Tyranny in America? Somewhat funny vid

[Cobalt]

I believe in Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[longBallLima]

[QUOTE=Macdon1588;10780][QUOTE=longBallLima;10774]well, Jefferson did speak of a wall between church and state, so I think, at least for some of the founding bros, it was meant to go both ways. I could be off here though, as it seems a little subjective.

Curious, does any SwoleSourcer believe in creationism and think it must be taught as part of science (or biology or whatever you guys have in school here)?

I believe God created the universe through scientific means. I went to a Catholic school that taught that the two aren't necessarily conflictual. On this subject, any one that believes straight creationism is a literalist in book and I stay away from them as a rule.

so you believe in god as sort of the being that triggered events described by science, like big bang, evolution and such?

[burlyman30]

well, Jefferson did speak of a wall between church and state, so I think, at least for some of the founding bros, it was meant to go both ways. I could be off here though, as it seems a little subjective.

Curious, does any SwoleSourcer believe in creationism and think it must be taught as part of science (or biology or whatever you guys have in school here)?

If you look at what the founding fathers came from, where government controlled the church, it is plain to see that they wanted the government influence out of the churches. People's faiths are a part of who they are and a moral guidepost for how they make decisions, so while you can keep government out of the church, I would say it is impossible to keep a person's faith or religion out of government.

As for Creationism... It's part of my belief system. I find there to be far too many holes in evolutionary theory to put much stock in it. As for being taught in schools... evolution is really bad science and cannot be taught as history. Science and history both are dependent on observation and recorded events or outcomes by their very definition. Evolution does not fit within the stipulation of either.

As for what is taught in schools, I have a problem with flawed theories being taught. Though, being government run, I'm not sure I would sign off on Creationism being taught, either. That seems to cross the line of government's intended role.

[Macdon1588]

To long ball yes, I think that God certainly acts through science.

[longBallLima]

If you look at what the founding fathers came from, where government controlled the church, it is plain to see that they wanted the government influence out of the churches. People's faiths are a part of who they are and a moral guidepost for how they make decisions, so while you can keep government out of the church, I would say it is impossible to keep a person's faith or religion out of government.

As for Creationism... It's part of my belief system. I find there to be far too many holes in evolutionary theory to put much stock in it. As for being taught in schools... evolution is really bad science and cannot be taught as history. Science and history both are dependent on observation and recorded events or outcomes by their very definition. Evolution does not fit within the stipulation of either.

As for what is taught in schools, I have a problem with flawed theories being taught. Though, being government run, I'm not sure I would sign off on Creationism being taught, either. That seems to cross the line of government's intended role.

huh, i'm curious as to what you'd consider the holes. and isn't a large portion of science taught as theory anyway? and a little further, what, in your opinion, should be taught as the source of the universe, mankind, etc?

To long ball yes, I think that God certainly acts through science.

i think in ways, the difference of belief lies in the belief of sentient, self aware energy X natural energy with no awareness behind it. meaning, it seems to me that you believe there is an energy that is aware (and kind, and with a plan of sorts) that drives the natural phenomenons and you call that energy god, whereas i believe in natural reactions.

lol did that make any sense? i know i shouldn't have stayed away from drugs...

[burlyman30]

huh, i'm curious as to what you'd consider the holes. and isn't a large portion of science taught as theory anyway? and a little further, what, in your opinion, should be taught as the source of the universe, mankind, etc?

I wont go into everything... just a couple of points.

The actual requirement of science is that events are not just recordable, but repeatable. Evolution theory, and it is still only theory because of this, has no evidence of repeatability. The theory cannot be retested because they still cannot find cross-species evolution. They came up with a theory, then looked for evidence to support said theory. But the crux of the theory still has no evidence or basis in fact to support it.

Furthermore, the evolution theory still cannot answer the biggest question of all... origin of first life. Many theories have been thrown around, some saying that all thing originated from primordial sludge. But where, then, did the sludge come from? Simple question, really. But unanswerable by top scientists.

On the flip side of things, if you look at some of the fossil record and how species that were purported to live thousands or even millions of years from each other...yet are found next to each other... it lends great credibility to the evidence of a worldwide flood. I can tell you with great certainty that even if you do not believe in the premise of an all powerful God, the accurate history recorded in the Bible is an incredible resource for historians and researchers alike. Historical findings are very much in line wth the Biblical record, from the great flood to the building of the pyramids.

As for what should be taught in schools... I think the schools would either have to teach multi-theory classes, or not teach it at all. In my opinion, our tax dollars should be used to teach things we actually DO know with certainty, i.e. math, grammar, factual and repeatable science, etc. and leave the guesswork out.

[h2s]

Evolution is repeatable and very present in our society. A simple virus undergoes this process quite rapidly. Evolution entails survival of the fittest (and in the case of sexual beings, replication through gene selection). In the example of the virus, it evolves as means of survival to combat drugs, and hence why many viruses leave doctors struggling to find a cure. In the case of sexual beings: The environment becomes hot, those of fair skin do not survive, and their genes diminish through replication, Hunting requires alot of running to survive, those who are fit survive and those that can't do not and their genes diminish through replication. We now see a population of these beings who are darker in color and more physically fit (in terms of genetic ability).

[burlyman30]

Evolution is repeatable and very present in our society. A simple virus undergoes this process quite rapidly. Evolution entails survival of the fittest (and in the case of sexual beings, replication through gene selection). In the example of the virus, it evolves as means of survival to combat drugs, and hence why many viruses leave doctors struggling to find a cure. In the case of sexual beings: The environment becomes hot, those of fair skin do not survive, and their genes diminish through replication, Hunting requires alot of running to survive, those who are fit survive and those that can't do not and their genes diminish through replication. We now see a population of these beings who are darker in color and more physically fit (in terms of genetic ability).

I think what you are calling evolution is simply adaptability. A virus adapts to its environment and gets stronger, but a flu virus does not change into a "cancer virus", if there were to be such a thing. It's just a stronger flu virus. Our muscles adapt to stresses we give them. They adapt, but they don't evolve. They are still just a muscle.

Evolutionary theories of both origins and evolving beings is in contrast to both the first and the second Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific law trumps scientific theory. As far as gene selection, according to Evolution, the species should get better and purer and diseases should get weeded out eventually, but this is not what we see across the globe. We are no more disease resistant than people were a few hundred years ago. We have more advanced medicines, treatments, and nutritional knowledge, but no reduction in disease. Research has "evolved", but the researchers haven't.

[h2s]

I think what you are calling evolution is simply adaptability. A virus adapts to its environment and gets stronger, but a flu virus does not change into a "cancer virus", if there were to be such a thing. It's just a stronger flu virus. Our muscles adapt to stresses we give them. They adapt, but they don't evolve. They are still just a muscle.

Not quite. The virus is evolving. The "adaption" is the short term dynamic of the virus's cycle, the long term dynamic is evolution. It is similar to steroids, in how very little changes to a compound can have drastic differences in terms of what it does in the body. In the case of the virus, we may see an adaptation in the "XE131" virus that trends towards resistance to medication "Med-A," unfortunately the difference in the virus that is resistant to Med-A (which is now moving from an extremely small percentage of the population to being the dominant part of the population) also happens to cause Cancerous tumors in addition to the Bone density loss we originally saw from made up virus XE131...The virus as a whole now has evolved through genetic selection from a virus that slowly causes bone density loss to a virus that causes bone density loss an the occurance of Cancerous tumors.

Evolutionary theories of both origins and evolving beings is in contrast to both the first and the second Law of Thermodynamics. Scientific law trumps scientific theory. As far as gene selection, according to Evolution, the species should get better and purer and diseases should get weeded out eventually, but this is not what we see across the globe. We are no more disease resistant than people were a few hundred years ago. We have more advanced medicines, treatments, and nutritional knowledge, but no reduction in disease. Research has "evolved", but the researchers haven't.

I would be curious on your take on the application of the law of Thermodynamics to current evolution based theories. I don't follow, so I am curious.

Do you really think that common man is not more resistant to disease than "early man" (not sure what to call it without referencing evolution)? We do not see the drastic changes over time in modern man due to the intervention of science. This is also why we have people who survive as fat, un-fit, un-motivated, etc.....If the application of science were removed from man, we would see those of weak genetic structure die, and reproduction occurring through those who survived, giving way to trend shifting in the genetic make up of man in the micro approach, and evolution in the macro. Hence, survival of the fittest.

[burlyman30]

Not quite. The virus is evolving. The "adaption" is the short term dynamic of the virus's cycle, the long term dynamic is evolution. It is similar to steroids, in how very little changes to a compound can have drastic differences in terms of what it does in the body. In the case of the virus, we may see an adaptation in the "XE131" virus that trends towards resistance to medication "Med-A," unfortunately the difference in the virus that is resistant to Med-A (which is now moving from an extremely small percentage of the population to being the dominant part of the population) also happens to cause Cancerous tumors in addition to the Bone density loss we originally saw from made up virus XE131...The virus as a whole now has evolved through genetic selection from a virus that slowly causes bone density loss to a virus that causes bone density loss an the occurance of Cancerous tumors.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point, at least as far as in the way we both define evolution.

I would be curious on your take on the application of the law of Thermodynamics to current evolution based theories. I don't follow, so I am curious.

The first law of Thermodynamics states that matter or energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Big Bang theory doesn't fit. If there was nothing prior, where did the "bang" come from? If there were stratospheric gases that miraculously created an entire life-sustaining universe by accident, then where did the gases come from? Nothing and nothing cannot be added or multiplied to become something.

Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all is in a state of decline. Yet evolutionary theory would tell you that things are getting better, fitter, and more advanced. While technology has advanced, that is simply knowledge passed on and built upon and, I don't believe, relevant in evolution which deals with evolution of species. Each generation, according to Evolution should grow stronger, healthier, have bodies that are disease resistant, and would trend into a more superior species than human. Yet, over the 4,000 years of history that we do have, we see no changes in human bodies that could be said to be trending into a "superhuman". Disease is still with us and peak lifespan is really no greater when you figure in environmental and medicinal factors.

Do you really think that common man is not more resistant to disease than "early man" (not sure what to call it without referencing evolution)? We do not see the drastic changes over time in modern man due to the intervention of science. This is also why we have people who survive as fat, un-fit, un-motivated, etc.....If the application of science were removed from man, we would see those of weak genetic structure die, and reproduction occurring through those who survived, giving way to trend shifting in the genetic make up of man in the micro approach, and evolution in the macro. Hence, survival of the fittest.

Since we do have modern medicine keeping the fat and unfit alive, don't you think we would also see the same modern medicine giving a distinct advantage to the more genetically superior, and that they, in turn, would have children more genetically superior to them? Then how is it that two healthy, fit individuals with zero health or genetic issues can have a child that gets cancer? Or gets Down's Syndrome? Autism and other unexplainable abnormalities are rampant today, and being born in huge numbers by healthy couples. This is becoming more common, rather than less. The curve for evolution of a species should trend continually upward, not up, then down.

EDIT: I had to step back and chuckle for a moment... here we are again, on different sides of a subject. But in the same thread. This thread covers a little bit of everything now. lol. Thanks, h2s, for being part of a well-reasoned discussion/debate. I can always count on you to keep your cool, even in the more sensitive hot-button issues like politics and religion.