Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas

[5stringJeff]

I am not sure what you are getting at here. Since mass IS energy, then additional mass would add to the amount of energy.

My point is this: quantum particles being "created" are actually being formed out of energy, because the sum of energy and mass in the universe cannot be changed. It was in response to your line about the "continuous creation" of particles.

 

[USViking]

My point is this: quantum particles being "created" are actually being formed out of energy, because the sum of energy and mass in the universe cannot be changed. It was in response to your line about the "continuous creation" of particles.

My understanding is that the virtual particles appear out of nothing. They are called "virtual" because they disappear almost as fast as they appear.

This is a fully established part of Quantum Mechanics, and does not violate Thermodynamics, I think because the particles' disappearance cancels their appearance.

However, there are 10 to God knows how many of these particles in existence at any one time in the universe. It is an ongoing challenge to work this and other aspects of Quantum Mechanics into theories dealing with scales above the atomic level, including Cosmology, and I do not think much progress has been made.

 

[dmp]

my head hurts now...

 

[USViking]

my head hurts now...

I never get headaches- not a single one in my whole life.

I do suffer from gout attacks. Not recommended.

 

[mrsx]

Isn't there an inherent limit to scientific epistemology? If I want to believe that evolution - however it works - is the way the Creator created, can scientific method prove that wrong?

 

[5stringJeff]

Isn't there an inherent limit to scientific epistemology? If I want to believe that evolution - however it works - is the way the Creator created, can scientific method prove that wrong?

If science proves that evolution is wrong, then yes, it could.

 

[IControlThePast]

my head hurts now...

Try posting some of it, doesn't work out to well either .

I drive 3-4 hours every day and get migranes from excessive sun expose frequently, so basically my head always hurts.

 

[no1tovote4]

Isn't there an inherent limit to scientific epistemology? If I want to believe that evolution - however it works - is the way the Creator created, can scientific method prove that wrong?

This follows more to my theory... A Supreme Being created the Universe by setting off the Big Bang, with just enough force and mass to create the Universe we live in. This Grand Architect then created intelligent life through the process of evolution.

I believe that science simply answers the question of "How the heck did The Big G DO that?!"

 

[Annie]

http://www.slate.com/id/2118320/

What Matters in Kansas
The evolution of creationism.
By William Saletan
Posted Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 1:00 AM PT


Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.



This week, the Kansas State Board of Education will wrap up hearings on "intelligent design," a theistic alternative to the theory of evolution. Scientists have refused to testify, dismissing ID as tarted-up creationism. Newspapers are comparing the hearings to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. Liberals, editorialists, and biologists wonder aloud how people can refuse to see evolution when it's staring them in the face. Maybe they should ask themselves. It's the creationists in Kansas who are evolving. And it's the evolutionists who can't see it.

To understand the fight in Kansas, you have to study what evolutionists accuse creationists of neglecting: the historical record. In the Scopes trial, creationists defended a ban on the teaching of evolution. That was the early, authoritarian stage of creationism—the equivalent of Australopithecus, the earliest hominid. Gradually, evolution gained the upper hand. In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn't even require equal treatment of evolution and creationism. By 1999, creationists were asking the Kansas board not to rule out their beliefs entirely. This was creationism's more advanced Homo erectus phase: pluralism.

Six years later, evolutionists in Kansas are under attack again. They think the old creationism is back. They're mistaken. Homo erectus—the defense, on pluralist grounds, of the literal account of Genesis—is beginning to die out. The new challenger, ID, differs fundamentally from fundamentalism. Like its creationist forebears, ID is theistic. But unlike them, it abandons Biblical literalism, embraces open-minded inquiry, and accepts falsification, not authority, as the ultimate test. These concessions, sincere or not, define a new species of creationism—Homo sapiens—that fatally undermines its ancestors. Creationists aren't threatening us. They're becoming us.

 

[mrsx]

You think that we creationists are catching up to you evolutionists because you misunderstand Einstein's theories. We are standing still, it is you that are catching up to us. After all, wasn't Jesus a clone?

 

[5stringJeff]

After all, wasn't Jesus a clone?

 

[mrsx]

My dictionary says a clone is "an organism descended asexually from a single ancestor." We refer to it as the "Virgin Birth." Jesus had no DNA from Joseph and because of Mary's "Immaculate Conception" was free of Original Sin. Am I going too fast for you?

 

[no1tovote4]

My dictionary says a clone is "an organism descended asexually from a single ancestor." We refer to it as the "Virgin Birth." Jesus had no DNA from Joseph and because of Mary's "Immaculate Conception" was free of Original Sin. Am I going too fast for you?

However, Christ had a Father and a Mother according to the Bible. The attempt to define Christ as a clone will be met with scoffing laughter at your clear misunderstanding of the concept of cloning. By the definition of Clone that you proferred it already is clear he would not be a clone. If you think that because he was created without sex he is a clone then you would be in error. There are way too many in vitro fertilizations that occur for you to take that as an option in an argument. A sexual virgin could have a baby without it being a clone even with human intervention only, why would you think that a Divine Being would be unable to conceive of this option as well?

 

[5stringJeff]

My dictionary says a clone is "an organism descended asexually from a single ancestor." We refer to it as the "Virgin Birth." Jesus had no DNA from Joseph and because of Mary's "Immaculate Conception" was free of Original Sin. Am I going too fast for you?

A clone has the exact copy of the parent DNA. Unless you can ascertain that God has 46 chromosomes, I think that the term 'clone' to describe Jesus is inaccurate.

 

[Nienna]

Evolution: "A theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." So how since the first organism didn't come from a pre-existing type of organism, it's not Evolution. My curriculums were, respectively, state and nationally mandated.

Perhaps you would consider Stephan Jay Gould to be more of an authority on the subject than I...
"Evolution is one of the half dozen 'great ideas' developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of us—the 'roots' phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder."[ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 262. ]

I've already proven how an organism could evolve into a man .

You've shown how genetic information can be carried, but not how new information could have arisen.

If space contains no matter, it has no energy. The only two things varying in that formula are mass and energy. Meters and time are fixed, not variables here. There isn't a relationship shown here between something's "space" and Energy or "space" and Mass. C is just a constant to create proportional relationship between Energy and Mass. The unit you're trying to use to measure the amount of space in the Universe is only in two dimensions too, while the Universe has at least three spatial ones, or do you still believe the world is flat too :tng: .

Silly! Of course the world isn't flat. That can be observed and tested.

Energy and mass exist in space. Space is implicit in the formula. But, at any rate, I was not using the meter or any unit of distance in my example. I was dealing only with energy and mass. The laws of thermodynamics show that the amount of energy available for work is decreasing, therefore, the universe cannot have existed forever or else it would have reached heat death. Nothing to do with the theoretical spatial expansion of the universe.

Edit: Actually I thought the Meter was one dimensional, like a line, but you say it's two?

I was thinking of linear direction. But you are correct. Direction is not a technical dimension.

Macroevolution is a statement drawn completely from the tested axioms of microevolution. You can make macroev. a theorem from previous microevolution axioms, like Euclid drew the large number of theorems in Euclidean Geometry (I think around 113 or so) from his 5 axioms. This is different than creating a whole new axiom, which you need to do with the Creator for ID. You can't make that a theorem from existing axioms. This is how it violates Occams Razor.

Okay, so we both agree that microevolution contains the axioms. Macroevolution and Creation are both "theorems" based on these "axioms." The Creation model claims that an intelligent being created specifically complex organisms. Mutation and natural selection are functions initiated at creation to work on genetic information. The macroevolution model claims that these organisms, and the specifically complex information contained in their DNA, arose through random processes. We have all observed "something" being formed of "something." The Macroevolution model needs the extra axiom that "something" can be formed from "nothing." Therefore, macroevolution violates Occam's Razor.

Well then where exactly are you finding fault? I thought you were saying there wasn't enough raw material (bp) for variation, that even if infintely specified the early genomes could not incorporate the amount of info we have, trying to write a sentence with only two letters? There are of course mechanisms for altering genetic information once the numbers of base pairs are there, like mutation, which creates variation. Natural selection makes the genome more specific, adding the specified complexity. When a mutation occurs on "backup" gene, it introduces new information to the organisms genome without losing any functions.

Natural selection and mutation cannot add genetic information. It can only act on the genetic information already present in the genome. There has never been an example of a mutation which increased the genetic information.

I have a couple more quotes for you...

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." ----Professor D.M.S. Watson, biologist and evolutionist. ("Adaptation," Nature, 124:233, 1929)

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."-----Richard Lewontin (“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.)


You see, even these renowned evolutionists freely admit that their belief in macroevolution is a religious choice. They choose to believe in materialism as opposed to special creation, and all their presumptions and interpretations are based on this religious view. Why should this view be taught exclusively in the classroom? I think, by our collaborative effort, we have shown that a scientific debate can occur. It’s my belief that it should.

 

[Nienna]

My dictionary says a clone is "an organism descended asexually from a single ancestor." We refer to it as the "Virgin Birth." Jesus had no DNA from Joseph and because of Mary's "Immaculate Conception" was free of Original Sin. Am I going too fast for you?

Like Jeff said, a clone has the exact copy of the parent's DNA. We know that his can't be true of Jesus, because Mary was a woman, and Jesus was a man.

The Immaculate Conception is an idea formed through church teaching, and is not held in many Christian churches to be true. The Immaculate Conception is not the idea that she was a virgin at the time of Jesus' conception (which she was, per the Bible). It is the idea that Mary was conceived without original sin. Otherwise Jesus would have inherited original sin from her. This is not stated in the Bible, but only inferred by some religious sects.

Actually, Jesus may not have had any of Mary's DNA. The Bible says nothing about Mary's "seed." It only talks about Jesus being conceived in her womb.

 

[IControlThePast]

Perhaps you would consider Stephan Jay Gould to be more of an authority on the subject than I...
"Evolution is one of the half dozen 'great ideas' developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of genealogy that fascinate all of us—the 'roots' phenomenon writ large. Where did we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder."[ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 262. ]

That's "where" it arose, as in what part of the world, how have the early species diverged due to geographical isolation like Australia, where were the first species, and etc.

You've shown how genetic information can be carried, but not how new information could have arisen.

Mutation creates new genes, new information.

Energy and mass exist in space. Space is implicit in the formula. But, at any rate, I was not using the meter or any unit of distance in my example. I was dealing only with energy and mass. The laws of thermodynamics show that the amount of energy available for work is decreasing, therefore, the universe cannot have existed forever or else it would have reached heat death. Nothing to do with the theoretical spatial expansion of the universe.

Exactly my point . Your formulas didn't deal at all with the size of the Universe, it's spatial expansion. They dealt with energy and mass.

Okay, so we both agree that microevolution contains the axioms. Macroevolution and Creation are both "theorems" based on these "axioms." The Creation model claims that an intelligent being created specifically complex organisms. Mutation and natural selection are functions initiated at creation to work on genetic information. The macroevolution model claims that these organisms, and the specifically complex information contained in their DNA, arose through random processes. We have all observed "something" being formed of "something." The Macroevolution model needs the extra axiom that "something" can be formed from "nothing." Therefore, macroevolution violates Occam's Razor.

No it doesn't. Definition of Macroevolution: Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time.

It doesn't require abiogenesis, or reject the belief that the Creator did not put the first species on Earth. You don't need the extra axiom something can be formed from nothing, just like Evolution doesn't deal with how a first organism came to exist in the first place.

Natural selection cannot add specified complexity. It can only act on the genetic information already present in the genome. There has never been an example of a mutation which increased the genetic information.

Ok, so Genetic Information=How many processes are coded for. Therefore any mutation would add genetic information to the species by forming a new process out of the altered old one. An easy example is sickle cell anemia, where blood cells behave differently.

I have a couple more quotes for you...

"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." ----Professor D.M.S. Watson, biologist and evolutionist. ("Adaptation," Nature, 124:233, 1929)

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."-----Richard Lewontin (“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.)


You see, even these renowned evolutionists freely admit that their belief in macroevolution is a religious choice. They choose to believe in materialism as opposed to special creation, and all their presumptions and interpretations are based on this religious view. Why should this view be taught exclusively in the classroom? I think, by our collaborative effort, we have shown that a scientific debate can occur. It’s my belief that it should.

I would like to say thank you for keeping the debate scientific. Many people don't do that .

Evolution does not create "rationalism" any more than Science does as a whole. Try to understand that the materialism they talk of is different than what you think of. For creating and using Science, using a materialistic framework is very useful. People would have just said long ago that lightning came from Zeus and used Science to just explain unknown natural phenomena like many ancient cultures used religion instead of discovering why lightning strikes. Like Einstein said, "What we [scientists] strive for is just to draw His lines after Him."

Just because Scientists use rationalism, logic, to "draw His lines," it doesn't mean that He doesn't exist because there is no logical proof of it. There is also a choice to decide whether Macroevolution is a religious choice for you. It doesn't have to be, but it can be. You can believe in evolution and be a Christian at the same time, so Materialism isn't exposed to students by Evolution in a way it's not by the Scientific Method.

 

[mrsx]

However, Christ had a Father and a Mother according to the Bible. The attempt to define Christ as a clone will be met with scoffing laughter at your clear misunderstanding of the concept of cloning. By the definition of Clone that you proferred it already is clear he would not be a clone. If you think that because he was created without sex he is a clone then you would be in error. There are way too many in vitro fertilizations that occur for you to take that as an option in an argument. A sexual virgin could have a baby without it being a clone even with human intervention only, why would you think that a Divine Being would be unable to conceive of this option as well?

Ok, Ok, I'm willing to learn. Who was Christ's father? Doesn't in vitro fertilization mean an egg fertilized with a sperm? If so, I agree that isn't a clone. Dolly the sheep was a clone because sperm wasn't used. I think the issue is whether there are two sets of chromosomes not if a turkey baster was substituted for the traditional applicator.

If Jesus did not have a human father did he get his xy chromosomes from the Holy Ghost?

 

[5stringJeff]

Ok, Ok, I'm willing to learn. Who was Christ's father? Doesn't in vitro fertilization mean an egg fertilized with a sperm? If so, I agree that isn't a clone. Dolly the sheep was a clone because sperm wasn't used. I think the issue is whether there are two sets of chromosomes not if a turkey baster was substituted for the traditional applicator.

If Jesus did not have a human father did he get his xy chromosomes from the Holy Ghost?

Christian doctrine teaches the the Holy Spirit came over Mary, and she became pregnant with Jesus. This carries the assumption that the single cell that started the pregnancy had unique DNA that was from neither Mary nor Joseph (obviously, since Mary was still a virgin).

 

[Nienna]

Ok, Ok, I'm willing to learn. Who was Christ's father? Doesn't in vitro fertilization mean an egg fertilized with a sperm? If so, I agree that isn't a clone. Dolly the sheep was a clone because sperm wasn't used. I think the issue is whether there are two sets of chromosomes not if a turkey baster was substituted for the traditional applicator.

If Jesus did not have a human father did he get his xy chromosomes from the Holy Ghost?

I guess you aren't familiar with the Bible. Even though this thread is supposed to be about the Kansas Bd. of Ed. hearings, I'll try to answer your question.

Jesus' father was God. God has three "persons" or manifestations, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All three work in concordance with one another. God created the Laws of Physics, and is not subject to them. Therefore, He is capable of being present in more than one place at a time. His spirit was present in this human body.

The Triune God made the decision to create a human life placed in Mary's womb. He is the origin of creation. Although the Bible isn't specific, I believe He created a new being, like He did in the beginning of the world. Jesus is referred to as the "last Adam," as opposed to the first Adam. God created Him from His mind and power, He didn't have to go hunting for y chromosomes. Or x chromosomes, either.