What if evolution was part of creationism?

[JBeukema]

Logic is the sword that has slain the last of our gods; reason is the shield with which we protect ourselves from the return of such superstitions and the glorification of ignorance; science is the honest quest for an understanding of all around and within us.

-James T. Beukema

Logic is a tool much as a hammer or drill is a tool. One can bore a hole into the Truth, step aside and bore another hole (hole = logical sortie). This sometimes leads to a logical conflict.
As an example: Newton's gravitational force law.

Newton was wrong, sop anything which rests ion Newton's math is inherently flawed. You fail already and I need not even read the rest.

 

[amiam*]

Logic is the sword that has slain the last of our gods; reason is the shield with which we protect ourselves from the return of such superstitions and the glorification of ignorance; science is the honest quest for an understanding of all around and within us.

-James T. Beukema

Logic is a tool much as a hammer or drill is a tool. One can bore a hole into the Truth, step aside and bore another hole (hole = logical sortie). This sometimes leads to a logical conflict.
As an example: Newton's gravitational force law.

Newton was wrong, sop anything which rests ion Newton's math is inherently flawed. You fail already and I need not even read the rest.

Gee JB, such insight. Perhaps NASA has it all wrong and should consult with you on how to launch their space vehicles.

To say Newton got it wrong demonstrates the arrogance of JB. Einstein once said "I have stood on the shoulders of giants." thus honoring Newton by quoting him!

If JB would take a course in physics he would discover that relativistic mechanics must yield the classical results at speeds much less than the speed of light.
Again! Logic is a tool!

 

[JBeukema]

To say Newton got it wrong demonstrates the arrogance of JB.

How so?

He was wrong.

That's a fact.

Einstein was wrong, too. We know that now.

If JB would take a course in physics he would discover that relativistic mechanics must yield the classical results at speeds much less than the speed of light.

Wrong. Using Einstein's models will still give you a more accurate result.

Newt's just considered 'close enough' at everyday speeds.

Again! Logic is a tool!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Les' see heah. Listen to Einstein and Newton or JB? Hmmm . . . JB, you are an amazing individual.

 

[JBeukema]

Les' see heah. Listen to Einstein and Newton or JB? Hmmm . . . JB, you are an amazing individual.

You really think Einstein was right?


Then what the hell did Eisenstein do?

Einstein was right?

ever heard of quantum mechanics?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

JB is making a good point guys, yes they were smart men but some of their theories have been proven incomplete with modern science.

 

[indianaboy]

Einstein was a Jew, and we all know who can't be trusted.
If evolution was part of creation then the bible would have mentioned it, so no evolution people, that's a fact.

Why do you assume the Bible would have mentioned it? You have to consider the audience at the time.

 

[amiam*]

To say Newton got it wrong demonstrates the arrogance of JB.

How so?

He was wrong.

That's a fact.

Einstein was wrong, too. We know that now.

If JB would take a course in physics he would discover that relativistic mechanics must yield the classical results at speeds much less than the speed of light.

Wrong. Using Einstein's models will still give you a more accurate result.

Newt's just considered 'close enough' at everyday speeds.

Again! Logic is a tool!

Jb seems to think that my characterizing him as arrogant does not fit him. Once again I must disagree. In a previous posting I mentioned that Newton's gravitational law would suggest that the Universe rather than expand would one day collapse. I showed a contradiction that appears in classical physics. The theories are all logical and are widely used today even by NASA.

Classical physics is the backbone of all the rest of physics. It is an axiom of physics that all theories must yield the results of classical physics.

As I recall, quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics are independent of each other, but both yield the results of classical mechanics at the macroscopic level

If JB cannot grasp this he needs to educate himself further. Hopefully JB will now consider my first post in this series. I think it was about evolution and creation.

 

[JBeukema]

JB is making a good point guys, yes they were smart men but some of their theories have been proven incomplete with modern science.

The point is we simply don't have the answers yet; we must maintain or skepticism and not give way to dogma or allow the insights and geniuses of men to be warped into god-like authority as some in this thread have attempted to do.

 

[JBeukema]

Jb seems to think that my characterizing him as arrogant does not fit him. Once again I must disagree. In a previous posting I mentioned that Newton's gravitational law would suggest that the Universe rather than expand would one day collapse. I showed a contradiction that appears in classical physics. The theories are all logical and are widely used today even by NASA.

NASA doesn't use Newton's formulas or theories on the cosmological scale because they don't work. They use Einstein's and others based upon Einstein's work.

Classical physics is the backbone of all the rest of physics. It is an axiom of physics that all theories must yield the results of classical physics.

No, it's not. Try using Newtonian physics to describe the collision of two galaxies or the quantum state of an electeron. It doesn't work.

As I recall, quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics are independent of each other, but both yield the results of classical mechanics at the macroscopic level

You just moved your ogoalposts- now it's 'at the macroscopic level', whereas it wasn't two paragraphs ago

And no, they don't They're just so damned close that the difference is negligible and it's easier to just use Newton's formulations.

If amiam* cannot grasp this he needs to educate himself further

 

[geauxtohell]

Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive up until the point when someone tries to insert religion into science.

Science is a man made methodology to explain the natural world. The supernatural (and all other things that can't be quantified or falsified) are intentionally excluded.

I don't know why this concept is so hard for some people.

 

[Freeman]

I'm a rude antidarwinist, but both creationnists and evolutionists are absurds because they want to endocrine minors in classroom!

the two are metaphysical views that should be spared in school

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm a rude antidarwinist, but both creationnists and evolutionists are absurds because they want to endocrine minors in classroom!

the two are metaphysical views that should be spared in school

I am a medical student and have no idea what "endocrine minors" means.

Are we going to spray them with hormones?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Evolution can't exist otherwise the bible is wrong. Who would you believe, modern day scientists or a 1500 year old book written in Ye Olde English.

But what if God's plan for God's creations was for them to evolve over time? Then it wouldn't make the bible "wrong".

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Evolution can't exist otherwise the bible is wrong. Who would you believe, modern day scientists or a 1500 year old book written in Ye Olde English.

But what if God's plan for God's creations was for them to evolve over time? Then it wouldn't make the bible "wrong".

The bible would for sure then be wrong. Remember, God made eve out of 1 of Adam's ribs And God made the world in 6 days with everything already in it. Presumably, He was too lazy to do it in 1 day.

why would it be wrong though? I'm not trying to be a jerk to you i'm truly curious as to your opinion.

I think that if god did create all life then god intended that life to evolve. I definately don't doubt that evolution is real.

 

[Diuretic]

Evolution can't exist otherwise the bible is wrong. Who would you believe, modern day scientists or a 1500 year old book written in Ye Olde English.

But what if God's plan for God's creations was for them to evolve over time? Then it wouldn't make the bible "wrong".

The bible would for sure then be wrong. Remember, God made eve out of 1 of Adam's ribs And God made the world in 6 days with everything already in it. Presumably, He was too lazy to do it in 1 day.

I think the fundamentalist, literalist view would be proven wrong. I'm not sure if it follows that the more sophisticated, hermeneutically driven interpretations would be proven wrong. I don't know enough theology to have even a remotely informed opinion on that though.

 

[amiam*]

Jb seems to think that my characterizing him as arrogant does not fit him. Once again I must disagree. In a previous posting I mentioned that Newton's gravitational law would suggest that the Universe rather than expand would one day collapse. I showed a contradiction that appears in classical physics. The theories are all logical and are widely used today even by NASA.

NASA doesn't use Newton's formulas or theories on the cosmological scale because they don't work. They use Einstein's and others based upon Einstein's work.

Classical physics is the backbone of all the rest of physics. It is an axiom of physics that all theories must yield the results of classical physics.

No, it's not. Try using Newtonian physics to describe the collision of two galaxies or the quantum state of an electeron. It doesn't work.

As I recall, quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics are independent of each other, but both yield the results of classical mechanics at the macroscopic level

You just moved your ogoalposts- now it's 'at the macroscopic level', whereas it wasn't two paragraphs ago

And no, they don't They're just so damned close that the difference is negligible and it's easier to just use Newton's formulations.

If amiam* cannot grasp this he needs to educate himself further

Its been fourty years since I've take a physics class.Things have not changed that much.

At one tenthousandth of the speed of light the mass change is not present in the last eight integers.
Why anyone would use relativistic mechanics is a mystery best know by JB. At said fraction of the speed of light a velocity of 66,960 miles/hour would be required. This is well above the velocities used by NASA so far.

The arrogance of JB is best described by JB himself when he wrote: "Newton was wrong, sop anything which rests ion Newton's math is inherently flawed. You fail already and I need not even read the rest."

Great cop out!

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It depends. Yes, God made micro-evolution which IS scientifically observable if that is what you are saying. If you are talking about macro-evolution the answer is no. God said he created man out of the dust of the earth.

There's no such thing as "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution". They are terms that religious fanatics made up to differentiate between the evolution they can't possibly deny, and the part of evolution they can still try to ignore.

It's been said before. Christians don't need evolution to be false, but atheists need it to be true.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Atheism has no more to do with the theory of evolution than it does with the theory of gravity. Atheism is a lack of believe, not a positive believe in things that reject your religion. Christianity has made up terms (see above), "scientific" factions (Christian science?), the "field" of "intelligent design". Evolution is true regardless of your religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs are not true regardless of evolution.

To say Newton got it wrong demonstrates the arrogance of JB. Einstein once said "I have stood on the shoulders of giants." thus honoring Newton by quoting him!

agreed. he seems to have read about the discrepancies online at some point, was scarred for life, and has been bitter on the topic ever since. Instead of acknowledging the practical application of these solid basic principles, he completely dismisses any application whatsoever (while concurrently acknowledging that they work just fine for simple matters!).

Classical physics is the backbone of all the rest of physics. It is an axiom of physics that all theories must yield the results of classical physics.

No, it's not. Try using Newtonian physics to describe the collision of two galaxies or the quantum state of an electeron. It doesn't work.[/QUOTE]
It's a good thing we weren't talking about those things then! This is what I mean by inability to accept the solid approximation of those works in practical situations. You jump directly to the extreme regardless of whether we're talking about basic physics principles or evolution! Follow the conversation or don't bother entering it. No one finds you intelligent if you think you are showing off your physics knowledge by touting those details. Everyone else in the conversation is already well aware of this knowledge which you seem to be trying to hold over other people's heads. The difference is that they were smart enough to know when it doesn't apply.

 

[THE LIGHT]

It depends. Yes, God made micro-evolution which IS scientifically observable if that is what you are saying. If you are talking about macro-evolution the answer is no. God said he created man out of the dust of the earth.

There's no such thing as "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution". They are terms that religious fanatics made up to differentiate between the evolution they can't possibly deny, and the part of evolution they can still try to ignore.

Have you observed a non human turning into a human?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

It depends. Yes, God made micro-evolution which IS scientifically observable if that is what you are saying. If you are talking about macro-evolution the answer is no. God said he created man out of the dust of the earth.

There's no such thing as "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution". They are terms that religious fanatics made up to differentiate between the evolution they can't possibly deny, and the part of evolution they can still try to ignore.

Have you observed a non human turning into a human?

have you observed jesus dying on the cross? have you observed antibiotics killing bacteria? Have you ever seen a cell divide? have you observed the sun provide energy to plants? Did you see the first car ever made? How do you know any cars were made then!?

We can't see evaporation, but we can still feel the rain.

There are MANY things we don't need to see to obtain factual information on.

Regardless, you basically just ignored every single point in that previous post to make a ridiculously ignorant claim. Perhaps you should go try again.