For creationists that are actually willing to think about the subject....

[edwest2]

I see no advantage in believing or disbelieving in evolution. If I spent my life fervently believing in it, or in vehemently denying it, what is the practical difference?

Actually, as Catholics, we can have it both ways. We hold tight to our innermost beliefs and live accordingly. We can also hold that, since all things are possible to God, evolution may be part of His divine plan that has only recently been revealed to man. Again, such “revelation” can also come from the source of evil - intended to lead mankind astray.

We do not and cannot adhere to the recently popular eugenic teachings of a man who believed in racial superiority. However, Christians in general suffer from an appalling lack of curiosity as regards recent man-made theories.

“Christians in general suffer from an appalling lack of curiosity as regards recent man-made theories.” How do you know this? I spend most of my free time studying technology. A few people actually avoid me when they think I’m about to tell them about some new idea. Are you counting all of the Christians currently engaged in scientific work?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lynxdk]

Can you reference the relevant scientific documents that link God to evolution?

Ed!!

Albert was looking for you.

 

[po18guy]

“Christians in general suffer from an appalling lack of curiosity as regards recent man-made theories.” How do you know this? I spend most of my free time studying technology. A few people actually avoid me when they think I’m about to tell them about some new idea. Are you counting all of the Christians currently engaged in scientific work?

Peace,
Ed

Science and technology are study of the properties of matter. Christians believer that such properties came from God, Who created that matter, correct? What I was so poorly attempting to express was that a Christian generally has little interest in the study of theories which are, at their core, counter to Christian belief. And, especially that put forth by a man who believed in racial superiority and eugenics. Does that help?

 

[edwest2]

Science and technology are study of the properties of matter. Christians believer that such properties came from God, Who created that matter, correct? What I was so poorly attempting to express was that a Christian generally has little interest in the study of theories which are, at their core, counter to Christian belief. And, especially that put forth by a man who believed in racial superiority and eugenics. Does that help?

Thank you for the clarification. I think Christians are intensely interested in studying theories that go against Christian belief.

I don’t think properties of matter is an all-encompassing description of what God can do. Miracles that violate physics and properties of matter still occur today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[po18guy]

Thank you for the clarification. I think Christians are intensely interested in studying theories that go against Christian belief.

I don’t think properties of matter is an all-encompassing description of what God can do. Miracles that violate physics and properties of matter still occur today.

Peace,
Ed

I like at least a working knowledge of anti-Christian theories, but I would rather not absorb myself in them. I have enough trouble knowing my faith as it is!

As to the properties of matter, isn’t scientific study is focused on the measurable, verifiable and repeatable? Theology is more focused on the miraculous, since God is Master of all creation.

As to the OP, I cannot fathom the zeal behind presenting some alleged exciting development in evolution theory to those with faith. I wonder how embracing evolution theory would improve either one’s daily life, or the future of mankind in general.

 

[AlbertBall]

I wonder how embracing evolution theory would improve either one’s daily life, or the future of mankind in general.

This thread has quickly become everything i wanted to avoid, i was hoping to avoid all the usual arguments from ignorance.

However i can’t let this quote go…

“I wonder how embracing evolution theory would improve either one’s daily life, or the future of mankind in general”

evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-are-practical-applications-of.html

This what i am getting at, such mindless nonsense from a position of utter ignorance. If you reject science, you reject ALL science… So get off your PC, sell your house, car, tv, microwave, phone, computer, get rid of any medication you use, get rid off all your food, and go live in a cave.

I’ll leave you all to it, if anyone would like a real discussion on the subject please PM me.

 

[po18guy]

This thread has quickly become everything i wanted to avoid, i was hoping to avoid all the usual arguments from ignorance.

Instead of a link, how about a quick explanation of your belief?

Creationism does not exclude the possibility of the evolutionary process.

 

[tjm190]

One more thing: How do you square evolution with entropy, which is clearly observable?

2nd law of thermodynamics does not state that individual systems can not make gains in energy.

Eat a sandwich- the ‘ordered energy’ in the you system just increased.

 

[edwest2]

This thread has quickly become everything i wanted to avoid, i was hoping to avoid all the usual arguments from ignorance.

However i can’t let this quote go…

“I wonder how embracing evolution theory would improve either one’s daily life, or the future of mankind in general”

evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/06/what-are-practical-applications-of.html

This what i am getting at, such mindless nonsense from a position of utter ignorance. If you reject science, you reject ALL science… So get off your PC, sell your house, car, tv, microwave, phone, computer, get rid of any medication you use, get rid off all your food, and go live in a cave.

I’ll leave you all to it, if anyone would like a real discussion on the subject please PM me.

“If you reject science, you reject ALL science.” So the word science only means evolution now? How can I reject science and then reject all science?

Evolution did not build my house or my PC, car, etc.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AlbertBall]

“If you reject science, you reject ALL science.” So the word science only means evolution now? How can I reject science and then reject all science?

Evolution did not build my house or my PC, car, etc.

Peace,
Ed

They are products of the method, a method you clearly dont understand.

 

[kimmielittle]

They are products of the method, a method you clearly dont understand.

Please don’t be rude

 

[po18guy]

2nd law of thermodynamics does not state that individual systems can not make gains in energy.

Eat a sandwich- the ‘ordered energy’ in the you system just increased.

However, an increase in ordered energy within a given organism indicates a transfer, not an evolutionary process, right?

 

[AlbertBall]

Please don’t be rude

My apologies, but i don’t see other way to put it. When we mean science we are talking about the method, you cannot accept one theory and reject another, if one thinks one can then one clearly does not understand the scientific method.

I will also i add that i find comments like the one about “what does evolution add to humanity” to be offensive to the highest degree, we are talking about a theory that saves MILLIONS of life’s, yet people want to destroy that. People want those millions to die based on nothing but ignorance. It amazes me those that are to ready to spit in that face of that (the scientific method) which has provided almost every part of there modern life. it appalls me.

Anyway like i said this thread has become everything i wanted to avoid, so i will leave you all to it.

Peace all.

 

[edwest2]

My apologies, but i don’t see other way to put it. When we mean science we are talking about the method, you cannot accept one theory and reject another, if one thinks one can then one clearly does not understand the scientific method.

I will also i add that i find comments like the one about “what does evolution add to humanity” to be offensive to the highest degree, we are talking about a theory that saves MILLIONS of life’s, yet people want to destroy that. People want those millions to die based on nothing but ignorance. It amazes me those that are to ready to spit in that face of that (the scientific method) which has provided almost every part of there modern life. it appalls me.

Anyway like i said this thread has become everything i wanted to avoid, so i will leave you all to it.

Peace all.

“saves MILLIONS of life’s”? No it doesn’t. Ignorant? No. Unwilling to be deceived. “People want those millions to die”? Not true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AlbertBall]

“saves MILLIONS of life’s”? No it doesn’t. Ignorant? No. Unwilling to be deceived. “People want those millions to die”? Not true.

Peace,
Ed

Ok I’ll play…

Lets see what you know about the scientific method…

How does one justify research? What makes a good research question? How does a hypothesis fit in? How do you justify your hypothesis? How do you outline what your research entails, and how does this fit into your research question, hypothesis, and explain how your research will progress?

 

[edwest2]

Ok I’ll play…

Lets see what you know about the scientific method…

How does one justify research? What makes a good research question? How does a hypothesis fit in? How do you justify your hypothesis? How do you outline what your research entails, and how does this fit into your research question, hypothesis, and explain how your research will progress?

Research usually begins with an outside body (government, industry or private investors) asking a scientist or group of scientists to solve a problem. This is then followed by money to pay for the tools required and the scientists’ time.

Once again, the research question is defined by others. “Develop a method to control or clean up oil spills.” Numerous approaches can be tried depending on the knowledge and innovation present among the scientists involved. Depending on the potential economic/political benefit, other scientific groups may be assigned the same problem.

Research would involve the published literature for clues regarding what has worked in the past. The molecular structure of crude oil combined with its reactivity to say, sea water, would have to be studied. Then a list of likely candidates for chemical control, or elimination of the spill would be drawn up. The hypothesis that one, or more, of these chemicals would produce the desired result is then tested against actual samples under realistic conditions as defined by temperature, etc.

After the tests are complete, the candidates are ranked in terms of their effectiveness. Assuming one candidate performs to all requirements, it is tested as often as is necessary to confirm the data. A final test involving an actual spill and the results falling within what was predicted would show the chemical, or chemical combination, can move toward the product level. The product goes to market, everybody makes money, and the scientists go on to the next problem.

In the meantime, publication of their research occurs but a patent limits duplication to only other scientists, and perhaps ‘proprietary technologies’ in producing the final chemical mixture are ommitted for privacy and competitive reasons.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AlbertBall]

Research usually begins with an outside body (government, industry or private investors) asking a scientist or group of scientists to solve a problem. This is then followed by money to pay for the tools required and the scientists’ time.

Once again, the research question is defined by others. “Develop a method to control or clean up oil spills.” Numerous approaches can be tried depending on the knowledge and innovation present among the scientists involved. Depending on the potential economic/political benefit, other scientific groups may be assigned the same problem.

Research would involve the published literature for clues regarding what has worked in the past. The molecular structure of crude oil combined with its reactivity to say, sea water, would have to be studied. Then a list of likely candidates for chemical control, or elimination of the spill would be drawn up. The hypothesis that one, or more, of these chemicals would produce the desired result is then tested against actual samples under realistic conditions as defined by temperature, etc.

After the tests are complete, the candidates are ranked in terms of their effectiveness. Assuming one candidate performs to all requirements, it is tested as often as is necessary to confirm the data. A final test involving an actual spill and the results falling within what was predicted would show the chemical, or chemical combination, can move toward the product level. The product goes to market, everybody makes money, and the scientists go on to the next problem.

In the meantime, publication of their research occurs but a patent limits duplication to only other scientists, and perhaps ‘proprietary technologies’ in producing the final chemical mixture are ommitted for privacy and competitive reasons.

Peace,
Ed

Well i have to say i am mildly surprised, your not all that off. However you didn’t do much better than anyone else that knows how to access google, and you are most definitely on a big fat Fail. I am glad to see that you looked something up, it is probably a first, though it is clear you did not understand the questions and have no real understanding of the scientific method.

If you would like me to go into detail i would be more than happy to, though i may not be nice .

 

[Lynxdk]

If you would like me to go into detail i would be more than happy to, though i may not be nice .

Why can’t you simply explain what you mean without being mean? The scientific method has nothing to do with politics and money, so why would it be personal?

 

[edwest2]

Well i have to say i am mildly surprised, your not all that off. However you didn’t do much better than anyone else that knows how to access google, and you are most definitely on a big fat Fail. I am glad to see that you looked something up, it is probably a first, though it is clear you did not understand the questions and have no real understanding of the scientific method.

If you would like me to go into detail i would be more than happy to, though i may not be nice .

I know how science is done. My background in electronics has helped. It doesn’t matter though. The scientific method is now being used to browbeat Republicans.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

Ok I’ll play…

Lets see what you know about the scientific method…

How does one justify research? What makes a good research question? How does a hypothesis fit in? How do you justify your hypothesis? How do you outline what your research entails, and how does this fit into your research question, hypothesis, and explain how your research will progress?

How much money is in it?

Anything that would support evolution.

Make up a good story. The more implausible the better. It make you look smarter. Use chance of the gaps often.

Make sure you do not step on any toes. So you can repeat all over again. (peer review process)

Oh and I forgot bring more money to your university. Don’t blow it.