Four US states considering laws that challenge teaching of evolution

[Mo-Jo]

Originally Posted by North Star

Well, I listened to the lecture. Clearly, an arrogant man who passes by no opportunity to bash religion, for example, this quote: “So forget about Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today.”

That will come back to haunt him when he is standing before Jesus on the Day of Judgment - as it will those who post this blasphemy on Spear board.

Iconoclasm feels bold and heady and rebellious, and for him, erotic, because it puffs up human pride to an extraordinary degree, but in the brilliance of the light of the Glory and presence of God, will be seen for the folly it has been all along.

But, I digress. Let’s get to the heart of the matter.

He said: “All the atoms that matter weren’t created at the beginning of time - they were created in the nuclear furnaces of of stars - and the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode”

They weren’t created - they were created - make up your mind - clearly, there was a creation, right? And notice, he has to personify his creator with the personal emotion of “kindness”, because even he cannot live with an impersonal creator.

He also really does start with something, when he claims to start with nothing: his dark matter really is “really a boiling bubbling of brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a time scale so small you cannot see them” - so he does posit the eternal self-existence of something - his nothing is not nothing after all.

He said - in brilliantly fast leaps of illogic and speculation - “because gravity can have negative energy (oh really?) the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter (un huh) producing a universe of zero net energy - and what is so beautiful about a universe with zero net energy? Only such a universe can begin from nothing - therefore you don’t need a Deity to make it - (and are you ready for this?) with zero total energy, quantum fluctuations produce a universe!”

If that isn’t a “playing the joker card” I don’t know what is.

Lots more could be said - but if you listened to his hour long lecture, you owe it to yourself to listen to it’s rebuttal:

A Universe from Nothing? William Lane Craig on Lawrence Krauss - YouTube

*Sigh

Northstar- The difference is that you are intentionally overlooking nearly all of the evidence for the origins of life and the universe and accepting an alternative story for which no evidence exists. Put your bible down for a minute, and try to think about this. Just try. Just for a minute.

[North Star]

Originally Posted by Mo-Jo

*Sigh

Northstar- The difference is that you are intentionally overlooking nearly all of the evidence for the origins of life and the universe and accepting an alternative story for which no evidence exists. Put your bible down for a minute, and try to think about this. Just try. Just for a minute.

I am well acquainted with the evidence, and I intentionally over look nothing. I have taken secular college classes in biology, physical anthropology, geology, etc., and have read widely.

I think the issue here is not the physical evidence that is there - no one denies it, including me - but the interpretation that is put on that evidence.

As I look at the possible explanations and interpretations for the physical universe and the life forms it contains, I find the biblical explanation far more convincing that the evolutionary one. Billions agree with me. It is not like the biblical view is a fringe lunatic view of intellectual imbeciles, as much as the angry evolutionary crowd wants to slander us as being such.

And I ask you too: can you lay down your naturalistic biases and read Darwin on Trial, by Phillip Johnson, that I cited earlier in this thread?

And can you listen to the rebuttal of Krauss, like I listened to Krauss' hour long presentation? I listend to both sides: Krauss and William Lane Craig - did you?

Here is the link again:

A Universe from Nothing? William Lane Craig on Lawrence Krauss - YouTube

You will need to put your thinking cap on and give it focused attention to follow it.

[North Star]

Originally Posted by Hank49

Come on man. That's uncalled for and really rude. The man believes what he believes. And I would bet he'd be the first to stop and help you if your car was broken down on the road.

Thank you Hank. Civility is always a virtue to be pursued. Thanks for encouraging it.

[chuam]

The Catholic Church accepts evolution.

[North Star]

Natural selection could be called many things, but certainly not "random" or "pure chance."

I never called natural selection pure chance. Natural selection is driven by environmental pressures. Natural selection produces change in which genes in an organism are dominant and recessive.

What is pure chance, is genetic mutation, in its rate and in its form and in the changes it produces. There is nothing predictable about genetic mutation, nor in the results it produces. It all happens by chance.

And, what is pure chance, is molecules through random movement organizing themselves into living cells. There is nothing to guide such a process. It is all chance.

[North Star]

Originally Posted by chuam

The Catholic Church accepts evolution.

You are right. It is one more thing the Catholic church is wrong about.

[Mo-Jo]

Originally Posted by North Star

I think the issue here is not the physical evidence that is there - no one denies it, including me - but the interpretation that is put on that evidence.

Northstar- The physicists studying the big bang theory aren't intentionally trying to exclude a god or gods from the theory. When scientists, to the best of their knowledge discover that the universe is expanding, they don't just quit and say "well, god is making it expand." Scientists say "wow, the universe looks like it is expanding. I wonder why." Then, they try to figure out why. This is science. There is no filling the blank with an even more complex answer such as magic. Magic doesn't EVER follow. This is what J707 has been explaining. You need evidence for your extravagant claim and there is NO evidence for magic, heaven, hell, 29 virgins, ghosts, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.

Originally Posted by North Star

It is not like the biblical view is a fringe lunatic view of intellectual imbeciles, as much as the angry evolutionary crowd wants to slander us as being such.

Yup. You are right. Most of the world believes that there is a magical man in the sky who controls everything and made everything. Unfortunately most of the people in the world disagree as to what to call their magical man, and would agree that everyone who disagree will go to hell. What makes you right and them wrong?

You know, just a few hundred years ago, most of the modern world believed that the world was flat. So your logic would follow that they were right. They weren't.

Originally Posted by North Star

And I ask you too: can you lay down your naturalistic biases and read Darwin on Trial, by Phillip Johnson, that I cited earlier in this thread?

And can you listen to the rebuttal of Krauss, like I listened to Krauss' hour long presentation? I listend to both sides: Krauss and William Lane Craig - did you?

Here is the link again:

A Universe from Nothing? William Lane Craig on Lawrence Krauss - YouTube


You will need to put your thinking cap on and give it focused attention to follow it.

I listened to your audio clip for the first 20 minutes. You realize that no evidence was provided to contradict anything said by Krauss, right? Evidence, Northstar, thats what is necessary if you are going to make extravagant claims.

Originally Posted by North Star

I never called natural selection pure chance. Natural selection is driven by environmental pressures. Natural selection produces change in which genes in an organism are dominant and recessive.

No. "Dominant and recessive" is just one of a handful of genetic dominance types. Natural selection doesn't change which genes are dominant and recessive.

Originally Posted by North Star

What is pure chance, is genetic mutation, in its rate and in its form and in the changes it produces. There is nothing predictable about genetic mutation, nor in the results it produces. It all happens by chance.

Yes, endogenous mutations are caused by chance, but their error (mutation) rate occurs at a known and well documented rate. Endogenous mutation is predictable and can be seen! The results it produces are usually none, infrequently deadly, and rarely beneficial.

Originally Posted by North Star

And, what is pure chance, is molecules through random movement organizing themselves into living cells. There is nothing to guide such a process. It is all chance.

I understand that thinking on a longer time frame than just a couple hundred years can be difficult. I also know that there is still debate in the biological community today as to where life may have originated. But the data that exists does not point towards supernatural magical powers; nothing points to magical powers. Our best available data points the basic blueprints of life: RNA. And I know you don't believe it, but as previously mentioned in this thread, we are nearly able to create self replicating RNA in a jar. Yes, in a freaking jar.

FYI, I was raised going to Catholic school and choked down that garbage for a decade. It was around the time I found out that it wasn't Santa leaving gifts for me when I figured out that Jesus didn't die for my not-yet made sins, get reincarnated, or ascend into heaven. Thats just silly.

I really do wish I could buy into it all, I really do. It would feel so comforting knowing that as long as I kneel down and chant everyday that I could bang 29 virgins for eternity when I die. That would be sweet. Its just not reality.

But as J707 said,

Originally Posted by J707

Again, it's clear that you aren't actually interested in what science has to say about natural history or how the earth and the cosmos were formed

I don't know if I should feel bad for you or envy you...

[yakfisher]

http://g42.org/perspective.html

[fish impaler]

Originally Posted by North Star

I never called natural selection pure chance. Natural selection is driven by environmental pressures. Natural selection produces change in which genes in an organism are dominant and recessive.

What is pure chance, is genetic mutation, in its rate and in its form and in the changes it produces. There is nothing predictable about genetic mutation, nor in the results it produces. It all happens by chance.

So, based on pure chance, genetic mutation's occur, and based on natural selection, some of those mutations are passed on to future generations.

Right?
Is there a part of that that you don't find valid?

[J707]

Originally Posted by North Star

Well, I listened to the lecture. Clearly, an arrogant man who passes by no opportunity to bash religion, for example, this quote: “So forget about Jesus, the stars died so you could be here today.”

He was giving the lecture at a conference for atheists. Naturally, he juxtaposes what science tells us with what religion tells us. Why is that "arrogant?"

Originally Posted by North Star

That will come back to haunt him when he is standing before Jesus on the Day of Judgment - as it will those who post this blasphemy on Spear board.

Iconoclasm feels bold and heady and rebellious, and for him, erotic, because it puffs up human pride to an extraordinary degree, but in the brilliance of the light of the Glory and presence of God, will be seen for the folly it has been all along.

This is what I've been getting at. You clearly have contempt for science, especially when it suggests things that don't happen to align with your religious beliefs. You actually relish the idea that if you can't counter scientific evidence problematic for your religious views, you can at least hold onto the fantasy that the scientists who dared to present it might be tortured forever for doing so in some supernatural realm after death.

Originally Posted by North Star

But, I digress. Let’s get to the heart of the matter.

He said: “All the atoms that matter weren’t created at the beginning of time - they were created in the nuclear furnaces of of stars - and the only way they could get into your body is if the stars were kind enough to explode”

They weren’t created - they were created - make up your mind - clearly, there was a creation, right? And notice, he has to personify his creator with the personal emotion of “kindness”, because even he cannot live with an impersonal creator.

Again...this lecture was taped at an event for atheists. Krauss is purposefully juxtaposing religious creationism with what cutting edge science suggests about the formation of the universe- sometimes by deliberately framing his explanations in the language of creationism. This should be pretty obvious with the "stars were kind enough to explode" bit.

As for the simple use of the word "create," I think you'll find that people use that term all the time without implying a sentient creator being. We can say that a volcanic eruption created a river of lava...or that an underwater earthquake created a tsunami...that those storm clouds were created due to such and such atmospheric factors...etc.

Originally Posted by North Star

He also really does start with something, when he claims to start with nothing: his dark matter really is “really a boiling bubbling of brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence in a time scale so small you cannot see them” - so he does posit the eternal self-existence of something - his nothing is not nothing after all.

He said - in brilliantly fast leaps of illogic and speculation - “because gravity can have negative energy (oh really?) the negative energy of gravity balances out the positive energy of matter (un huh) producing a universe of zero net energy - and what is so beautiful about a universe with zero net energy? Only such a universe can begin from nothing - therefore you don’t need a Deity to make it - (and are you ready for this?) with zero total energy, quantum fluctuations produce a universe!”

If that isn’t a “playing the joker card” I don’t know what is.

What it is, is you not liking where the scientific evidence is pointing. You offer nothing here in the way of refutation or counter-evidence of your own...just heckling.

Originally Posted by North Star

Lots more could be said - but if you listened to his hour long lecture, you owe it to yourself to listen to it’s rebuttal:

A Universe from Nothing? William Lane Craig on Lawrence Krauss - YouTube

Like most of Craig's attempts to argue for creationism, he fails to actually offer any science which would support his own position. Every debate I've seen with Craig, he quibbles over word choices and terminology...but doesn't actually supply any evidence of his own.

Like you, Craig simply doesn't like what science is beginning to suggest about the origins of the universe or what properties "nothingness" may respresent, so he assigns his own rules to what qualifies and even declares that a state of "nothing" cannot possibly be studied or understood through science...even if the world's leading physicists say otherwise.

Originally Posted by North Star

Thank you Hank. Civility is always a virtue to be pursued. Thanks for encouraging it.

Do you think you cultivate an atmosphere of civility by making threats when you run out of evidence?

Originally Posted by North Star

That will come back to haunt him when he is standing before Jesus on the Day of Judgment - as it will those who post this blasphemy on Spear board.

[surf_dude]

I think too many people see the claims of religion (mostly westernized Christian) & science diametrically opposing. Many eastern expressions of Christianity & judiasm have no problem with evolution and God. I believe christianity & evolution are a false dichotomy; as the two belief systems are answering two fundamentally different questions. Science attempts to answer the 'how' question as it tries to investigate the PHYSICAL mechanics behind natural phenomena; and religious systems attempt to answer the 'why' question as it attempts to find meaning & purpose and plugs it in to the larger meta-narrative of the interaction of the Divine with the created order (of which humanity is a subset)...

Both systems have their inherent limitations and thats great; as neither was never meant to be the end all be all. The two are not diametrically opposing, but rather operating on two very different dimensions.

[Totoop]

Originally Posted by surf_dude

I think too many people see the claims of religion (mostly westernized Christian) & science diametrically opposing. Many eastern expressions of Christianity & judiasm have no problem with evolution and God. I believe christianity & evolution are a false dichotomy; as the two belief systems are answering two fundamentally different questions. Science attempts to answer the 'how' question as it tries to investigate the PHYSICAL mechanics behind natural phenomena; and religious systems attempt to answer the 'why' question as it attempts to find meaning & purpose and plugs it in to the larger meta-narrative of the interaction of the Divine with the created order (of which humanity is a subset)...

Both systems have their inherent limitations and thats great; as neither was never meant to be the end all be all. The two are not diametrically opposing, but rather operating on two very different dimensions.

I would like to agree with you. On many levels I believe I do agree with you. However the world is not as simple as you envision. If religion is trying to answer "why" we are here then it never considered that there may be no reason "why" we are here other than the "how" we got here. It is in this pursuit of "why" the church, and many churches, lives. This is where churches indoctrinate, terrorize, and rape cultures throughout history. Because the religious know "why" we are here and everybody else doesn't and therefore doesn't have a right to be here.

Look at "why" religion is here. Look at "where" religion has come from. Look at "what" religion is causing in our world today. It is a disgrace. We are arguably the most intellectually advanced being to have ever existed and yet or existence may be cut short by ourselves! How ignorant we are to our own reality. I believe natural selection and evolution will select for a new humanity, free from religion. At least I sure hope it does before its too late.

The only people who risk going to hell when they die are those who believe it exists....

[fishouttawatta]

Originally Posted by surf_dude

I think too many people see the claims of religion (mostly westernized Christian) & science diametrically opposing. Many eastern expressions of Christianity & judiasm have no problem with evolution and God. I believe christianity & evolution are a false dichotomy; as the two belief systems are answering two fundamentally different questions. Science attempts to answer the 'how' question as it tries to investigate the PHYSICAL mechanics behind natural phenomena; and religious systems attempt to answer the 'why' question as it attempts to find meaning & purpose and plugs it in to the larger meta-narrative of the interaction of the Divine with the created order (of which humanity is a subset)...

Both systems have their inherent limitations and thats great; as neither was never meant to be the end all be all. The two are not diametrically opposing, but rather operating on two very different dimensions.

The problem is that religion is making claims to the how. Irrational, unproven wild claims to the 'how'