-fresh your memory of it a little....
this part is clear in the way it states that the Creator and the government are SEPARATE:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
governments are of men...
mostly tho? the declaration is not a document of law... if the founding fathers did not intend separation of churhES and state? theywould have made provisions for the churchESwhere it belongs in the constitution.... they didn't just d'oh forget
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
how many people out there need to be de-programmed from the cult??? the govt was founded by people who saw the evil in how the Church of England and the Papacy had run most of europe for centuries... don't let it happen again...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Does the Declaration of Independence Support Christianity?
Myth: The Declaration of Independence exhibits a preference for Christianity.
Response: Many have argued against the separation of church and state by pointing to the Declaration of Independence. They believe that the text of this document supports the position that the United States was founded upon religious, if not Christian, principles, and therefore church and state must remain intertwined in order for this nation to continue properly.
There are a couple of flaws in this argument. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document for this nation. What this means is that it has no authority over our laws, our lawmakers, or ourselves. It cannot be cited as precedent or as being binding in a courtroom. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to make a moral case for dissolving the legal ties between the colonies and Great Britain; once that goal was achieved, the official role of the Declaration was finished.
That leaves open, however, the possibility that the document expressed the will of the same people who wrote the Constitution — thus, it provides knowledge about their intent as to what sort of government we should have.
Leaving aside for the moment whether or not that intention should bind us, there are still serious flaws to consider. First, religion itself is never mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. This makes it difficult to argue that any particular religious principles should guide our current government.
Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was himself a deist who was opposed to many traditional Christian doctrines, in particular beliefs about the supernatural.
One common misuse of the Declaration of Independence is to argue that it states that our rights come from God and, therefore, there are no legitimate interpretations of the rights in the Constitution that would be contrary to God. The first problem is that the Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and not the Christian “God” meant by people making the argument. The second problem is that the “rights” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” — none of which are “rights” discussed in the Constitution.
Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods. This is why the Constitution does not make any mention of any gods. There is no reason to think that there is anything illegitimate about an interpretation of any of the rights outlined in the Constitution merely because it runs contrary to what some people think that their conception of a god would want.
What this all means is that arguments against the separation of church and state which rely upon the language of the Declaration of Independence fail. First, the document in question has no legal authority with which one could make a legal case. Second, the sentiments expressed therein do not support the principle that government should be guided either by any specific religion (like Christianity) or by religion “in general” (as if such a thing even existed).
posted
Precisely. That's what makes it so clear to me, Glass. The founders came here to get away from this very idea.
quote:Originally posted by glassman: how many people out there need to be de-programmed from the cult??? the govt was founded by people who saw the evil in how the Church of England and the Papacy had run most of europe for centuries... don't let it happen again...
posted
The religious right is campaigning to raid the public till and advance religion at taxpayer expense, attacking our secular public schools, the rights of nonbelievers, and the Establishment Clause.
The United States was first among nations to adopt a secular Constitution. The founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted citizens to be free to support the church of their choice, or no religion at all. Our Constitution was very purposefully written to be a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary.
It is vital to buttress the Jeffersonian "wall of separation between church and state" which has served our nation so well.
quote:Originally posted by Aragorn243: How is this going to destroy the Constitution? Remember, the Constitution says we have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
What caused the big bang? There had to be something there to go Bang or
God said "BANG" and there it was!
five star post
i heard that when Stephen Hawking met the Pope? he was nervous abou thow the Pope would respond to his work...Stephen said the Pope said it was OK to work on what happened AFTER the big bang, but he shouldn't be contemplating what happened before....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm, how old are you, Art? Just ignore the music, and read the text! Personally, since I believe God is involved in every aspect of my life, as he should be! According to this scripture, this is what you guys want to happen, because you want to take God out of government!!!
Revelation 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth, and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!
IP: Logged |
Just as you have a right to practice your religion without restrictions placed on it by the government, I have the right to not practice your religion, without restrictions placed on me by the government.
quote:Originally posted by Kate: Hmmmm, how old are you, Art? Just ignore the music, and read the text! Personally, since I believe God is involved in every aspect of my life, as he should be! According to this scripture, this is what you guys want to happen, because you want to take God out of government!!!
Revelation 16:14 For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth, and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty!
posted
The religious right is campaigning to raid the public till and advance religion at taxpayer expense, attacking our secular public schools, the rights of nonbelievers, and the Establishment Clause.
The United States was first among nations to adopt a secular Constitution. The founders who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted citizens to be free to support the church of their choice, or no religion at all. Our Constitution was very purposefully written to be a godless document, whose only references to religion are exclusionary.
It is vital to buttress the Jeffersonian "wall of separation between church and state" which has served our nation so well.
IP: Logged |
posted
Kate. i spent a great deal of energy trying to point out to you that the ChurchES stand to lose alot in this..have you ever seen how grant applications work? it is cutthroat..you really don't want your Church involved in that...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
"Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."
As a Christian first and a patriot second, I do agree with you religion has no place in government. We have the right worship God or anything else or nothing at all.
That being said, even with a degree in the Biological Sciences, I do not believe in the Theory of Evolution as fact. It is only theory and one that is falling apart all the time. It takes a greater leap of faith to believe that life forms of the nature and complexity that we have today evolved from a "lifeless" primordial soup.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Just ignore the music, and read the text! Personally, since I believe God is involved in every aspect of my life, as he should be! According to this scripture, this is what you guys want to happen, because you want to take God out of government!!!
