First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Evolution and Creationism in School
3359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Morocco
Offline
Posted 1/8/09
i believe that all science theories should be teached in schools,but always refered as "theories",science doesn't claim to have the truth but claims searching it!
9587 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Vancouver, Washin...
Offline
Posted 1/8/09

digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


hoogleman wrote:


digs wrote:


SeraphAlford wrote:

Hey, this is really impressive. We’ve had four brilliant opinions presented in a mature and adult way without a single flamer.


digs wrote:

I think neither evolution nor creationism should be forced in schools because both have theory status. I think there should be an optional course that discusses evolution and intelligent design (creationism) and talks about the evidence (both supporting and counter evidence) in both theories. As it stands now, evolution is a forced topic to be learned, it is introduced as fact, and no counter arguments are ever put into the text books nor are holes in the theory explained. I think there is an incredible evolutionary bias in schools, and in the pursuit of well rounded education I would advocate teaching both with their supporting evidence and counter arguments. Introducing one theory and calling it fact is not education, but rather indoctrination.

P.S. I believe creationism to be a science. There are institutes for intelligent design and Biblical creationism. Within the creationist theory there are sub theories (such as Biblical old earth, Biblical young earth, deistic creationism, etc...) Intelligent design is scientifically studied and scientifically analyzed. I would strongly argue that the study of intelligent design is a science.


Well, evolution as the source of life is a theory in the same sense that all historical ideas are theory. However, evolution itself is a part of every day life. One example is that I have a friend who raises cattle. His family has done this for generations. They breed their cattle with specific mates to acquire specific results. That’s evolution.

Now, do we know that humans evolved from primates? Not really, that’s a theory. Do we know that the original life forms evolved from primordial slug? No, that’s theory. But, we do know and can prove that evolution and natural selection both exist.






I am not saying don't teach what is true, it is good to discuss natural selection and genetics, but what I am mainly addressing is the theories of evolution (in that life came from proteins and created itself through energy and matter) and also about the origins of the species. I just think they need to remove the bias in schools and not address something as fact unless it is scientific law. They also need to address counter argument for all theories that they choose to teach on, I think this would truly be education and not indoctrination, it makes students critically analyze what information is being presented before them and make a judgment based (hopefully) on their logic and reasoning with the given data.


LOL evolution does not even say that we came from a protein...also if u want to take out scientific theories from text books, lets take out the general theory of relativity and special theory of relativity. Also, lets take out Newton's theory of gravity and all the other theories out there. Newton's thoery of gravity is not law, its just a theory. Intelligent design is coming off of the basis that we came from god. Darwin made a success of evolution that in order for a species to survive, one must adapt to its surroundings. THATS the theory of evolution....idk where u got the crap about how we came from proteins.


Actually it does, the theory of evolution blieved by most evolutionary scientists is that the proteins necessary for DNA and life formed with other materials and then received life somehow and thus the first single cell was born which became other organisms through evolution. At the very beginning of the theory it talks about how the first life form came to be (however it is flawed and not practical). I am not saying take theories out, I am saying give students a well rounded education, discussing the holes and unanswered questions to both evolution and intelligent design. right now they teach evolution as fact, and the don't talk about contrary evidence or unanswered questions. I would argue that this isn't a well rounded education, and to some extent it is indoctrination, not education.


wow...u have no clue wat ur talking about...first of all...those theorists did not make the thoery now did they? Plus, evolution is not a belief, its a theory. If you have read biology books (which i can see u have not), they never mention that we came from monkeys, ur thinking of other theories. They do not teach evolution as a fact. It does NOT have anything to do with how we came from monkeys and how we came from protiens. They teach it at school because it tells how biology is suppose to work. Remember, all theories are not facts. They are theories, just cause its proven doesnt mean its a fact, it can still be dis proven.


I never said anything about monkeys (I know evolution now believes that humans and monkeys shared a common ancestor)... I am talking about when life started and how most evolutionary scientists view that as happening. Most believe that the materials necessary for life came together and somehow came to life. The DNA in the first cell must have been made from proteins (as all DNA is). I am talking about the very beginning of the evolutionary process starting with the first cell to have emerged. Scientists who support evolution do think and know that the proteins had to be present for DNA to have been created. They teach evolution to try and explain the origin of the species. Biology and evolution are two different areas of science. Evolution is a theory that tries to explain how we have our current biology, and biology is the study of current living organisms. I am saying when schools teach evolution, they need to teach the holes and unexplained answers in the theory as well. To have a well rounded education, and also to do the same with intelligent design.


btw, that again is irrelevant to the fact of thoery of evolution...idk where u heard this crap but u again, are mis informed. >.> Anyways intelligent design is not scientifically proven. Also its part of religion. Have u heard something called church and state? Keep churches out of the state?


Not really, it is a fundamental but whatever, that's not the main point. Intelligent design is scientific, there are research centers, and the theory does not designate a specific religion (although most scientists in the field are Christians). It merely believed that a higher power is responsible for creation. And church and state does not mean oppress the church. This is the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It means that the church does not and can not control the government, and the government can not control the church or restrict the free right to religion. It is not violating the Amendment to teach intelligent design because in no way is the church controlling the public schools, and they are also teaching evolution. It's a well rounded education that teaches what science has compiled through research and experimentation (both evolution and intelligent design).


omg....I cant help u anymore.....religion is bad for people >.> Anyways I didnt read that stuff above this..test tomorrow on economics and my brains fried, so ya, not responding >.>
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/09 , edited 1/9/09

digs wrote:
Intelligent design is scientific, there are research centers, and the theory does not designate a specific religion (although most scientists in the field are Christians).


Your "evidence" for intelligent design "theory" was pointed out to be complete rubbish here http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-425395/Fact-is-A-Theory.html

If you think your attempt at
i) constantly revising your statements to try and make it fool proof
ii) attempting to use political correctness to shield yourself from looking stupid
is very effective and/or subtle, think again.

And please come up with something better than "Its my opinion"

Btw, you might actually want to look up on the primoridal soup before harping on proteins
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/9/09

Underwriter wrote:

Mt problem with your proposal is that is not possible for an average high school to offer classes in every sort of theology which exists. It is unfair to offer a class funded by taxpayer by money on Christianity if you can't do the same with Zoroastrianism. I think this view is inline with the SCOTUS ruling that if you allow one religious club in a high school you must allow any sort of religious club. When dealing with classes, if you can't offer my Bokonism class or section of class then that makes me angry. I just think it is unlikely that a teacher could be an expert on every religion so he could cover them all.


Who says we couldn’t cover Zoroastrianism? That religion is the connecting link between eastern and western religions and is a very crucial building block to the agenda of even a very basic class in theology. It is necessary to cover Zoroastrianism at least briefly to discuss the connection and relation between world religions. Well, perhaps that was just a bad example. I get your point.

This being said, middle school and high school classes are not meant to be all encompassing. They’re simply meant to introduce youths to a variety of topics and information. The student can then select a field of interest and pursue a more specialized education throughout college.

So, I don’t think there is any reason to expect a theology class to be any different. I do not think that this is unfair. I don’t think that your comparison is entirely accurate either. There’s a pretty clear difference.

Even assuming it is, that’s all the more reason to keep the class as an elective. Elective classes are more flexible than mandatory classes. In middle school I took Home Economics at a school of upper-middle class white children. These kids couldn’t cook or clean for themselves. We learned how to bake cakes! Yummy!

My sister took the same class in another neighborhood. This was a largely Hispanic city with a painfully high teen pregnancy rating. They carried around rubber babies.

We both had different experience according to what was most relevant to the student body. Here’s another thing, I also took wood shop. I wanted to know how to build a bird house. I asked my teacher and he made that our project. Did he teach every class how to build a birdhouse? No, that was just us.

The point is that we’re learning something relevant to the topic, but what we’re learning doesn’t have to be so regulated as a mandatory class.

34 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/10/09 , edited 1/10/09

Regulus133 wrote:


When the purpose of the class is to teach students about other people to, say, improve relations, the importance of "major world religions" over lesser-known ones is clear and, if this reason is accepted, uncontroversial. But I recognize that, at least right now, this reason would not be accepted...


In a global history course, however, this changes. Teaching the histories of only certain countries conveys the idea that they are more important than others, even if the reason is that they relate to us. If you say that is okay, I'm not sure how you can criticize teaching the religions that have the greatest importance to the world and, therefore, to us.
Because, first and foremost, an American may be part of any religion. An American may not be part of another nation. Therefore, when we teach about nations and cultures that are more important to us we are not unfair to any American.



I think it's still a good point, perhaps even one to grant you without further discussion--but it's moot, in my opinion, in light of my response to the first quote. I guess we'll see after you respond.

When it comes down to it this really is just a matter of opinion. I don't like the idea and you do like it.




No, but, if we are assuming that education is important and insist upon teaching information even when it can be found online or in a bookstore, we can still speak of the class in terms of withholding information. Left to our own devices from childhood, not many of us would come to have a good understanding of much of anything. Worse, many of us probably wouldn't care (you said this yourself concerning religion), so I'd say we need schools to establish foundations for and interests in various types of knowledge.


This is true,to an extent, but then you would have to justify which knowledge the school should seek to stir interest in.
34 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/10/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Who says we couldn’t cover Zoroastrianism? That religion is the connecting link between eastern and western religions and is a very crucial building block to the agenda of even a very basic class in theology. It is necessary to cover Zoroastrianism at least briefly to discuss the connection and relation between world religions. Well, perhaps that was just a bad example. I get your point.

This being said, middle school and high school classes are not meant to be all encompassing. They’re simply meant to introduce youths to a variety of topics and information. The student can then select a field of interest and pursue a more specialized education throughout college.

So, I don’t think there is any reason to expect a theology class to be any different. I do not think that this is unfair. I don’t think that your comparison is entirely accurate either. There’s a pretty clear difference.

Even assuming it is, that’s all the more reason to keep the class as an elective. Elective classes are more flexible than mandatory classes. In middle school I took Home Economics at a school of upper-middle class white children. These kids couldn’t cook or clean for themselves. We learned how to bake cakes! Yummy!

My sister took the same class in another neighborhood. This was a largely Hispanic city with a painfully high teen pregnancy rating. They carried around rubber babies.

We both had different experience according to what was most relevant to the student body. Here’s another thing, I also took wood shop. I wanted to know how to build a bird house. I asked my teacher and he made that our project. Did he teach every class how to build a birdhouse? No, that was just us.

The point is that we’re learning something relevant to the topic, but what we’re learning doesn’t have to be so regulated as a mandatory class.


To be fair, I can see this being an elective class. Many electives in high school are classes that students request. This was the case in the state where I went to high school and in the state where I attend college. I am not certain about other states but I do not imagine that this system is totally different. If students wanted to learn about religion and had a teacher who would teach them the subject then that;'s not a problem. Like the SCOTUS ruling about clubs, students may in this fashion join together to get a class on any subject that they desire. This is fair because students of any religion can do it. The problem would come, in my opinion, is if a state government tried to force every school to offer this kind of class. I think that this is wrong for the reasons I have already mentioned.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/10/09 , edited 1/10/09

Underwriter wrote:

To be fair, I can see this being an elective class. Many electives in high school are classes that students request. This was the case in the state where I went to high school and in the state where I attend college. I am not certain about other states but I do not imagine that this system is totally different. If students wanted to learn about religion and had a teacher who would teach them the subject then that;'s not a problem. Like the SCOTUS ruling about clubs, students may in this fashion join together to get a class on any subject that they desire. This is fair because students of any religion can do it. The problem would come, in my opinion, is if a state government tried to force every school to offer this kind of class. I think that this is wrong for the reasons I have already mentioned.


I disagree. I do not feel that any effective argument has been offered in opposition to a theology class. I also still stand by the comment I made previously. I do not think that the SCOTUS ruling is relevant or related to this discussion. I think that it is being taken out of context. More to this line, I do not like legal concepts such as stare decisis. Rulings should be made on an entirely case by case basis to give rise to various circumstances.

In addition I feel that our nation is immensely xenophobic and that the government should do anything it can to help people understand one another. Hate crimes against people based on religious beliefs. The government is responsible for protecting the population, and in this case that means educating them. This suggestion gives us the opportunity to do just that-and, in addition-do so without inconveniencing anybody.

I do not think that anyone is being hurt, limited, or inconvenienced by my proposal. There are obvious benefits.

History classes discuss various mythologies. There are also entire sections of high school text books in history dedicated to Islam and Judaism. Nobody protests this because, simply put, there’s no reason to. It doesn’t hurt children to add in access to a little extra information.

High school classes are not intended to be universal. We cannot in any way introduce children to all information available on any topic, but does that mean we should negate teaching them the respective topics at all?

No.

I'm sorry but I don't think you have a very strong basis for your arguement.


Because, first and foremost, an American may be part of any religion. An American may not be part of another nation. Therefore, when we teach about nations and cultures that are more important to us we are not unfair to any American.


I am German. I am also American. I am a part of both my nations. I remember moving to America and being chagrinned to find that our social studies class didn’t discuss Germany. To me it really felt like they were saying their nation is more important than mine. Their herritage is more important than mine. The forefathers of America are not my forefathers at all.

Yet, we learn about this nation because it's relevant. That's not unfair. I live in a place surrounded by Americans. I learn about America. In Germany we learned about Germans.

We can also further his approach by noting that we discuss African American culture and history in our schools but don’t necessarily cover the same history and cultural analyses of other American minorities. Many of these have a cultural ethos and historical identity just as steeped as that of the blacks. Irish immigrants gave us sky-scrapers. Chinese immigrants built our rail roads. Yet, it is impossible to cover all of these minorities. Should we then stop teaching our children about African American heritage?

As an elementary student I was also outraged that they had entire sections dedicated to African America. Black History Month. Should our schools stop acknowledging it because we don’t have a Caucasian History Month? How about a Bi-Racial History Month?

We cannot possible cover it all, after all.
8221 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / M / yamaku
Offline
Posted 1/10/09
LET'S TEACH NEITHER! THAT WAY NO ONE COULD BE PISSED AND THE STUDENTS WOULDN'T BE FORCED TO DO ANY EXTRA LERNIN!
2281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Omnipresent
Offline
Posted 1/11/09
I think religion is no place for school and I say that as a religious person. There is a difference between Science and Religion and there is really nothing scientific about Religion and it has no type of value in learning except for stories that are not even true. I believe in evolution but it all was under the power of god and started by the deity.

AS for Bible studies, that is fine I guess. As long as it does not interfere in evolutionary studies.
17894 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 2/23/10

the_glob wrote:


digs wrote:
Intelligent design is scientific, there are research centers, and the theory does not designate a specific religion (although most scientists in the field are Christians).


Your "evidence" for intelligent design "theory" was pointed out to be complete rubbish here http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-425395/Fact-is-A-Theory.html

If you think your attempt at
i) constantly revising your statements to try and make it fool proof
ii) attempting to use political correctness to shield yourself from looking stupid
is very effective and/or subtle, think again.

And please come up with something better than "Its my opinion"

Btw, you might actually want to look up on the primoridal soup before harping on proteins


'There is no religious sites for the primordial soup so he can not look it up. LOL I find it funny that all his information has to come from a religious site. ' Don't tell me you have not noticed that as well.
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/8/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


the_glob wrote:


digs wrote:
Intelligent design is scientific, there are research centers, and the theory does not designate a specific religion (although most scientists in the field are Christians).


Your "evidence" for intelligent design "theory" was pointed out to be complete rubbish here http://www.crunchyroll.com/forumtopic-425395/Fact-is-A-Theory.html

If you think your attempt at
i) constantly revising your statements to try and make it fool proof
ii) attempting to use political correctness to shield yourself from looking stupid
is very effective and/or subtle, think again.

And please come up with something better than "Its my opinion"

Btw, you might actually want to look up on the primoridal soup before harping on proteins


'There is no religious sites for the primordial soup so he can not look it up. LOL I find it funny that all his information has to come from a religious site. ' Don't tell me you have not noticed that as well.


Check out this link about primordial soup. http://www.good.is/post/science-rules-antarctic-glacier-has-five-story-blood-red-waterfall-of-primodial-ooze?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+good%2Flbvp+%28GOOD+Main+RSS+Feed%29

What I find most interesting is the almost grudgingly honest statement at the end, "One takeaway here is that life possible in extreme conditions. That said, in the absence of ideal conditions, life can evolve without begetting plants or birds or cuddly mammals or sentient beings who write blogs on the internet; it just begets a glob of ooze."

1718 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
63 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 3/8/10
In my country we learn about theory of evolution during biology classes, and about creationism during religious classes or ethics (one must choose between the two).
During college, I had this subject where we learned about old testament from christian point of view (jewish point of view is learned in different class from jewish teacher). There it was said that creationism is not denying evolution. It just says that "soul" was given from God, and thats it: God created, but nowhere does it say that things that he created must stay as they are.
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/8/10 , edited 3/8/10
I was actually looking for a forum that is strictly Creationism vs. Evolutionism, but this was the closest thing to it. Since it is an issue whether or not both evolution and creation should be taught in school, I thought it would be interesting to study it from a creationist's point of view. Another reason I chose this forum is because Seraph started it. Although I do not always agree with him, he has my utmost respect because of the polite way he treats the opinions of others -- I need not worry that he will reject my beleifs on the grounds that they are not the same as his with petty remarks such as, "You believe that? That's stupid!" For discussion to be mutually beneficial it must needs be mutually respectful.

Before I begin I wish to make the reader aware of a few things. First of all, I am not a scientist -- Science is not even a particular strenght of mine. My strengths lie in the areas of history, literature, research, and education. It is with the combination of these four strengths that I dare hazard the murky waters of scientific discussion. I have liberally borrowed from the works of people much more knowledgeable than myself in order to make my argument. I may be a dwarf in the area of science, but I aspire to stand on the shoulders of giants.

Due to the extensive nature of the supporting documentation, this argument will only be posted one quarter at a time. As time permits I will add a new section every couple of days.

Intro:
The evolutionist’s faith is founded on four basic principles:
• The Big Bang as the origin of the universe.
• Chemical evolution as the origin of life.
• The two mechanisms for evolution (mutations and natural selection).
• The fossil record as proof that evolution happened.

It is commonly thought that evolution is scientific fact; however, this is not the case. The belief system of evolution is based on the four principles. Everything else that an evolutionist believes is derived from these four principles. The study of creationism is often greeted with scepticism and hostility if not outright rejection. An extraordinary amount of supporting information is needed to “justify” it even being heard within evolutionistic spheres. The purpose of this discourse is to remind evolutionists that the “theory” of evolution (although it is not even strictly a theory -- it is more accurately called a hypothesis) should be scrutinized in the same way and to give an idea of the demands for justification that creationists feel need to be given for evolution.

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

The Origin of the Universe: Space, Time, Matter and Energy

Evolutionists claim that the universe began with an explosion from nothing.

“The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing – zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.” (DISCOVER – April 2002)

The science books state it this way:

“If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared into a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago ... the Big Bang.” (HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362)

“...the observable universe could have evolved from and infinitesimal region. It’s then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.” (Alan Guth & P. Steinhardt Scientific American, May 1984, p. 128)

Some evolutionists say that although nothing existed, a process known as vacuum fluctuation created what astrophysicists call a singularity, then from that singularity about the size of a dime, our universe was born. However, the same problem still remains. You start with nothing, but all of the sudden you have something. It is still necessary to explain where the something came from.

Evolutionists start with the assumption that natural forces are all that have ever acted upon the universe. They assume that if there is a God (although most reject that idea), He has not intervened in any supernatural way. This leaves them with no other possible explanation than the Big Bang.

Question #1
“Scientifically, can you have an explosion without energy?”

Question #2
“If there was no matter, what exploded?”

The first Law of Thermodynamics states: “Matter, and/or energy, cannot be created or destroyed.” It is called the law of energy conservation. What that basically means is, matter or energy cannot come out of nothing.

“The First Law has been the object of considerable thought since it was first introduced to the world by William Kelvin and Rudolph Clausius. It forbids a natural process from bringing something from nothing.” (Dr. Robert Gauge, Origins and Destiny, 1986, p. 17)

Question #3
“Scientifically, can something come from nothing?”

Should some attempt to avoid the above question by arguing that space, time, energy, and matter have always existed, allow me to refer to the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states: “Everything tends toward disorder.” That means: Everything left to itself goes toward a state of disorder and decay, not order. It is called the law of energy deterioration or entropy. If the time frame that evolutionists give us is accurate then we should have reached maximum decay by now. Even if you could get something from nothing it would now have decayed.

Isaac Asimov, an evolutionist himself, stated it this way:

“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.” (Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6)

Besides conflicting with the Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory also contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

If anything is spinning fast, anything that flies off from it will be spinning in the same direction. There are planets and moons that are spinning in opposite directions at the same time (this is called “Retrograde Motion”). It shouldn’t be that way if the Big Bang Theory is true. Venus, Uranus, and Pluto are spinning backwards in relation to the other planets in our own solar system.

The Law of Cause and Effect
This is the most basic law of science. Every effect must have a cause. The cause will always be greater than the effect itself. Every event has a cause. The beginning of the universe was an event. Whatever the cause is, it will be greater than the effect itself. We live in a very orderly, complex universe. This is where the presupposition of the evolutionist and the creationist differ so strongly. The evolutionist proclaims that the great cause that is greater than the universe was mere chance that came from nothing. The creationist contends that a wise, all-powerful being of himself was the greater cause of a great universe.

More questions for the evolutionist to ponder:
“Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
“How did matter get so perfectly organized?”
“Where did the energy and intelligence come from to do all the organizing?”
“How did this explosion (or ‘expansion’) cause order while every explosion ever observed or documented in recorded history caused only disorder and disarray?”
“Is the entire universe really the result of an accidental explosion of nothing?”
“How can simplicity become complexity?”
“Attributing these things to evolution would violate known laws of science, doesn’t that make it a supernatural occurrence as the creationists claim that it must be?”


Quotes:
“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, Cambridge University)

(The Big Bang) “...represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle-transcending of physical principles...” (Paul Davies, The Edge of Infinity, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 161)

“What is a big deal – the biggest deal of all – is how you get something out of nothing ... Don’t let the cosmologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either – despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. ‘In the beginning,’ they will say, ‘there was nothing – no time, space, matter, or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which...’ Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, and then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies under their hats ... You cannot fudge this by appealing to quantum mechanics. Either there is nothing to begin with, in which case there is no quantum vacuum, no pre-geometric dust, no time in which anything can happen, no physical laws that can effect a change from nothingness into somethingness; or there is something, in which case that needs explaining.” (Darling, David, “On Creating Something from Nothing,” New Scientist, vol. 151, September 14, 1996, p. 49)

The Bible’s Answer

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

The word “beginning” has reference to time. The universe had a beginning, most people agree with that. Time has three dimensions: past, present, and future.

The word “heaven” has reference to space, that was the original firmament (Genesis 1:14). God was speaking a physical universe into existence. Space has three dimensions: length, height, and width.

The word “earth” has a reference to matter. On the first day there was a whole universe, and one planet. But that planet was not formed to be inhabited yet (Isaiah 45:18). Over the first six days God was forming the earth to be inhabited. Matter has three dimensions: solid, liquid, and gas.

God also created a concept of time as He started the planets spinning and orbiting. To create these things would take an enormous amount of energy. The Bible indicates that God has an inexhaustible supply. The first verse of the Bible tells us where space, time, matter, and energy all come from.


The next section "The Origin of Life" is forthcomeing over the next couple of days or by the beginning of next week depending on time constraints. I do hope that evolutionists will read and understand the implications of the statements of their fellow evolutionists. Evolution is the belief in only what can happen naturally, yet evolutionists themselves while mocking creationists for believing in the supernatural propose that an event that does not adhere to any of the laws of the universe (aka -- a "supernatural event") was needed to bring about the beginning of the universe. Hopefully this will help evolutionists to clearly see why creationists believe them to be hypocritical and in error, and why the teaching of creation is equally as valid if not more so than evolution. Contrary to popular opinion, creationists do not reject scientific fact; however, we do question it whenever it blatantly contradicts itself as any true scientist should.

I look forward to mutually beneficial and respectful discussion of this issue. As Thumper says, "If you can't say somethin' nice (or in this case productive and constructive), don't say nothin' at all."
17894 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 3/8/10 , edited 3/8/10
'First in my opinion time has no end.. or beginning. Time is a like a snake eating its own tail.. Like life that runs a circle.. so does time..

Big bang was not some one time thing....... matter has always been in one form or another as a metallurgist I will vouch for that. As for faith... their is a difference from my faith and a religious nuts faith.

1. Evidence.. I have faith that their was a big bang... But that faith is based off from real evidence. Their is a Ginormous Black Hole in the middle of the galaxy created from the big bang.. this also explain why are galaxy is shaped the way it is, and why it still expanding. (no such think as blind faith with the logical.)

2. Evidence... We have evidence for are claims.. We do not just Guess well the sky is blue because Sun light likes to be Blue!! No we research, experiment, and test... till we are 99.9999999999999999999% sure that we understand how it works.. and are able to show evidence and are research of it.

3 through 100 evidence.. brackets I get back to later! But I have to beat my friends at some paint-ball.

1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/8/10 , edited 3/8/10
It's interesting that although you didn't answer even one question that I posed, you gave me a good example to use in the future; your first statement nearly perfectly verbalizes the creationist's belief in God. He has no beginning and no end. Like your belief about time it's not something that can be proven -- it is a presupposed belief. However, that still gives rise to the age old question -- "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" A creationist will obviously say the chicken because God made it. An evolutionist will plead the fifth.

The problem with matter always existing was already covered by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You may vouch as a metallurgist that matter has always existed, but to my knowledge the Second Law of Thermodynamics has not yet been thrown out. Let me restate what I said before. If the time line that evolutionists give us is accurate then the universe should be reaching maximum decay. It obviously is not. There are even simpler proofs of this. I realize that the "shrinking sun" proof came under fire in the 80's, but recent evidence continues to support the original data.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/485252/files/0101473.pdf
What does that have to do with anything? Well the last I heard evolutionists are saying that the universe is more than a trillion years old. If that were the case then going backward in time the earth should have been within the suns diameter approximately 100 million years ago. The earth averages a distance of 150 million kilometers from the sun, and the rate of shrinkage noted in the paper from 2001 is approximately 1.5 kilometers per year -- so get our your calculators and do the math. Evolutionists claim that life began on earth 3 billion years ago. Do you get why I have a problem with the evolutionistic dating system? It's physically impossible that life existed on earth 3 billion years ago because at that time the earth would have been positionally very close to the center of the sun -- if it could even have existed.

Because of your presupposition that the Big Bang did occur you interpret the data accordingly. I too believe that the universe is expanding, but not because of the Big Bang, but because of how God made it like ripples in an enormous pond. I certainly would like to see definitive proof of the Big Bang. To my knowledge no one observed it (or any other smaller Big Bangs as you imply) or been able to duplicate it -- which they did try to do in Switzerland a few months ago, but since it didn't work we haven't heard any more about it. The thing is, the proof that evolutionists supposedly have is totally subjective -- it depends on your presuppositions.

The problem with your next statement is that it's not true whatsoever. Evolutionists do make claims before they are 99.99999999999999999% sure; then regardless of the data they interpret it to their benefit. This is a matter of historical fact that I will cover when I discuss the fossil record. Please do not suppose to have the upper hand in logic on this subject because that is simply not the case -- which, had you read what your fellow evolutionists admitted, you would understand. As I stated before, PLEASE show me evidence that the Big Bang occurred because nothing even remotely conclusive is available.

Finally, it was my understanding that you appreciated seriousness and honesty. I would have expected you to treat this with the same gravity that you expect of others -- not say, "I'm too busy to check your supporting evidence, I have to go play paintball with my friends now." Even if it is the truth that you have other things to do, it is the height of disrespect to imply that you find such evidence as trivial when compared to your own presupposed beliefs and opinions and activities. Were I to say something along the same lines to you, what kind of verbal whipping would you be inclined to give?

By the way, I use parentheses not brackets. Parentheses = () Brackets = [ ]

In your profession I would have thought that you couldn't be careless with the details.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.