Heart-ache: Palin wants creationism taught in public schools? Update: Oh noes, Pat Buchanan!
posted at 8:46 pm on August 29, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If you read Wired? Yes. If you read LGF and get the full context of what she said? No. That makes twice already today that quotes of hers were bowdlerized to make them more nutroots-friendly.
Lot o’ debunking to do before November 4.
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.
“I won’t have religion as a litmus test, or anybody’s personal opinion on evolution or creationism,” Palin said.
That puts her to Jindal’s left, actually. Here’s a bit more, unquoted by LGF, from the Anchorage Daily News article Charles links to:
Palin said she thought there was value in discussing alternatives.
“It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”
That was how she was brought up, she said. Her father was a public school science teacher.
“My dad did talk a lot about his theories of evolution,” she said. “He would show us fossils and say, ‘How old do you think these are?’”
I don’t know how to parse all that — she’s happy to let it come up in classroom discussion so long as it’s introduced by kids’ questions and not the teacher himself, I guess — but as long as she doesn’t want to add it to the curriculum I can’t believe she’ll have any problem with independents. In any case, creationism’s not what this election’s about. What this election’s about is whether Palin supported a guy nine years ago who’s still — tragically — so mainstream that you can’t turn on MSNBC or Fox News without stumbling across him. Ben Smith cites old press reports indicating that Palin backed Steve Forbes in 1999, but Buchanan, ever eager to slay the neocon dragon even if it means blaming Churchill for World War II, evidently claimed on Hardball tonight that she was one of his. I can’t wait for the “Countdown” segment explaining why anyone who would associate with Pat Buchanan is unfit for office, followed immediately by yet another 20-minute pundit roundtable featuring Pat Buchanan.
Update: A crucial news bulletin: Palin never actually donated to Buchanan but may have been at a fundraiser for him 12 years ago. Ergo, she hates Jews. I literally laughed aloud at the thought of Chris Matthews trying to paint her as a hatemonger with the hatemonger-in-chief sitting right across from him on his own show.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5]
Math_Mage on August 31, 2008 at 11:04 PM
barry norris on August 31, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Lets try using pure logic, no links, no pictures, no reference to articles, just using common knowledge information that I believe everyone would acknowledge as fact.
Fact 1: DNA contains the information to form living things.
Fact 2: Different species have different DNA.
*Assumption for the sake of this argument: Beneficial mutations are as likely to happen as destructive mutations.
Conclusion: Upward macro-evolution cannot happen. If for every beneficial mutation there is a destructive mutation there is only stasis. Good mutations are nullified by bad mutations thus stasis is the best possible outcome and no increase in complexity of a species can be achieved.
*Of course, “beneficial mutations” are unknown, no beneficial mutation has ever been observed over the course of many decades of genetic experimentation. This is also common knowledge, is it not?
Maxx on September 1, 2008 at 3:02 PM
All through the Bible God calls people fools, brutish, simple, perverse, scorners, wicked, etc. For instance in Mathew 12:34, Jesus called the Pharisees, “O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Jesus pronounces eight “woes” on the scribes (or lawyers) and Pharisees in this chapter (23:13-16,23,25,27,29). Seven times He calls them “hypocrites” and five times He says that they are “blind”. He calls each a “child of hell” and says that they are like “white sepulchres… full of dead man’s bones, and of all uncleannes” (Matthew 23:27), and “full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (23:28).
Do you think he might have been upset by their sinful behavior?
I am certainly willing to be corrected by friend or foe. What is it you did not find persuasive?
What do these Bible passages mean to you?
“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness… haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things… And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. ” Romans 1:28-34, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
I’m curious. What would you have said to Jesus after He turned over the tables of the money changers?
apacalyps on September 2, 2008 at 12:58 AM
If the person referred to by the fifth word of your sentence is, in fact, you then I humbly beg your pardon for questioning what is undoubtedly your prerogative. Otherwise you might want to keep in mind that it has oft been advised that we should think others better than ourselves: “Let he who is without sin be the first to live in a glass house” … or something like that.
I am sure he was, but being divine and thus in possession of all the bonus powers and energy packs that you get when you reach that level he knew what was what, could read minds, and didn’t have to rely on conjecture arising from a few posts in a blog debate.
I have already blotted my own copybook with horrendously long posts in this thread and to give you a full answer would only further darken the pages. I don’t think any of us have gone deep enough to really do the topic justice. Even with my extended posts I don’t expect to persuade anybody; I merely hope to introduce some new thoughts, challenge some preconceptions and provoke people to responding with answers that will give me something to think about.
There are occasions when even a lippy little pretender like me can recognise when I am out-classed, out-ranked and ought to keep my mouth shut.
I think the evolution hypothesis is 1 part fact, 70 parts twaddle and 29 parts wishful thinking and am aghast that anybody would continue to take it seriously … but they do, and presumably they find my position equally incomprehensible.
If people are willing to debate with me then I am willing to presume that they are debating honestly and that they will be willing to change their minds if given a persuasive case. Consequently a persuasive case is what I will try to give; certainly I don’t expect to advance my viewpoint by insulting or accusing those who disagree with it.
YiZhangZhe on September 2, 2008 at 10:43 AM
A person must be God Amighty Himself before we can criticise, correct, and instruct others according to His Word? That is not logical. I don’t see that being taught anywhere in the Bible. The Bible says, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” 2 Timothy 3:16
You forget YiZhangZhe, that we are told elsewhere in Scripture to “Try the spirits,” to “prove all things,” and to “beware of false prophets.” We are to use discernment; we are to distinguish between the false and the true; but we are not to condemn others, which I have not done. Jesus warns against condemning the actions or motives of others. Only the LORD has the right, since He has full knowledge of a person’s actions and motives.
You should be a little more optimistic. You haven’t said whether you are a Christian. I would suggest if it were so, to hope and pray to persuade others. You reject the evolution fairy. That is a great thing. I thank the Lord you have not been deluded into believing that lie. And are trying to help others too. That is even better! Look, in the debates there are a few things you said that I didn’t agree with, but I saw you were doing a good work so I didn’t intervene. Why would I criticise you if you are on my side? No two people agree anyways. I say, “Leave em’ alone”. Everybody has their own way of fighting the scoffers, YiZhangZhe. You have your way and I have mine. Everbody has their role big or small. Oh, here’s a tip for you though since we’re on the topic: Your posts are too long (like mine has become here). Shorten them and more people will read the many interesting things you have to say.
I understand. I tend to be a little sarcastic once in a while, and a little bit y’know, biting comments, and a little cutting edge kinda stuff ‘yknow, and sometimes it makes me look bad. I confess that I have very little patience with the scoffers after a few exchanges. Maybe it is the Elijah personality in me that wants to mock them as in I Kings 18:27. I am working on trying to be more Christ-like in my dealings with them. However, many of these people are being “willfully ignorant” like the Bible says, okay. That means “dumb on purpose”. And some are impossible to debate. You cannot reason with them. Doesn’t matter what truth you show them. And the reason is what I said before (and what you criticized me for saying) is that God has already given them up to be REPROBATES for “believing a lie”. God has given them over to their lusts. I wasn’t being unsciptural. The Bible says, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient” (See Romans 1:28-34, and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12). And now they are trying to destroy the faith of others. How many people will spend their E-T-E-R-N-A-L lives in hell for believing the lie of evolution? That’s angers me greatly! I am very upset with that. So YES, people like you often say, “brother apacalyps, why are you so sarcastic with the scoffers and skeptics and atheists?” Y’know, “You should be kind and nice to them”. I say, well, I try to be kind and be nice. I mean you can read the debates I don’t get up and wanna punch them in the nose ever, kay, but uh, all through the Bible God calls people fools, slow of heart, you white selpluchers, you bunch of vipers, you snakes. He called Herod a fox. I’m just tryin to be like my heavenly Father y’know, I’m just tryin to do it like He did it y’know… that’s all…
apacalyps on September 2, 2008 at 2:07 PM
testing
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 12:54 AM
This is the second time I tried to post this message; the first time, I lost the whole thing after getting a “You are not allowed to post” notice.
YiZhangZhe, thank you for the long and thoughtful post. As you noted, some of your points are very general; in those cases I’ll have to ask for further detail, as it’s hard to adequately discuss generalities.
Why does there need to be one? More important is defining the boundaries of evolutionary theory; to determine those, we refer to the requirements of its major components (e.g. natural selection). Evolution only applies to that which imperfectly self-replicates; this set is similar enough to the set of living things that I feel comfortable interchanging the two terms in conversation.
And rightly so, for that is the province of a far less well-founded and well-backed scientific conjecture known as abiogenesis. It’s not relevant to evolutionary theory, which strictly limits itself to explaining biodiversity.
I THINK you’re referring to natural selection and the improbability argument, but could you be more specific, please? The probability of advantageous mutation referenced here [2] would seem to contradict the improbability argument…
That’s one reason why the vast majority of mutations are neutral [1]. Besides, I would attribute this problem more to a lack of adequate predictive study in specific cases than a fundamental flaw in the idea of selective pressure; it’s not like scientists have made an exhaustive catalog of all the possible selective pressures and their relative importance/likelihood of affecting survival, so there’s not much to go on in that area.
But irreducible complexity is a fallacy.
The idea, correct me if I’m wrong, is that the building blocks of an “irreducibly complex” organ/organ system aren’t useful by themselves or even when all but one are present, and that therefore they would have all had to come together at once to make evolution plausible.
But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how mutation works. The premise upon which irreducible complexity rests is that the building blocks themselves are unchangeable; once you realize that mutations can change and delete building blocks as well as add them, the whole idea falls apart - for how can the complexity of an organ be irreducible if the complexity of its building blocks is reducible?
Again, more specificity is required. What mechanisms are speculative, externally contradicted, or dependent on mechanisms with those issues? Why is it relevant that evolutionary theory does not explain consciousness, which is ill-understood by all scientific disciplines to begin with?
If evolution is 1% explanatory, there is no theory that explains 75% of the data. Evolution is admittedly the best of the naturalistic explanations, so no other naturalistic explanation rises above 1%. Meanwhile, creationism explains 100%, indeed 1000% of the data. That is the problem. Excluding patently bogus young-earth claims about literal Genesis and Noah’s Flood etc, there is no way to falsify creationism, especially a creationism that postulates an omnipotent omniscient God. Such a premise can accommodate anything, and therefore becomes meaningless in the deductive scientific method, which rests entirely upon the ability to DISPROVE through experimentation. EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THAT EVOLUTION IS TRUE, creationism and God can be easily accommodated - the theory is that slippery. That’s why creationism is unscientific and has no business calling itself a theory, hypothesis, conjecture, or any other scientific term - except “unfalsifiable”.
I’m also sorry for the long post, but thoughtful posts deserve thoughtful responses.
[1] “Towards more biological mutation operators in models of gene regulation.” University of Queensland.
http://www.iscb.org/ismb2003/posters/jwatsonATitee.uq.edu.au_139.html
[2] “Adaptive Mutation in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects.” Science Journal.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5839/813
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 1:27 AM
Maxx:
As far as this thought experiment goes, I’ll agree.
Accepted.
But this is a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. The theory goes that because harmful mutations reduce one’s ability to survive to breed, individuals with those mutations are less likely to pass them on to the next generation, while those with beneficial mutations are more likely to propagate their genes. Obviously it’s not perfect, but on balance beneficial mutations are favored.
Since you reject the premise here, I reject the restriction on links, and point you to link #2 in my previous post (’course, that’s not the only link I could give you). Beneficial mutations are not nearly as uncommon as you might suppose.
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Maxx:
Going through your list of “frauds” with some cursory research, I spot three actual frauds: Haeckel’s embryo drawings, Piltdown Man, and the Archaeoraptor. If that’s the best you can do from 150 years of evolution-related science and research, you might want to lay off the “you can’t trust evolutionists!” line. Below are brief examinations of each “fraud”.
On the Haeckel embryo drawings:
http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html
for a take on Haeckel’s fraud that moves beyond “OMG Haeckel lied, evolutionists are frauds” and has some more contemporary drawings and photos. Note that I’ve just been through biology and never encountered the Haeckel drawings; they probably aren’t as widespread as you think. Besides, we’ve a hundred years of embryology to talk about since Haeckel perpetrated his fraud; scientific inquiry in that area didn’t end with his drawings.
On the “lungfish” issue: So scientists made a mistake in over-eagerly identifying a specific creature as the descendant of land animals. So what? Is this what you call fraud, for scientists to determine that other scientists made a mistake?
On Piltdown Man: Scientist debunks scientist with anatomical science. Interesting that the scandal is well-known despite being so insignificant; 1 fossilized cranium, 1 jaw, 1 scientist, and yet there’s a buzz about it even today, because such hoaxes are SO DAMN RARE.
On Archaeoraptor: Scientist debunks Chinese farmer. Not a scientific fraud.
On peppered moths: The pictures of dead moths pinned on trunks were not used in the studies, and the one experiment that involved dead moths glued to trunks was to establish the birds’ foraging habits, not anything to do with the moths themselves. The best you can do with the moths is apply the microevolution/macroevolution dichotomy (never mind that it’s a false one), unless there’s another fraud you’re thinking of.
On Lucy: There’s the piddling debate about the nature of reconstructions (piddling because the accuracy of the reconstructions does not have anything to do with the accuracy of the claim that the bones represent a transitional form), and the more serious claim about the power saw. But I don’t see the incentive for fraud. Given that Lucy has several other traits that indicate transitional status (the knee, the femur, the cranial fragments), there’s no reason for the Leakeys to perpetrate a fraud upon the world just to add one more. Meanwhile, for the Creationist to have a story, he needs to be able to disprove evidence of transitional forms, such as Lucy. Furthermore, there are other specimens of Australopithecus afarensis (though less complete than Lucy); it’s not like their existence rests on Lucy’s hip.
Vestigial organs: too general, so I’ll reply generally by saying that an organ need not be extraneous, useless, to be vestigial. What is the fraud you are trying to illustrate? At worst, I see a mistake.
Java Man - see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html
The femur is now known to be recent, and some of the teeth are hypothesized to be an orangutan’s. However, the skullcap still does not belong to any known species; the “nearby human skulls” were 65 miles away; and DuBois did not attempt to hide said human skulls. And again, it’s not like Java Man is the only known specimen of Homo erectus.
Peking Man - even creationists don’t call this a fraud. See here:
http://creationwiki.org/Ten_Peking_Man_skeletons_were_suppressed
If you have some other fraud you’d like to discuss related to Peking Man, say so.
Homo habilis - there is scientific debate over whether Homo habilis was a dead-end species or an intermediary between apes and humans. No fraud here, unless you have one you’d like to bring up.
Neanderthal man, Cro-magnon man, Heidelberg man: If scientists now consider them to be human, they consider them to be human. Doesn’t have anything to do with fraud. Furthermore, what’s their best evidence? That Alma tribe that creationwiki mentions? Gimme a break.
I say that if you can provide solid evidence that Earth is only 6000 years old, you shouldn’t be talking to me. You should be talking to the Nobel committee to plan the ceremony to celebrate this discovery, which would overturn the work of thousands of scientists in numerous fields. But go ahead and amaze me. I’ll listen.
Nice. So now whenever someone who accepts evolution submits a fraud related to evolution, it’s an evolutionist fraud EVEN IF IT’S DEBUNKED BY SCIENTISTS WHO ACCEPT EVOLUTION. Great logic there.
Oh, and a Chinese farmer fraudster isn’t exactly representative of people who accept evolution, whatever your concept of an “evolutionist” is.
Once more, sorry for the long post (and the triple post, but I have a lot of material to reply to since I’ve been out of the loop!). This time, rather than the intelligence of the argument, it was the number of arguments to be refuted that made me take up so much space.
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 2:37 AM
Apologies are becoming a theme in this thread. Expect another one shortly.
Math_Mage, thanks for your response. Before I even attempt a post of counter-points perhaps I’d better clarify one or two things and, while I’m at it, try to make it look like I’ve been on-topic all along. :)
For me at least this debate has nothing at all to do with Christianity in particular or religion in general. I’d be quite happy to debate two deityless alternatives and the principle difference between them would be that one posits that nothing violently explodes into things that much later become planets and kangeroos and nuts, while the other posits that planets and kangeroos and nuts suddenly appeared fully formed out of nowhere. Lets call them “BangStart” and “CalmStart”.
The idea of a fully formed plants and animals appearing out of nothing and nowhere is no less expected, no less credible, and no less rational than the idea of an explosion appearing out of nothing and nowhere.
Neither starting point is more “scientific” than the other; they are equally preposterous, equally absurd, equally impenetrable, equally unprovable, equally unrepeatable, equally unfalsifiable.
However, we can explore which of these preposterous scenarios fits best with what we can observe around us and with reason.
When I do this I find that the “CalmStart” hypothesis is not contradicted by any of the data (i.e. what we find around us). Nor is it irrational (no rules of reason need to be breached). Logically therefore there is no reason to reject it, ignore it or ridicule it. It is a perfectly good, working explanation.
However I find that the “BangStart” hypothesis is much harder to reconcile with the data. It requires large speculative leaps into the unknown and the unknowable to bridge gaps. There are many places where the hypothesis is apparently contradicted by the data.
The CalmStart hypotheis joins up all the dots quite neatly, while the BangStart hypothesis struggles to connect more than a few.
If this is the case then why should any education system prefer the BangStart hypothesis over the CalmStart one? A disinterested quest for truth cannot reject the CalmStart hypothesis just because it is associated with unfashionable religious ideas and uncool people.
“I’m also sorry for the long post, but …”
YiZhangZhe on September 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Ah, now I see. You neither believe the Biblical creation account or evolution. Both are apparently absurd to you. Well, at least you’re half way to the truth. A bear did not fall into ocean became a whale. Evolution is indeed a joke! But, I understand now, at least in part, why you attacked me for calling evolutionists reprobates. Yeah, yeah, spare me the part about me being mean. It turns out some of my comments stung your unbelief in God too. Huh. Go figure. Well, actually, this shouldn’t be a surprise “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword” (Hebrews 4:12). So what do you believe YiZhangZhe? Silly me. You were so strongly against evolution, I just assumed… well, anyways…. tell me, what is world-view YiZhangZhe?
apacalyps on September 3, 2008 at 12:32 PM
So, your position has nothing to do with either religion or evolution. So, why bother to debate either? Your real peeve is with the Big Bang. However, your new hypothesis suffers from the same problem as the religious one, that being that the hypothesis “everything was created as it is now” is untestable.
The CalmStart hypothesis ignores the data. Of course there are no problems with an untestable “theory”; that doesn’t make it any more valid. Even if a Cyclic Universe theory or Big Bang theory were true, the data would still match CalmStart. You can’t circumvent science with atheistic nonscience any better than you can with religious nonscience.
What gaps are you talking about? Be more specific, it’s impossible to argue about generalities like this.
No, the CalmStart hypothesis erases all the dots. That’s not a good way to develop a sound theory. And while the Big Bang theory has significant issues, the fact that it CAN have those issues is part of the reason why it is taught in science classrooms where the CalmStart inhabits church congregations.
If you have nothing better to do than comment about how any comment not in line with your views is the result of godless atheism, you don’t need to say it more than once.
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM
No, to be consistent with something is not the same as ignoring it. The hypothesis ignores nothing, and nothing needs to be ignored to make it fit. That quality happens to be a hallmark of any “truth” or “correct hypothesis”. The consistency doesn’t “prove” that it is true, but it allows a high level of confidence that it is at least close to the truth.
If we think only of the biology for a moment: The hypothesis posits that all the “species” of plants and animals arrived out of nowhere. Observing the universe shows us that big changes can occur suddenly (asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions …) and that these are harmful to whatever gets in the way. This leads to a testable sub-hypothesis that the number of species should reduce over time, and that is exactly what we find evidence of. We can also reproduce such calamaties on a small scale (real life accidents and lab experiments) and observe the predicted effect. The data is consistent with the hypothesis.
As noted above, it is testable and the test outcomes are logically consistent with the hypothesis.
This is exactly the point of contention. I cannot find a working set of steps that would take us from a huge explosion to what we have today.
Having significant issues is not a measure of good science. If it were then a hypothesis that proposed the moon were made of cheese would need to be taught beyond the nursery.
No, I am objecting to a perfectly workable and useful hypothesis being rejected merely because it is unfashionable.
The “begining” is untestable no matter what hypothesis you posit; that is the logical nature of a beginning … you cannot get behind it to examine it because if you could then it would no longer be the beginning. The big-bang beginning is equally untestable so if you reject the CalmStart for having an untestable starting point then logically you must reject the BangStart for the same reason.
YiZhangZhe on September 3, 2008 at 9:56 PM
The scientific method does not have unlimited scope.
Some questions can only be answered through the emotions (we cannot scientifically prove that love or hate or fear really exist either in general or in a specific case).
Some questions can only be answered by reasoning. Indeed reasoning is one of the prerequisites of the scientific method since it is the tool by which something is disproven and therefore reason itself could not possibly be subjected to scientific investigation.
We agree that the initial creative act of the creationist model is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable, but the explosive act of the big-bang (with or without repeating cycles) is equally unfalsifiable.
The demand that something should be rejected if it doesn’t admit of the scientific method is where the science community begins to have an irrational dogma, rather like a some “religious” communities, and certain scientists start behaving like “priests”, attempting to control the acceptable “truths”.
YiZhangZhe on September 3, 2008 at 10:31 PM
When you can mould the universe however you wish, consistency is meaningless. You can’t even formulate a method for predicting the age of the universe - how can you, when the universe could be created as it is now? I suppose I misspoke - rather than ignoring the data, your CalmStart idea can fit ANY set of data. Where can we take such an idea? Absolutely nowhere. We can’t attempt to verify it, we can’t attempt to falsify it - nothing!
I’m sorry, this is just wrong. Biodiversity has increased over the past few dozen millions of years, even with all the calamities. Graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.png
Furthermore, this is not a “testable” hypothesis arising from the CalmStart idea. After all, the increase of biodiversity over time does not by any means preclude the possibility that the universe was created in the CalmStart fashion - indeed, it can’t even preclude the possibility that the universe was created that way some time in the last few million years! What kind of hypothesis doesn’t have any bearing on the idea it’s supposed to “test”?
Which steps do you dispute? Evolution only?
Way to misread what I wrote. The issue is not whether a theory has significant issues or not. The issue is whether or not a theory CAN HAVE significant issues. Your “theory” cannot; therefore it does not deserve any place in scientific inquiry. The conjecture that the moon is made of cheese is far more scientific than your CalmStart conjecture, for all that it is false.
Look, your contrast is between a Big Bang universe and a CalmStart universe. Either can accommodate evolution; either can reject evolution. So if you’re bothering to dispute the origins of the universe, it has nothing to do with evolution. And fashion? What? Since when did fashion have anything to do with scientific inquiry?
One of the predictions of a Big Bang universe: the universe is expanding. Therefore, redshift. Aha! There is a redshift. Therefore, universe is expanding. Prediction, hypothesis, experiment, observation, conclusion. THAT is a testable prediction shown to be correct.
Second prediction: since the beginning didn’t have any planets, the universe is older than the Earth. Prediction so far borne out by evidence; the oldest stuff so far found on Earth is maybe a half-dozen billion years old, while the oldest light observed is over three times that old. Another prediction, experiment, confirmation.
Plainly, you don’t have to get “behind” a beginning to make testable predictions about it. I’ve just explained two tests (of many) that have been done on the Big Bang theory. Can you make even one for your CalmStart idea? No, because you’ve postulated a beginning that can warp itself to suit whatever data you throw at it.
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 11:31 PM
Agreed.
Agreed.
I believe the term you want to use is “logic”, but otherwise I agree.
Not true. The Big Bang theory would have been falsified by the absence of redshift, or by evidence indicating that the universe was no older than the Earth. I dealt with this above.
Nobody claimed that science has a monopoly on truth (except possibly Dawkins-type extremists). Science only has a monopoly on determining what is scientific. Nor was it claimed that we should reject anything that doesn’t fit the scientific method. Rather, the statement is that anything that doesn’t fit the scientific method isn’t scientific *gasp* and therefore shouldn’t be taught as science. You said:
Education systems do not prefer the Big Bang theory (or evolution) to creationism in the science classroom because the science priests said creationism was a lie or the “k001 kidz” decreed it unfashionable. Education systems prefer the Big Bang theory to creationism in the science classroom because the Big Bang theory is scientific, whereas creationism (religious or otherwise) is not. It has nothing to do with truth. Science has NEVER been about “truth”. Science has been about modeling the universe with the scientific method, creating an abstraction that agrees with available data and therefore may or may not be “true”. Statements that run counter to the scientific method cannot be modeled, and therefore are not scientific even if true. Your CalmStart is such a statement.
Math_Mage on September 3, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Build your straw man Mage. You seem to delight in tearing it down. However, while we’re on the topic, there is no neutral position. Either you’re serving the Lord or you’re serving satan! Either you’re on your way to heaven or on your way to hell. There are no fence straddlers today and there won’t be any come judgment day. So my prayers are for you Mage, that you commit your life to Christ before it’s too late. I wish you the best. Ciao.
apacalyps on September 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM
I don’t see the relevance of my belief (or lack thereof) in God to this discussion. You do know that it’s possible to accept evolutionary theory without rejecting God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible…right?
Nonetheless, thanks for the warning.
Math_Mage on September 4, 2008 at 1:31 AM
I think we might still be slightly at crossed purposes (big surprise in an online debate huh?) Nonetheless even if we are not quite synchronised in topic and still along way from agreement, you have raised some good challenges which I now need to think about. Thank you, I do like a good challenge.
If this thread dies before I have finished thinking then perhaps we will continue the next time the subject comes up.
Hmmm, yes that was more or less what I had in mind … but didn’t like to name names. :)
YiZhangZhe on September 4, 2008 at 5:28 AM
And than you for the stimulating discussion, sir. Like most online debates, we never really figured out what we were debating since nobody sat down and hammered out the terms, but it was enjoyable nonetheless. :)
Math_Mage on September 4, 2008 at 9:54 AM
No Mage. A god that has to use suffering, misfits, death, a god that doesn’t know what he wants the first time and can’t make it right in six days like He said, that is a retarded god. I would not worship that one at all. (Such a god) is certainly not the God of the Bible. The Bible makes it very clear God created the world in 6 literal, 24-hour days, and rested on the seventh day:
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, an@3at in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Exodus 20:11
God took six days, instead of a single instant, to finish His work of creating and making all things for us (Genesis 2:1-3). The dates are all given in the Bible in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 and a few other places. If you add up the dates in the Bible, it says, “Adam lived 130 years, and begat a son and named him Seth… Seth lived 105 years and begat Enos… Enos lived 90 years and begat Canaan…” etcetera. If you add up the dates in the Bible, it comes to about 6000 years ago, not millions and billions. There is no Scriptural support for evolution. The Bible’s simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. One must ignore large portions of Scripture to claim otherwise.
“The works were finished from the foundation of the world. And God did rest the seventh day from all His works.” Hebrews 4:3-4
The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th literal days of creation are laid out for us in the book of Genesis, where the “LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is…”
“Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Genesis 2:1-3
And we can logically defend “God created the heaven and the earth”, and it fits with what we observe in the present world. That makes sense with real science. Christianity is not a blind faith, y’know. It is the only religion that can prove itself. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. So no. God did not use evolution. The god that would have to use evolution is cruel. Isn’t it cruel to have animals y’know, partially developed and inferior and going to struggle and die? The whole evolution process of struggle and death is… is … contrary to the Christian God. Exactly the opposite. The “god” that would use evolution is wasteful. How many bizillions of animals had to die in order to get this thing to work, y’know, it’s just a wasteful process. And it’s retarded. There’s no direction to it. Just things kinda, y’know, marander the way they wanna go… there’s.. there’s no goal in mind, they just, ‘y’know, let it evolve. That is certainly not the God of the Bible. So when I get into a discussion with people who say, “Well, I believe God used evolution”. I say well look, you’re welcome to believe that, however, you need to understand you’re not talking of the God of the Bible. The “god” that used evolution was cruel, wasteful, and retarded. The evolution theory is not feasible. Not possible. Not Scriptural. And it does not fit with what we observe in the present world. These two theories could not be more different. I don’t see any way they could be more different. They’re just exactly the opposite. You need to get saved Mage, and get The Evidence Bible - King James Version, and join our team. You would be a great soldier of Christ. I will be praying for you.
apacalyps on September 4, 2008 at 3:02 PM
And you’re confident in your ability to prove that six days in God’s eyes is equivalent to six days in ours? Where do the terms “literal” and “24-hour” appear in Genesis? Heck, if you postulate a large speed differential between God and Earth, God could easily experience a literal 24-hour day while we experience millions or billions of years. Are you going to prove that God was not doing this?
Even science can’t “prove” itself, or any of its theories. And I can’t say that the current evidence supports a 6000-year-old universe. What evidence are YOU looking at, the billion-year-old rocks or the billions-of-years-old light?
Furthermore, if Christianity is “proven”, why the word “faith”, denoting a belief in an unproven phenomenon? I imagine many Christians would be offended by your claim that their faith is meaningless, that science has superseded their beliefs, just as they are offended when Dawkins claims to be able to prove there is no God.
So, you know, when God decided that man was too sinful for him and killed everyone in Noah’s Flood, he wasn’t being wasteful and cruel? Oh, right, I forgot. Noah - the “fittest” in God’s eyes - survived. I guess that makes it all ok, right? [/sarc]
By the way, apacalyps, in five pages of posting I have yet to see you “logically defend” the idea that “God created the heavens and earth,” let alone that he did it 6000 years ago. If you can, please do so. Otherwise, please stand aside and let YiZhangZhe do it (if you can tolerate the idea of a Satan-serving atheist defending your approximate world view), as he contributes far more to the conversation than you.
Math_Mage on September 4, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Look, Mage. Why don’t we go pick a spot where nobody’s heard of the Bible, give them a copy and ask them to read it. I think if you gave this book to 5000 people and said, read this, tell me what it says — all 5000 would come back and say, this is saying He made it in 6 days. For instance, in Exodus 31 God said “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested,” (Exodus 31:17). And in the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 20 chapter 11, God said, I want you to rest on the Sabbath because I made everything in 6 days. He wasn’t telling them to work 6 million years and then finally take a break! There are so many other references in Scripture too. God unmistakably says that everything was made in 6 normal days. If you have Scriptural evidence that suggests otherwise, then show me. Let me see it.
There is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. You do not have to have blind faith. Earth evidence supports creation. The universe supports creation. Fossil evidence supports creation. Animal anatomy supports creation. Ocean evidence supports creation. Human evidence supports creation. And so on. You’re comment about me offending Christians is plain silly. I won’t even respond to that.
You wrote alot of things I think are just foolish. Time after time after time I’ve shown evolution is ridiculous, it did not happen, at the same time shown evidence for creation and a Creator. You just don’t want to see it, that’s all. You’re being willingly ignorant. Not only that, Maxx showed you as well! Everybody knows what the first law of thermodynamics says — that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Evolution says matter is definitely being formed from nothing. That’s just bad science. Can nothing create something?” (Hold nothing in your hand for a while and see what happens.) There’s another example, okay. Um, I have to make a decision here if it’s worth my time carrying on here. I have a strong feeling this a waste of my time, so I’ll ask you this. The Bible says if you seek after God, God will see to Him, that you find Him. If I can show you evidence for a young earth and creation, and that God is the Creator of this world just like the Bible says, will you repent, that is turn from your sins once and for all, and put your faith in Jesus Christ?
apacalyps on September 5, 2008 at 12:32 AM
I’m not sure what’s more amusing - that I’m even arguing about the interpretation of the Bible, or that you utterly failed to refute even my facetious argument about relativistic time dilation maybe causing God’s 24-hour day to appear much longer from our position. Since there isn’t even a sun or given period of rotation for the Earth, how do you even know the days were 24 hours long in the Genesis account?
Ok, provide some evidence instead of wasting your time telling me how all the evidence points to YEC.
As for my “silly” comment, that was the very reaction of the one Christian friend of mine who’s seen your post. ‘Course, I can’t prove that my friend actually said that, so take that however you like.
Here is the result of my comprehensive analysis of your comments:
Page 1: 2 posts, 2 lines, no evidence.
Page 2: Several posts. 1 request for evidence, no evidence of your own. One ridiculous claim about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics negating evolution that I’ll handle (together with your claim about the 1st Law) later in this post. Multiple posts about the “wasteful” god of evolution. One post about how 8 people could become 6 billion in 4400 years, which is irrelevant as you provide no evidence that this is in fact what happened. Several posts about how you’re always telling people about the evolutionary hoax.
Page 3: One ridiculous claim that oil comes from the bodies of dead plants/animals from Noah’s Flood. More demands for evidence of a specific missing link from “evolutionists.” One ridiculous claim of fraud because scientists’ postulations about the age of the Earth got older and older (gee, I wonder why that is?). You neglect to actually deal with substantive arguments regarding the whole Pakicetids-to-whales thing (though that’s forgivable as nobody else did either, except YiZhangZhe). NO EVIDENCE.
Page 4: More claims about the ridiculousness of the pakicetid hypothesis without actually saying anything about the hypothesis. No mention of ambulocetus or rodhocetus, two of the three hypothesized links for which fossils have been found. You question the nature of the basilosaurus, and manage only to show that it is the least significant link in the proposed chain. Then you claim to have refuted any possibility of pakicetus being the common ancestor of cetaceans via the old bogus-probability argument. You make the classic mistake of raising geological questions while claiming to question evolution. You like to quote other people’s opinions (the “argument from authority” fallacy), but fail to provide real evidence.
Page 5: You can check yourself to see that you posted no evidence, I don’t feel that I need to do that for you.
So for all your claims about how the evidence supports creationism and how you’ve shown this time and again, you haven’t actually provided evidence for your claims. I feel like I’m on the “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” blog again.
As for the arguments Maxx presented, I debunked the arguments that related to “evolutionist fraud” and haven’t gotten to the rest. I just entered this debate on page 4, you know; it’s not like I’ve read every post (just all of yours, because it’s easy to read posts that have no content).
Your comments on this subject betray a profound ignorance of both evolutionary theory and the laws of thermodynamics. First of all, your claims about the first law seem to be related to the origin of life, which is a question for the abiogenesis conjecture, not evolutionary theory. Second, your application of the first law is incorrect even as it applies to the origin of life, as the claim of abiogenesis is not that matter appeared from nothing but rather that matter became more organized over time. Read up on basic biology. Third, your earlier claims about the second law being violated are totally inapplicable to the Earth, as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems and Earth is demonstrably an open system. Third, that is not an example, but an argument; not evidence, but an unsubstantiated claim. You show not only an ignorance of science, but also an ignorance of the fundamentals of reasoned debate.
I have to say, merely seeing you present evidence for once would be good evidence to me that there is a God who answers my prayers for coherent discussion. However, I wouldn’t want to cheat you on the challenge, so before I take it up I will warn you that it is logically impossible to provide evidence that God created the Earth and the universe (I explained this in my discussion with YiZhangZhe, see especially the last paragraph of my post at 1:27 AM on September 3, 2008). Meanwhile, it IS possible to test the possibility that the universe is only 6000 years old, but you need first to explain away the evidence that points to the Earth being older by six orders of magnitude, and the universe far older than that…With those stipulations, I’ll take on your challenge.
Math_Mage on September 9, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Mage, I really don’t see how you can say with a straight-face “for once,” I’d like to see some evidence for creation. If you’re honest with yourself for a change, you’d admit you’ve already been given several examples for creation. Truth is, you just don’t want to see it, that’s all. Let me ask you a question. Suppose creation were true. Just suppose. Suppose this Book is absolutely correct. Suppose God made the world like He said He did, and He’s the Boss, and He’s gonna come judge the world. Would that effect your lifestyle any? I mean, the Book indicates right here, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no adultery, no pre-marital sex, no pornography, uh, would that effect your lifestyle? I don’t know anything about you. I’m just asking a question. Now, you don’t need to answer. Just think about it.
What I have said is that I can logically defend “God created the heaven and the earth”, because it fits with what we observe in the present world. That makes sense with real science. Christianity is not a blind faith, okay. That is a myth. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that supports the Bible. So if you’re a Christian, there’s nothing to be ashamed of. Christianity can prove itself. It’s the only religion that can. And let me clarify something else for you, okay. I’m not challenging you to anything. This debate is not a challenge. Now, listen to me carefully. I’m responding here, for one reason, and one reason only. If somebody’s not saved, I wanna help get them converted. I am consumed with trying to get other people converted. That’s my goal in life. And I think that ought to be every Christians goal. The Bible says, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). Now what does that mean “the terror of the Lord?” We like to talk about the love of the Lord, but the truth is the Bible says “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:31). I’m here to try and persuade you to “get right with God” Mage, because on judgment day you’ll have to give an account of your sins and you don’t wanna come up short of God’s righteousness. I don’t want you to go to hell, okay. And that there just about sums it up.
apacalyps on September 10, 2008 at 8:05 PM
That’s false, Mage. I provided scripture showing the creation days were literal 24-hour days. They weren’t six long periods of time. You didn’t offer any scripture to back up your claim the days were millions or billions of years long. All you gave was your opinion. Look, I think God is capable of writing a Book that we can all understand, okay. I mean, when somebody teaches something like “the creation days were millions and billions of years long” and we have to have a guru to explain it. Now you have a cult. And that’s what this six long days theory is, okay. You need a guru to explain it. That’s what makes me very nervous. Like I said before, if you gave this book to 5000 people and said, read this, tell me what it says — all 5000 would come back and say, this is saying He made it in 6 days. Anybody with average intelligence can see on day number 1 God created the heaven and the Earth, and then He made light. And He chose 6 days to do this and then a day of rest to establish a 7 day week for us. It’s just 6 regular days, just like we have today, there’s no difference at all. And Exodus 20:11, the Ten Commandments, God said, “For in SIX DAYS the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and ALL that in them is” (Exodus 20:11). What do you suppose he meant by that? He said I made everything in 6 days. To me that means He made everything in 6 days. Now, would that include Lucifer? Would that include the angels? That would include everything wouldn’t it. Everything in heaven and in earth. The angels, heaven, earth, and mankind — everything. The question is not “What does it say?” The question is “Do you believe what it says? Exodus 20:11 continues to say, He rested on “the SEVENTH DAY”. I don’t know how much plainer God can make it? He unmistakably says that everything was made in six days and He rested on the 7th. Just read the first chapter, and you’ll see God made the plants, the grass, and the trees on day 3. Now, if these days are millions or billions of years long, how long can the plants to live without the sun? God made the sun on day 4. Think about that. And the insects are made on day 5, and they pollinate the plants. The animals, they are made on day 6, and they breathe oxygen and give off carbon dioxide, and plants do the opposite. These are all symbiotic relationships, okay. Each day cannot be millions or billions of years old. It just doesn’t work. They are literal 24-hour days. Romans 5 tells us, “by one man (Adam) sin entered into the world, and DEATH BY SIN; and so DEATH PASSED UPON ALL MEN, for that all have sinned:” (Romans 5:12). The Bible’s real clear “by man came DEATH,” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22 ). That means there was NO DEATH OR SIN in the world before God made Adam (remember, man was created on day 6). Now, if each day is supposed to be millions or billions of years long (that is, evolution happened and animals and people died) you now have death and sin before man. A clear heresy. Not at all what the Bible teaches. So, no. There was nobody here before Adam, okay. God did not use evolution to get us here. The Bible clearly tells us man brought death into the world. What does evolution say? Death brought man into the world. These are exact opposite to each other. So the idea of these days being long periods of time is really ridiculous. I think these passages undeniably teach that the first sin came by Adam and that there was no death before sin. Therefore, it is incompatible to teach that long days of evolution existed before Adam, because it would place death before sin — a direct contradiction to Scripture. The Bible’s simplest interpretation is for a young earth creation account. These are literal 24-hour days. I hope that helps.
apacalyps on September 10, 2008 at 8:21 PM
I just proved that the Bible teaches literal 24-hour days. They were not six long periods of time allowing evolution to take place. One of the reasons is death and sin cannot come before Adam. See Romans 5:12. To say otherwise is a direct contradiction to Scripture and clear heresy.
apacalyps on September 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM
apacalyps:
No, I was quite eager to see it. I even looked through every single one of your posts in search of some. The results, you see in my previous post - not one piece of evidence from you. Now, maybe you’re talking about someone else’s post, some other person who contributed a nugget of priceless evidence for creationism. If so, could you link? You obviously seem to know where it is, and I’ve already hunted through 4+ pages of posts once. Or, if I missed some evidence that you presented, link to that, and I’ll read it gladly.
Well, my values wouldn’t change, and my ability to fulfill them wouldn’t change. I think that’s a no.
Amusing again that you won’t bother to simply quote me in full. But congratulations, you seem to be able to provide evidence for your points when the argument in question is over literal interpretation of the Bible. Now if only you would apply that ability to something besides the Bible, we might have something here. I’ll concede that Biblical literalism does not allow for evolution.
Once again you talk about how there’s all this evidence out there, but you haven’t provided any or linked to any. And you certainly haven’t done anything to contradict the evidence of a much older Earth and even older universe.
I don’t see what an intellectual debate has to do with a spiritual one, but you’d get further with both if you presented evidence regarding the intellectual part rather than handwave about how the evidence is all there.
Math_Mage on September 11, 2008 at 2:20 AM
In all fairness Mage you asked me, “Where do the terms “literal” and “24-hour” appear in Genesis?” You suggested also that “God’s 24-hour days” might be long periods of time. And you said, “You do know that it’s possible to accept evolutionary theory without rejecting God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible … right?” In all fairness Mage, I had to respond to that first to show that the Bible is real clear God made everything in six literal 24-hour days and rested on the 7th day (Exodus 20:11). It’s the same as our week. They were not long periods of time with billions of years between them. The Bible says that “by man came death” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22) and “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin” (Romans 5:12). That is, that death and sin cannot come before Adam. To say otherwise is a direct contradiction to Scripture and clear heresy. Those people who think god used evolution they have a different god than me, okay. Evolution has to use suffering, misfits, death, because it doesn’t know what it wants the first time and can’t make it right the first time. If death is natural, then Jesus’ death had no meaning or purpose. This evolution theory is in complete contradiction to what the Bible teaches. So yes, I had to provide evidence for this.
Very good. Your humbleness is a very good quality. I must say, I like that about you. I’m not trying to be arrogant either.
Okay let’s get to some evidence. You want evidence. I don’t mind evidence. I like evidence, I like laws too. Like the Second Law of Thermodynamics which tells us everything tends toward disorder. So let’s talk about it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states: there’s numerous different ways it can be stated, but everything tends toward disorder. You leave things alone, they get worse. They don’t get better. The Bible teaches that, “The heavens are the works of the hands: They perish: they wax old as doth a garment” (Hebrews 1:10-11). Left alone things fall apart. Nothing organizes itself. Look, …well, picture this in your head. There’s Sue at 20 (a photo of young and beautiful women). Here’s Sue at 90 (photo of grandma). And there she is at 3000 (holding dust in your hands). Uh, the 2nd law states basically everything collapses, breaks down, wears out, deteriorates, it’s falling apart, okay. Everything is degrading. The buildings you see when walking or driving are degrading. If you don’t have people constantly maintaining those buildings they will fall apart. The entire highway system in America will fall completely apart if we don’t keep maintaining it. Leave your car sitting out in the sun for a few years and watch it ruin your paint job. The sun destroys or breaks down everything, (your house, your driveway, your clothes, etc.) except one thing-Chlorophyll, it’s the only thing that the sun helps. That’s the Second Law of Thermodynamics (ie, entropy) okay. Nothing gets better without work — input — energy — input. The 2nd law is not a theory — it is a LAW — which tells us everything tends toward disorder. Ah, but the evolutionist says, “Folks, we are getting better. Humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than three billion years ago.” Now let’s reason together, okay. Think about this carefully. If the Second Law of Thermodynamics means that things are not getting better, but worse. How could a bunch of chemicals (pools of matter) make us if the “pools of matter” are tending to disorder??? Are we from disorder? It’s stupid. Anyways, all systems in the observable universe are undergoing similar entropy. The universe is winding down okay, it’s not getting better. That’s the 2nd law. So if you think that evolution can overcome that 2nd law, I would like to understand how, okay. The 2nd law tells us everything is falling apart therefore obviously there must have been a beginning. I can answer that in 10 words. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” That’s the logical answer for me. Thank you.
apacalyps on September 12, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Have you ever read the full text of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? Here’s one good definition:
“The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.”
Key phrase there: “isolated system.” That means that there’s no energy entering or exiting the system. In that case, yes, everything tends towards disorder.
But look at the Earth. Is the Earth an isolated (or closed) system? No. The Earth receives massive amounts of energy: electromagnetic radiation from the Sun and the rest of the universe. The name for this kind of system is “open system,” one that is NOT energetically isolated from the rest of the universe. And since the Earth is an open system, the 2nd Law does not apply; order can arise from disorder given energy input. I already dealt with this argument in my post at 12:18 on September 9.
Math_Mage on September 13, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Apacalyps and Math_Mage, regarding your discussion of entropy and thermodynamics, could I ask each of you, should you have the time and inclination, to define what you mean by “order”.
As far as I am aware order is an entirely subjective concept. In other words, order is not a quality of the perceived object but a quality of the perception. Order, in that case, only exists inside a mind as a function of consciousness (and possibly of rationality, but I am still thinking about that).
If the universe did not contain consciousness (a mind of some sort) there could still be mass and energy, but I cannot see how there could possibly be any ‘order’.
YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 7:44 AM
I don’t think it can be quite as simple as your explanation.
(1) The garden contained both the tree of knowledge and the tree of life and Adam and Eve were banished from the garden to prevent them eating from the tree of life and thus living for ever. The possibility of death therefore existed before sin.
(2) If one rejects evolution then the interactions between the living things on the planet on day seven must have been similar to what they are today: In particular, things must have devoured other things or stepped on them, presumably killing them in the process. Even if you posit a vegetarian world (I don’t because I find the idea to be just as ridiculous as evolution, and for similar reasons) then some of the bacteria within the vegetables might have died when the vegetables were consumed.
(3) If there was reproduction without death then … well, places would get crowded mighty quick.
So I would conclude that biological death had to be part of the world from its very inception and the “death” in the passages you mentioned must therefore refer to something other than biological death.
YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 8:11 AM
Before consciousness, heat was still a more disorganized form of energy than that found in chemical bonds, and patterns existed before there were consciousnesses to interpret them. Order, to me, is simply the degree of organization in the arrangement of energy and matter. Another definition, and an equivalent one, is the capacity of the energy/matter to do work in the state that it’s in. So I don’t see why order presupposes consciousness. It’s like the old “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody’s around, does it make a sound?” question.
Math_Mage on September 13, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Thank you for that reply.
Your two definitions don’t seem to me to be equivalent, as you suggested they were.
Your first definition is circular since, in this context, “organization” and “pattern” are just other words for “order”. These words all refer to the subjective, not to the objective and hence there could be no order without consciousness.
If we limit the definition of “work” to being, say, “a change in the objective state” then, according to your second definition, it would be possible to have “order” without first having consciousness. Within the entirety of the universe each change in state must lead to less order and so this definition would be consistent with what I understand the 2nd law to mean. However we might then need to find another word to use to refer to the “order” that is found subjectively by a conscious mind.
As for the sound made by the falling tree, I think the answer depends on the definition of “sound”. If the definition of “sound” consists wholly of objective things such as the transfer of mass and energy then, yes, it does make a sound. However if the definition of “sound” requires the conscious (i.e. subjective) interpretation of the objective things then, no, it doesn’t … yet neither would it be silent because silence (being defined as the absence of sound) would also be equally subjective.
YiZhangZhe on September 13, 2008 at 10:53 PM
Pardon me, but, you ignored this question earlier. You went silent when asked:
So you should answer that question first before you go “butting in” on somebody else’s debate. Thank you.
apacalyps on September 14, 2008 at 12:54 PM
And I apologize for the slight delay Mage. I’ll post a reply a little later on. The weekend is getting in the way, that’s all. In the meantime, don’t let me interrupt you two Krishna’s and your new age hippie ideas. Maybe you could hold hands next, y’know, form a Yoga circle and chant, “ohm… ohm… ohmmm…” for greater cosmic consciousness.
apacalyps on September 14, 2008 at 1:12 PM
YiZhangZhe:
Both definitions are reflections of the technical one, which is a measure of the entropy (or randomness) in a system. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disordered_state
Order can be objectively defined mathematically, so I don’t see why subjectivity is implied. But point taken about the circularity.
Math_Mage on September 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Yes, I have.
Correct. The universe is a closed system.
This is where you’re wrong. The open systems argument does not help evolution, Maxx. We know the 2nd law states basically everything collapses, breaks down, wears out, deteriorates, it’s falling apart, okay. Now, your argument the 2nd law can be overcome by adding energy is absolutely FATALLY FLAWED. You say the earth is an open system which is what you just said, “it receives energy from the sun”. Well, the universe is a closed system number one, okay. So there’s no new energy being added by definition. Secondly, adding energy is destructive unless there’s something to use the energy. See, the Japanese added a whole bunch of energy to Pearl Harbour. They didn’t organize nothin’ for us. A couple years later we returned the favour, added energy to a few of there cities and didn’t organize a thing. See, adding energy to overcome the 2nd law is LUDICROUS. You’ll probably say, “Well, you can walk into a room and straighten it up.” Yeah, I know Maxx, but now you got intelligence involved. What you want to do is just add raw energy and think that’s somehow gonna do it??? That’s simply flawed logic, okay. The sun adds energy to your house, but it’s gonna destroy the roof on your house. The sun’s energy will destroy your entire house. If you don’t keep fixing things it’s gonna completely crumble to dust, okay. The sun’s energy will destroy the roof on your car, NOT BUILD IT. It will destroy the paint job on your car! There’s only one thing that can actually use the sun’s energy, and that’s chlorophyll. And each little plant cell is more complex than a space shuttle. So to say adding energy to a primitive earth is gonna create life on earth is just ludicrous. Not gonna happen. Just standing out in the sun won’t make you more complex. You need machinery (intelligence) already in place to harness that energy. Has to be a Designer involved. Thank you.
apacalyps on September 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Stated generally, yes, the randomness of the universe tends to increase over time.
No new energy is being added to the universe. But energy shifts to the Earth system from the rest of the universe (meaning energy is being ADDED to the Earth system), which can cause a local decrease in entropy for the Earth system even as the universe’s entropy increases.
Intelligently guiding the use of energy to cause destruction says nothing about the capacity of adding energy to cause construction without intelligence. Completely unrelated.
Here’s the argument of someone who’s never taken chemistry seriously. Even molecules can use energy to change their configuration - how do you think chlorophyll WORKS, for pete’s sake? The configuration is not NECESSARILY one with lower entropy (hence the destruction achieved by bombs, as you noted), but it CAN be (and often is). Your argument is like saying “well, excess heat makes fire, which burns stuff down, so heat can’t do ANYTHING constructive without intelligent guidance!” How absurd.
Math_Mage on September 15, 2008 at 12:30 AM
I like this quote by Dr. Bolton Davidheiser (who used to teach evolution in his John Hopkins University biology courses, but later became an staunch creationist) he said:
“The evolutionists say (bluffing, I believe) that there is no problem about evolution in regard to the Second Law of Thermodynamics because the energy requirements are satisfied. This seems like saying there is no problem about building a skyscraper if only there is available mechanical equipment, a source of fuel for the equipment, and enough healthy people selected at random. (The people do not have to know anything about building skyscrapers; the only requirements being that they are healthy and vigorous.) “In the case of living things there is needed BESIDES a source of energy, one or more of the fol