Why are Rainbows Gay?

[bigrobwoot]

God dammit Joel

And that was my point about the hot chick. You don't think about kids, but you're naturally attracted to fit bodies. I wasn't saying they would get away from everything, I just said they would be the most likely to survive.

And as for the Chinese, they probably find everyone attractive there. Maybe that's why it's so overpopulated

There are 2 reasons I can think of for genders:
1. That's the way it's always been, even for plants.
2. It helps prevent bad mutations from being passed on, it prevents overpopulation of the weak, etc.

[100_Percent_Juice]

Originally Posted by bigrobwoot

God dammit Joel

And that was my point about the hot chick. You don't think about kids, but you're naturally attracted to fit bodies. I wasn't saying they would get away from everything, I just said they would be the most likely to survive.

And as for the Chinese, they probably find everyone attractive there. Maybe that's why it's so overpopulated

There are 2 reasons I can think of for genders:
1. That's the way it's always been, even for plants.
2. It helps prevent bad mutations from being passed on, it prevents overpopulation of the weak, etc.

Rob you racist pig!

How do women prevent the spread of bad mutations? As you pointed out, the world is full of them. The world is also over populated with the weak. America is losing the battle on weight. What was the latest estimate of fat people, 60%? Women are even more susceptible to STD's than men. So are you saying that women are to blame? Rob, you sexist pig!

[AtomicLabMonkey]

I think I actually just got a little dumber, for having looked back into this thread.

[sperry]

Originally Posted by AtomicLabMonkey

I think I actually just got a little dumber, for having looked back into this thread.

+1

I can't believe the level of misinformation and misunderstanding on both sides of the fence in here. Since I'm on my cell phone at the airport I'm not going to get into any long dragged out posts but here's the short version:

Science requires zero faith. Anyone that "has faith in science" plainly doesn't understand what science is. Science requires zero faith because the whole point of science is that any claims made via the scientific method are backed by evidence. Anyone is free to question a theory, examine the evidence and make their own conclusions. That's the whole point. If you don't believe in evolution, how about where's your evidence to the contrary? I see hds attempting to make some stuff up, but pretty much everything he's posted as "evidence" is basically the exact opposite of what the real theory of evolution is about.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by cody

You're just gonna have to deal with the fact that I get most of my science from from TV since I graduated from Junior College, but I'm still going to post in this thread.

Aren't there a multitude of examples where animals have evolved? Aren't there moths and flies that have such short life cycles that by simply changing their environment, their color or their wings change accordingly, etc? I just saw a show this week where they showed a bird that only lives in Hawaii and they showed the bird it supposedly evolved from and their bills were complete different due to the food sources available in their respective environments. Is the National Geographic channel lying to me?

That's ok, I don't mind about the tv thing, as long as you can admit that is where you get your information (and you have). Now we are getting to the real issue...those examples you mentioned are what is known as MICRO-evolution in the science world. A much better term would be pre-programed adaptation. Those very minor changes are already part of their DNA code, so it would not really qualify as evolution, in the Darwinian sense. Your moth may get larger or smaller wings or maybe even a slightly different color, but in the end, it is still a moth. This kind of adaptation is the only "evolutionary" feature that is actually observed in nature and can be verified in a lab...therefore, is real science. However, an evolutionist will always use these micro adaptations as their evidence that one kind of creature evoloves into another over time (called MACRO-evolution)...which is something that has NEVER been observed in nature. They also expect to use this "evidence" to also try to convince you about the other 4 kinds of "evolution...cosmic (origin of the universe), stellar (origin of stars), chemical (self explanitory), and organic (origin of life). none of these forms of evolution have EVER been observed in nature nor have they ever been duplicated in a lab...therefore, not real science. And to answer your other question....yes, National Geographic is lying to you, maybe not on purpose, but the information is deceptive.

Originally Posted by cody

And Joel, I imagine that mutations are actually encouraged by evolution, since they are part of the recipe. Mutation is a trait just like any other that evolution controls. If there weren't mutations, we couldn't evolve. And don't let language like, "encouraged" and "controls" bug you. It's not intended literally, at least to me. Evolution is a force of nature and is lifelike so it's easy to speak of it figuratively. Also, it's hard to identify mutations because they are slow gradual processes. Fish don't just sprout legs overnight. But slowly over time, they do.

As I mentioned before, mutations do not create any new genetic coding in the DNA. Fish don't sprout legs no matter what because the genetic coding for legs doesn't exist in their DNA, and a mutation would not create it from nothing. A leg on any creature would only form if the genetic "blueprint" already existed in the DNA. If the code ain't there, nothing happens. Mutations are DAMAGE to existing DNA. Look at it this way...slamming your Subaru into a wall will damage it, but it will not make it sprout wings and become an airplane eventually. Sorry for the crude example, but it fits. Mutations are not "traits", they are screw-ups. They are the result of DNA copying mistakes and environmental damage. They are not beneficial...ever. They are, in fact, easy to identify because they always do something bad to the creature that develops them.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by Kevin M

What I find irresponsible is the insistence by people that the Bible is infallible despite the overwhelming evidence that mankind is anything but. More importantly, your God can happily coexist with what the vast majority of what science currently believes to be true regarding the age of the universe and the processes that led from whatever the very beginning was, to where we are now. Very little of what I view as good science can coexist with what the Bible says. Nothing in modern-day science indicates that there is not, cannot be, or even probably is no infallible, omnipotent God. Trying to make empirical research fit your conclusions is most definitely irresponsible.

Well I personally don't have any issues with anyone who chooses to go along with the majority of people in the world and believe that evolution actually works, despite the fact that no actual evidence exists to support it (by the way, just because the majority of people believe in something does not make it right). What I do have an issue with is what damage does my believing in a literal understanding of Genesis do to the rest of the planet? How does that affect you personally, or the guy down the street, or to the people in charge? It is my opinion, my beliefs and they are just as valid as anyone elses. So I'm just not getting where the whole "irresponsible" thing comes from. The major point I have been trying to make here is that an evolutionary viewpoint is just ONE possible way to "interpret" the data, and the theory has so many holes in it that it could never be considered as anything BUT a theory...despite the continued claims that evolution is a "settled fact".

Creation is another theory (also not a proven fact) that actually fits the available data quite well, and is an option that people should consider, instead of just discarding out of hand because it has a supernatural force as it's instigator. Neither creation OR evolution can be proven...both require faith to believe the parts that no one was around to observe.

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by sperry

+1

Science requires zero faith. Anyone that "has faith in science" plainly doesn't understand what science is. Science requires zero faith because the whole point of science is that any claims made via the scientific method are backed by evidence. Anyone is free to question a theory, examine the evidence and make their own conclusions. That's the whole point. If you don't believe in evolution, how about where's your evidence to the contrary? I see hds attempting to make some stuff up, but pretty much everything he's posted as "evidence" is basically the exact opposite of what the real theory of evolution is about.

You are correct...if science was performed the way it was intended to be. However, it is no longer that way now. Real science is based on things in the natural world that can be observed directly and tested in a lab environment...anything beyond that progresss into something that involves more philosophy than science. Evolution theory has done that. The big bang cannot be observed or tested, therefore belief that it happened falls into the category of faith. Macro-evolution cannot be observed nor tested in the lab...same thing as before....not true science, but faith if you believe it happened. You said that anyone is free to question a theory..true in principle, but not quite true in practice. Questioning evolution theory will likely get you fired from a teaching position, even if you are NOT a creationist. I personally do not believe in evolution, and not just because of my religious beliefs. As I mentioned before, the realworld data (evidence) that I OBSERVED (a scientific process) made me understand that evolution and a millions of years old earth couldn't work. I have no grant money riding on that asessment, so I am free to express it. I DO have plenty of "evidence" to put some serious doubts on evolution, and I have mentioned a few points on here. If you'd like to hear more, I'm happy to oblige.

Now, to something a bit more serious...Scott, you have now accused me of "making stuff up". Please indulge me with a list of the things I have "attempted" to make up and be ready to back up your accusations. Accusing me of this is the same thing as calling me a liar. You may not agree with what I have to say, but don't go accusing me of this unless you have some proof. I gave some geologic information and a few things on genetics...where in that did I make anything up?

[sperry]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Now, to something a bit more serious...Scott, you have now accused me of "making stuff up". Please indulge me with a list of the things I have "attempted" to make up and be ready to back up your accusations. Accusing me of this is the same thing as calling me a liar. You may not agree with what I have to say, but don't go accusing me of this unless you have some proof. I gave some geologic information and a few things on genetics...where in that did I make anything up?

Actually, I was "accusing" you of attempting to make up a logical argument, rather than just stating a bunch of nonsense like everyone else in this thread. My point was that you're basing your argument on a flawed understanding of evolution.

With that in mind, I will go back over just the recent stuff that's been said... I know I probably shouldn't waste my time because I'm not going to be able to put a dent in the crazy pseudo-science you guys have rationalized up to support a bible-centric understanding of the world, but just in case someone who isn't already indoctrinated comes by and reads this, at least it's not full of just you folks going on with your half-understanding about how evolution and science work.

So with that... *deep breath*

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

You are correct...if science was performed the way it was intended to be. However, it is no longer that way now. Real science is based on things in the natural world that can be observed directly and tested in a lab environment...anything beyond that progresss into something that involves more philosophy than science.

Wrong. Science can be done with math, for example. You make correlations between the observed world and mathematical models, manipulate the models and learn/predict the world. That's how we first understood things like Black Holes, or elements on the periodic table that haven't been observed. A mathematical model can be a very effective scientific tool. And then later, as we develop more and more technology, we can sometimes directly observe predicted behavior. Astronomy, chemistry, and physics are full of this sort of research. Science does not require a direct observation in a laboratory for it to be valid, though that certainly adds to the credibility of a theory. Science requires logic, peer review, and repeatable, transparent processes to be valid.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Evolution theory has done that. The big bang cannot be observed or tested, therefore belief that it happened falls into the category of faith. Macro-evolution cannot be observed nor tested in the lab...same thing as before....not true science, but faith if you believe it happened.

Wrong... so wrong. The big bang has not been observed, but we are able to look back in time by examining the light from stars that existed shortly thereafter. Those observations are used as input into models about how the universe works and help refine the theory. Do we know the answer? Not yet, but not knowing something completely doesn't invalidate what we do know.

As far as evolution.... clearly you guys read this: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

If you read that and it makes sense to you... punch yourself in the face because it's horrible pseduo-science written by someone that has a clear pro-bible agenda and no real understanding of evolution. The difference between micro and macro evolution is simple, micro is within a species, macro is across species which takes much longer to occur, but is the exact same process in effect in both. Micro evolution simply leads to macro evolution. Try reading UC Berkley's evolution site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php, it's the second link that came up when you guys googled for "macro micro evolution", and even though it appears to be written for the junior high school level, it would be beneficial to a bunch of people in here apparently. *snicker*

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

You said that anyone is free to question a theory..true in principle, but not quite true in practice. Questioning evolution theory will likely get you fired from a teaching position, even if you are NOT a creationist. I personally do not believe in evolution, and not just because of my religious beliefs.

Ugh. So your argument that evolution is wrong and creationism is right is that there's a conspiracy perpetrated by the scientific community that is black-listing anyone that has a contrary theory to evolution? Please.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

As I mentioned before, the realworld data (evidence) that I OBSERVED (a scientific process) made me understand that evolution and a millions of years old earth couldn't work. I have no grant money riding on that asessment, so I am free to express it. I DO have plenty of "evidence" to put some serious doubts on evolution, and I have mentioned a few points on here. If you'd like to hear more, I'm happy to oblige.

I'll bite. Feel free to submit a peer-reviewed whitepaper on your theory that I and anyone else can use to reproduce the evidence that supports your conclusion. 'Cause that's the quality of the vast majority of the research that's been done that does support evolution. If you're going to refute such a well established field of research, you better bring some top-notch evidence. Yes, scientists can be bull-headed when they believe a particular theory, but they get that way because the evidence is so strong in favor of the theory... not because their jobs/funding are on the line. You want to refute string theory, well all it takes is an interesting algorithm on a napkin... but if you want to refute evolution, you're going to need something that contradicts the 100's of years of evidence, fossils, experiments, etc. If you've got that, frankly, you'll be bigger than Darwin and Jesus combined.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Well I personally don't have any issues with anyone who chooses to go along with the majority of people in the world and believe that evolution actually works, despite the fact that no actual evidence exists to support it (by the way, just because the majority of people believe in something does not make it right).

Argh! "No actual evidence"? There is a massive, massive, massive body of evidence that supports evolution. There is zero scientifically valid contrary evidence that refutes the basic tenants of evolution. If you want evidence that evolution works, look pretty much anywhere... hell, look at car design. Today's cars are faster, safer, more fuel efficient, etc, than previous generations of cars. Why? Because the traits that make cars better are kept for the next version of the car, the traits that made the cars worse are dropped. That's evolution, in action, right in front of your eyes. Granted it's not "natural evolution"... but don't say that there's no evidence that evolution as a process doesn't work... it works so well, virtually everything around you shows evidence of being improved by evolution.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

What I do have an issue with is what damage does my believing in a literal understanding of Genesis do to the rest of the planet? How does that affect you personally, or the guy down the street, or to the people in charge? It is my opinion, my beliefs and they are just as valid as anyone elses. So I'm just not getting where the whole "irresponsible" thing comes from.

I believe the "irresponsible" comment stems from you making claims about evolution without backing them up, in a manner that suggests you know what you're talking about, when you don't actually understand evolution. It's disingenuous or reckless at best. Now, you clearly believe what you're saying, and you have a right to say it. I'm not calling you a liar, nor am I suggesting that you don't have a right to be wrong. But you're going to have to put up with the rest of us calling you "irresponsible" or do a much better job of backing up what you're saying, because the rest of us would rather not mislead people who come here via google that might be on the fence about what they believe.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

The major point I have been trying to make here is that an evolutionary viewpoint is just ONE possible way to "interpret" the data, and the theory has so many holes in it that it could never be considered as anything BUT a theory...despite the continued claims that evolution is a "settled fact".

What holes? The totally wrong stuff about DNA below? The incorrect understanding about micro and macro evolution? The disregard for how the scientific method works with regards to observations?

And, for like the millionth time... a scientific theory is not "just a theory". The quality of the theory is dependent on the supporting evidence. Stop using the layman's definition of the word "theory" as an argument that evolution is not valid. If you want to refute evolution, you're going to need quantifiable, testable, reproducible evidence.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Creation is another theory (also not a proven fact) that actually fits the available data quite well, and is an option that people should consider, instead of just discarding out of hand because it has a supernatural force as it's instigator. Neither creation OR evolution can be proven...both require faith to believe the parts that no one was around to observe.

No one is throwing out creationism just because of the association to religion. It gets thrown out because it doesn't fit the data. The rationalization required to make creationism fit the observed world is borderline ridiculous. One argument I've heard: the banana is evidence of intelligent design because it's clearly designed for human consumption with a nice pealable wrapper, etc.. Which totally ignores the fact that bananas look the way they do because they were bred by men to be tasty snacks. Granted, this argument is one of the most juvenile made by the ID crowd, but the rest of them are all just about as suspect when you actually bother to look at them with a skeptical mind.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

That's ok, I don't mind about the tv thing, as long as you can admit that is where you get your information (and you have).

I don't understand the whole anti-TV thing. The science stuff that gets on TV tends to be the most widely accepted and reviewed stuff, unless you're watching some dumb paranormal pseudo-science type TV. Programs like NOVA, and most of the stuff on Discovery are going to be accurate, if only boiled down for a general audience.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Now we are getting to the real issue...those examples you mentioned are what is known as MICRO-evolution in the science world. A much better term would be pre-programed adaptation. Those very minor changes are already part of their DNA code, so it would not really qualify as evolution, in the Darwinian sense. Your moth may get larger or smaller wings or maybe even a slightly different color, but in the end, it is still a moth. This kind of adaptation is the only "evolutionary" feature that is actually observed in nature and can be verified in a lab...therefore, is real science. However, an evolutionist will always use these micro adaptations as their evidence that one kind of creature evoloves into another over time (called MACRO-evolution)...which is something that has NEVER been observed in nature. They also expect to use this "evidence" to also try to convince you about the other 4 kinds of "evolution...cosmic (origin of the universe), stellar (origin of stars), chemical (self explanitory), and organic (origin of life). none of these forms of evolution have EVER been observed in nature nor have they ever been duplicated in a lab...therefore, not real science. And to answer your other question....yes, National Geographic is lying to you, maybe not on purpose, but the information is deceptive.

It's this sort of stuff (and the DNA nonsense below) that triggers the "irresponsible" comments. Micro evolution is called "micro" simply because it's observable over the short term. Of course you can't observe macro evolution in a lab, the reason is that by definition it takes longer than is observable. Perhaps if the human race is around for the next million years, we'll observe it... but for now... you're right, we can't observe it in the lab. But that in no manner makes the theory of evolution false, or that it's not "real science" if it's not observable in the lab. The body of evidence is extensive, here's a starting point from the Berkeley website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0_0_0/lines_01. But you can spend a lifetime going over the evidence... in fact, many people have.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

As I mentioned before, mutations do not create any new genetic coding in the DNA. Fish don't sprout legs no matter what because the genetic coding for legs doesn't exist in their DNA, and a mutation would not create it from nothing. A leg on any creature would only form if the genetic "blueprint" already existed in the DNA. If the code ain't there, nothing happens. Mutations are DAMAGE to existing DNA. Look at it this way...slamming your Subaru into a wall will damage it, but it will not make it sprout wings and become an airplane eventually. Sorry for the crude example, but it fits. Mutations are not "traits", they are screw-ups. They are the result of DNA copying mistakes and environmental damage. They are not beneficial...ever. They are, in fact, easy to identify because they always do something bad to the creature that develops them.

And this... this is the most horribly incorrect understanding of evolution and DNA perhaps I've ever read.

First, mutations most exactly do create new genetic coding in the DNA. That's the definition of a genetic mutation... when the DNA code is changed. To say differently just screams of a complete lack of understanding of the DNA process and how it's related to evolution. And to say that any DNA mutation is bad... well, that's just plain stupid. Why in the world would every DNA mutation be bad? The fact is, the vast majority of DNA errors do nothing because there's a ton of DNA code in every cell that's just vestigial (which is another question for god, why bother putting so much useless data in our DNA? Where did it come from if not being left over from previous creatures?). If the mutation doesn't affect the creation of a protein, then the mutation does nothing. DNA mutates all the time. Go stand in the sun for 20 minutes, guess what, you've just had some genetic mutations in your skin cells from the radiation. But DNA is pretty robust (because all the creatures without robust DNA are all extinct by now) so you don't get skin cancer just from being in the sun for a few minutes. Additionally, the genetic mutation must occur in reproductive cells, and not just in the creature, or the trait isn't passed on to the next generation... really, environmental mutations aren't the prime reason for evolution, it's more a result of the recombination of different genetic material from two parents with different DNA (which is why most creatures use male/female reproduction... it allows for better genetic variation which results in higher changes for more successful offspring).

And that's why the car crash example is more than just "crude"... it's flat wrong. A giraffe doesn't evolve from a horse because a horse tried stretching its neck out... it has to be a genetic mutation in the genes passed on during reproduction. Similarly, crashing a car doesn't change the blueprints for building more of those cars. However, crashing a car could indeed reduce its weight, or improve its aerodynamics... so you can see that a "mutation" to the car could in fact be beneficial. A proper analogy would be the introduction of random changes to the car's blueprints, then building and testing each car with the random changes and picking the cars that are better. Which is exactly how evolutionary algorithms are being used to design new things, like race cars.

Next, fish don't just "sprout" legs and walk out of the ocean... it starts with a fish that has a mutation that allows it to survive up on the beach longer which perhaps gives it access to a wider food source. That fish and its descendants out produce their competition and crowd out the less evolved fish. Then the fish that can move around better out of water because of a mutation to its ribs, for example, then crowds out the previous fish. Then another mutation turns those ribs into legs, and gills into lungs, and next thing you know (after millions of years) that fish is a land animal.

But what's important to note is that evolution takes place over massive time spans, but also occurs in rapid spurts. It takes long time spans for the "luck" of a mutation to be advantageous, but once there is a positive mutation, it can dramatically and quickly result in the replacement of a species. If you want evidence of this, just look at humans. 70,000 years ago there were around 1 million people. That increased to around 50 million around 2500 years ago. In 1800, there were 1 billion people. Today, 7 billion. What was it that made people suddenly so much more successful? It was brain power... and more specifically the application of brain power to the creation of a society that allows us work together to farm, build cities, create science to better understand our world, etc. Additionally, before man invented society, there was more than just one "man" species. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were around at the same time and competed with each other... think black bears and grizzly bears. But the smarter early man was more successful and the neanderthals died out. There is no "missing link" between neanderthal and homo sapien because we didn't evolve from them. Similarly, there is no missing link between chimps and humans because we didn't evolve from them either... we shared a common ancestor a long time back, but that common ancestor was neither chimp nor man... it was just the creature, probably one of many other variations of similar creatures, that happened to exist back then and eventually diverged into both chimps and man.

Which is yet another point to be made that's getting missed: evolution is perpetual and dynamic. You can't just look at different species and say this is the ancestor of that. Everything that exists today, even things that have not changed dramatically over millions of years like sharks and alligators, are different from the creatures that came before. And not all creatures that look similar are related... like sharks and dolphins... they're a prime example of how adaptation to the environment drives evolution, that two vastly different creatures end up looking similar because they live in similar environments. Why would an intelligent designer create two creatures that move through the water similarly with completely different skeletons? Was god just feeling creative, or perhaps just wanted to confuse biologists? Or more likely, were the requirements of surviving in the ocean just the driving force for two completely different lines of animals to look and function similarly?

So, with that... perhaps the longest post I've ever made... I think I'm done with this thread. If folks want to spout off nonsense, feel free. I just urge anyone that can't immediately see through the crap to take the time to do their own research and make their own conclusions about what's posted... this post included.

[100_Percent_Juice]

changed to PM.

[ScottyS]

Wow Scott, you are honestly dedicated to the topic, so I'll drop a quick reply.

Just a couple comments, no point in details.

Not all things labeled "science" are mathematically viable. I deal with this all the time, as I am closely tied to several disciplines including biology, climate, and human behaviour.

The apologists constantly attempting to quantify/justify/rectify Biblical references to "science" are totally barking up the wrong tree. Arguments from this crowd often are remarkably similar to Biblical detractors. The whole point is "faith", like it or not. The Bible is not about explaining the nuts and bolts of creation, it is about describing Man's fallen nature and his need for justification and reconciliation with his Creator, who is perfectly just beyond human understanding. More on this in a sec.

"Faith" is the belief in something that we as individuals did not directly observe. We take on "faith" that the Big Bang did in fact occur, that our $100 bills actually came from the Treasury Department, and that Pinus monophylla is actually still recording drought episodes prior to the instrumental period. We feel that these things are true with some varying level of confidence because of the nature of the available evidence. This is completely true for the concept of Evolution in the blob-to-brilliant-monkey sense. Nobody saw it happen, it is a theory. All of the "faith" in religion is tied to perceived evidence as well. Many of the greatest mathematical thinkers of all time are/were convinced that God exists and made the universe, it is not a contradiction in terms at all.

The next step is to look at it this way: if there is a being that created everything that we can observe or detect, it pretty much stands to reason that the being is not governed by the very physical laws that were created. It also follows that the being would be completely perfect and capable beyond human imagination. Creating everything through some evolutionary process or creating everything in-situ inside exactly 6 24hr periods really doesn't matter, and both would be entirely plausible, since the being would be able to act at will.

The real question is: if the Bible does in fact remain a constant where the Human/God relationship is concerned, reinforced by an inherent conscience of Right/Wrong and the ability to observe the natural order of everything, does everything else at the nit-picky detail level actually fall into place? I would argue it does.

Funny that this thread has not been separated out into a true religion discussion thread, but instead stays in the realm of Bay Area Bumper Sticker Water Droplet Diffraction.

[Kevin M]

Originally Posted by ScottyS

Many of the greatest mathematical thinkers of all time are/were convinced that God exists and made the universe, it is not a contradiction in terms at all.

"Real" science doesn't contradict the idea of God as Christians understand him at all. It certainly contradicts the presented events of the Bible, particularly Genesis. None of us on the side of 'science' dispute the existence of God or any description of His nature. We do argue that the facts presented in the Bible cannot be accepted as literally true. We also suggest that viewing the Bible as parable is perfectly congruent with accepting scientific explanations for the existence of ourselves and the universe.

Originally Posted by ScottyS

The next step is to look at it this way: if there is a being that created everything that we can observe or detect, it pretty much stands to reason that the being is not governed by the very physical laws that were created. It also follows that the being would be completely perfect and capable beyond human imagination. Creating everything through some evolutionary process or creating everything in-situ inside exactly 6 24hr periods really doesn't matter, and both would be entirely plausible, since the being would be able to act at will.

Sure, if one posits an omnipotent deity, anything becomes a possibility. But it's a lot simpler to attribute the universe as we observe it to big bang theory and a ~13 billion year old universe, with at least one planet teeming with life descending from, potentially, a single organism, which may or may not have been created by God vs. presenting that He did it however he did it but fudged the evidence to fool us.

[knucklesplitter]

May you all discover The Truth [tm] and be truly touched by His Noodly Appendage...

YouTube

YouTube

Please read the attached brochure for real skientific proof of His existence. Here is an excerpt:

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

R'amen.

[AtomicLabMonkey]

I just need to praise the Truth, as preached by brother knucklesplitter. All hail His noodly appendage.

[Highdesertsuby]

Ok, Scott...

I am not going to get into replying to all the points you made with your last post, but at least I feel honered that you would dedicate your longest post ever to trying to refute what I said. Now, with all of that out of the way, let me inform you of a few interesting facts, and sorry if I am very blunt about it...just returing the favor.

Everything you said was classic evolutionary indoctrinated bs...exactly what I would expect from someone educated by tv shows and liberal school textbooks. Also, you made quite a few assumptions about me based on a VERY short series of posts. If I gave you all the information I have at my disposal to refute evolution, I would need my own forum. I will tell you this (repeat it actually)...everything that scientists THINK they know about evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS and INTERPRETATIONS of the available data. I cannot give you access to "peer-reviewed" papers on creation-based geology because, as you can imagine, the regular science journals like Nature and Scientific American would never publish anything that makes their entire publishing history look like a joke (in fact, they HAVE published more than a few articles exposing the holes in Darwinian evolution).

You cannot compare math and physics to evolution...those sciences are constantly being backed up and confirmed by litterally millions of repeated tests on a daily basis...can't say the same about evolution. Your little comment about the Big Bang being shown as a viable model is only based on an INTERPRTATION of starlight travel times and background radiation...other things could have caused those things, and unless someone was there to see it happen YOU DON"T KNOW. By the way, you cannot measure star distance accurately past 2-3 light years because of the problems with parallax trigonometry (which is the only tool available for that). So anything past that distance is a guess.

I also have a VERY good understanding of evolution, especially from the geology side of the fence...and for you to assume that I don't understand based on a few posts is just plain "irresponsible" (if I may use the term). Do you judge a book by the first few pages? You may not like what you've read so far, but there is lots more. I think the big issue here with the whole "understanding" thing is more a matter of definitions. Yes, I use "layman's terms" more often than not because I am usually talking to people who have no background in geology.

You also keep assuming that I am trying to push a "biblio-centric" point of view, when in fact, I am not. I am pointing out that evolution theory has more holes in it than a shoting range target, and that most if not everything about it is based on assumptions rather than good lab experiments. I find it funny that people keep running back to that same tired old argument..."you can't directly observe evolution because it takes millions of years...". How convenient to rely on "evidence" that takes too long for us to see. Also, your references to race car "evolution" makes my point exactly...race cars don't get better by random accidents..they get DESIGNED that way. Wrecking a car might make it more aerodynamic, but then it won't function in other ways (like starting up and driving)...so your "beneficial" mutation doesn't actually do the car any good in the long run.

Now for the really important part...even though you act like an expert on this subject (where are YOUR peer-reviewed papers), I don't really care. I'm not posting any of this for your benefit. However, there are other people in this forum who will benefit from the discussion no matter what they believe...including all those google folks who might appreciate a different point of view. You think I am misleading people...I think you are doing the same...so who is right? Who knows...that's what is so great about the first ammendment

Just a last little comment to save you some trouble in the future....NEVER recommend a UC Berkely ANYTHING to a creationist. That's like asking me to be friends with President Obama. Berkeley is just about the most liberal university on the planet, and I wouldn't trust anything that is produced by one of their researchers. I know that you will heartily disagree with me on this, since based on more than a few posts of yours I'd say you are liberal leaning (observational data). Not a problem, it's your choice...but I don't think it would take any scientific study to see why we don't see things the same way.

Good thing we both like Subaru's huh?

[Highdesertsuby]

Originally Posted by knucklesplitter

May you all discover The Truth [tm] and be truly touched by His Noodly Appendage...

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

Please read the attached brochure for real skientific proof of His existence. Here is an excerpt:


R'amen.

Wow, that was funny. Let me give you another FACT about carbon dating...your "scientist" has to make some assumptions about his sample. He has to assume the initial amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere (which is NOT constant, by the way), how much was initialy absorbed by the sample, assumes that NO carbon 14 contamination of the sample occurred in the 10,000 years it was supposedly sitting around (you know...groundwater leeching, exposure to fire...a great source of fresh C14), and he has to assume that the decay rates of C14 are the same as with the pure sample tested in the lab. Plus, he has to take into consideration that many time cabon dating just doesn't work the way it is supposed to.

Bun since our intrepid scientist has a deadline to meet his grant review, he will dutifully insert whatever "dates" seem to best fit his particular project, making sure that his research gets funded for another year or two. Who is to question him and his methods, since evolutionary scientists are, like congressmen, above reproach.

[MikeK]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

I am just tired of people assuming that, because I don't believe in evolution, that somehow I am uneducated or don't "understand" things like geology and biology

I'm the same way. People think I don't "understand" mathematics because I believe that 1 + 1 = 3.

[ScottyS]

Originally Posted by MikeK

I'm the same way. People think I don't "understand" mathematics because I believe that 1 + 1 = 3.

As in....(1) MikeK + (1) NoPantsDay = (3) Legs? Yikes, your math works out after all....

[AtomicLabMonkey]

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Everything you said was classic evolutionary indoctrinated bs...exactly what I would expect from someone educated by tv shows and liberal school textbooks.

Originally Posted by Highdesertsuby

Just a last little comment to save you some trouble in the future....NEVER recommend a UC Berkely ANYTHING to a creationist. That's like asking me to be friends with President Obama. Berkeley is just about the most liberal university on the planet, and I wouldn't trust anything that is produced by one of their researchers.

It's all a massive conspiracy, huh?



...and we're done here.