Many people think that science and the Bible are incompatible. Actually, modern science and the Bible go hand in hand.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9851563631666#
Printable View
Many people think that science and the Bible are incompatible. Actually, modern science and the Bible go hand in hand.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9851563631666#
Here is an online book about how modern science has disproved the theory of evolution.
http://evolutionfacts.com/
He gets into the big bang, carbon dating, fossils, the new world order and population reduction.
Not only have you failed to give a decent answer to the evolutionist, you have had bitter arguments with every other Religion to date some which are older than Christianity. I only listened to a minute of what this guy is saying but I will listen to more later. Does he not understand that when you believe solely in the Bible you are telling not only science but every other Religion and supernatural dimensional belief system that they are wrong. Now this guy may be trying to tie in Science with the Bible but who is to say the Bible is the correct way????? Why not tie it in with Greek Mythology or eastern philosophies and Religions???? I will listen to the rest later though he may have something interesting points to make.
Definately check out the whole video. He has a lot of great things to say. I don't agree with his 'pray for salvation' theology though. Acts 2:38.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Blankenship
Really? Seriously?? You're going to drop your religious agenda in this JIUJITSU forum? That's some weak sauce son, you need to take that shit somewhere else.
Here is the bibliography of said book:Quote:
Here is an online book about how modern science has disproved the theory of evolution.
http://evolutionfacts.com/
Notice that its a book on SCIENCE written by a journalist. That holds about as much clout at Master Eddie writing a book on pre-Roman era economics (If you happen to be a pre-Roman history buff, I apologize Eddie), not only is he not an economist but he isn't a historian either.Quote:
The material for this site was taken from two books, compiled by free-lance Reporter Vance Ferrell. BA. MA. :
'EVOLUTION DISPROVED SERIES' The Volumes are entitled:
Vol. 1 - ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE;
Vol. 2 - ORIGIN OF LIFE
Vol. 3 - OTHER EVIDENCE
It's about as believable as a magic beard man who had a jewish zombie son who can make the world better.
I'll leave this here for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gbit7BT5q0
Let's stick to jiu jitsu!!!
agreed...i'm a committed atheist but this just isn't the right site for this debateQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack LaBarge
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY the foundational falsehoods of creationism
First of all, I am nobody's son (other than Mr. Mallory and God the Father) :) Second, on this forum Eddie encourages us to make posts about all kinds of subjects. Third, if you're not interested in this thread then don't read it.
Some people on the forum may be interested in checking it out. If you're not, that's cool.
And I just want to be clear that the my tone is totally friendly and respectful. I know that people can misinterpret peoples tone or intentions in a writen format.
-Lack of evidence for scientific theories does not give the OK to Christianity, which is flawed on so many levels it isn't even fair to argue it
-Making fun of opposition shows poor debate skills
-He at one point actually admitted that Christianity is being used to fill in blanks that science hasn't answered yet (or can never answer).
-The universe is a closed system has almost been completely been disproven. Ever hear of string theory?
-The standard of right and wrong is based entirely on human morality, which you are born with. Most psychologist today would tell you that.
-The concept that evolution makes people killers is just pathetic. If you need a book to tell you to be a morally good person anyway, then you're an ass hole who is just scared of punishment. You should do what is "right" because it is. Not for given reward. But that is a philosophical argument.
-Even if evolution is true, it's useless! Yes, how useless finding the truth is. It isn't about the advancement it will bring us, it is about finding truth.
-Correlation does not prove causation. The fact he tried to say taking prayer out of school caused all those things is just stupid.
-Stating that school shootings were done by crazy atheists = evolutionists are crazy. One word: Crusades. All Christians are bat-shit insane killers and war-mongering barbarians. Right? No? Stop trying to label a group.
-Science is based off of studies, observations, and theories based on these observation. Stop trying to redefine science.
-He argues that the world is only 4,000 years old, but that isn't possible. Even if he could successfully argue away that the world is billions of years ago, population genomes have been linked that HEAVILY support the land bridge theory and that pushes back 10,000 years, if not more (Sorry, I'm crappy at 'recent' history).
-Refuses to state how it is possible for early humans to live so long. It shouldn't be possible. The body simply does not work that way.
-The idea that human growth would be huge if we had been around for millions of years is horse shit. Until modernization occurred, death rates were incredibly high. Remember, plagues have done crazy shit to human population.
-He cites that the solar system we live in can't be billions of years old because of constant motion of planetary bodies. However, inter-dimensional transition and unsure time of planetary creation could argue against that all day.
-The polarity of the Earth argument was empty. Has he never heard of polar shifts?
-Oh look, he commented on polarity shifts. Then ignored them despite us seeing them occur with the sun. That is...wow.
-Constant geographical changes occur. Constantly. Of course the desert wouldn't be that old. That's a horrible argument.
Just a few notes I made while watching it (and yes, I watched it all. A bit tl;dr, but meh, I had time). I liked some of his arguments against scientific theories. Those were interesting, to say the least. However, to try and say "SO CHRISTIANS ARE RIGHT!" is just silly. Interesting look at it all though.
EDIT: To the people saying "Hey man, stick to Jius!" I believe the word is we can talk about anything, not just that. Correct me if I am wrong? Why are you so uncomfortable and insecure listening to other view points? Jason didn't come one saying "YOU'RE ALL FULL OF SHIT HAHAHA!" and insulting people. He said "Hey, check this out" and has been polite about it. Chill out.
Some of the things that he didn't go into detail about like how did people live so long before the Flood are covered in his other lectures. In the video below Hovind debats three evolutionists at once about the creation vs evolution debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMpk7WerFWw
so micks a athiest,jason is a christian,im a buddhist,im sure there are also democrats and republicans etc etc on the board..just remember no matter what your here to represent 10th planet jiu-jitsu and figting on the forum is not a way to represent or support are art.
OK. I really, really don't feel like typing all freakin' day. My degree is in biochemistry and evolutionary biology. I have had many, many lengthy discussions with both believers and non-believers about the subject. Common to all of them is a fundamental misunderstanding of science, its process, and its terminology. In the interest of brevity I will leave with these few nuggets:
1) A theory is a description of phenomena built from observed evidence. It is not a guess, it is not conjecture, it is not speculation. It is never "just a theory". It is a self-consistent, useful description of a broad range of phenomena. This description fosters the development of questions by making predictions. These predictions are tested. The data from these experiments and observations further refine a theory. A theory is not a guess (even an educated one) and at its core it must be falsifiable. That means one must be able to demonstrate a condition under which the predictions are false. A theory can NEVER be "proved true" nor is it EVER a "fact". This extends to the theory of gravity, the electromagnetic field theory, and the germ theory of disease. All of these theories have something in common: all of them have been tested and found to be highly robust theories (meaning the predictions they make from calculation conform very highly to observation). Another thing they have in common is that all of them can be proven false at any time. One need only design an experiment that tests the predictions of said theory and show that observation does not conform to prediction. If the experiment is thorough, well conducted, and the results can be obtained by others using the same experiment(s) then the theory will be modified to include the new data or be thrown out altogether.
Do you know what the theory of natural selection has over the three theories I mentioned above? It has been tested and verified more than all three of them combined over the last 150 years. If you stacked all of the data testing the predictions of evolutionary theory on top of one another it would dwarf any other scientific theory to date (and among those are included those theories with which you may be more well acquainted; again: relativity, quantum theory, electromagnetic field theory, the molecular theory of gases, and the germ theory of disease.) Natural selection is very, very robust theory.
Why does it matter what I mean when I say "theory" and what the colloquial use means? Because we're not really having a discussion if we're not talking about the same thing. I'll never be able to articulate my point if you don't even understand what I mean when I use certain terms. When I say "theory" you hear "guess". I mean a very large body of data, you mean "speculation". The ultimate problem with intelligent design is that it lacks the core element of any scientific theory: it can never -- under any circumstances -- be verified or not. There is no (even hypothetical) experiment you can design that will test for the presence of God or a god-like being that exists outside of our experience. By definition, if you test for it and find it, it's not the creator of the universe because it then created itself. Thus the theory can never be falsified and is therefore unscientific. If you choose to BELIEVE in a creator, that is certainly just fine. Just understand that it's not science, it's theology.
Note that at no time did I say that science is the only path to truth, that those with a religious belief or a belief in something beyond daily experience are ignorant, or that there is no compatibility between evolutionary theory and religious belief. What I can say quite confidently is that creation science is in no way science. The only reason it propagates as such is because of that communal, fundamental lack of understanding of what science really is in the first place. This is why I am such a fervent opponent of non-science curriculum in a science classroom. If you want to teach theology, fine. Teach it in Sunday school. I'm going to teach the same process that scientists have been using for hundreds of years in my science classroom because the process works. If you don't believe me look at your screen. That you are reading this at all is the result of the same process of prediction, testing, and modification of theory applied from physics, chemistry, material science, and computer science that biologists have been using for 150 years to test evolution. The process is no different and the theory conforms to prediction and testing.
I'm not fighting with anyone, just sharing and isn't that what a message board is for ? I rep 10th Planet to the fullest and I believe I do it in an honorable way.Quote:
Originally Posted by michael craig
Sorry Jason, I haven't read your post yet but I will.
There are two subjects that make people go crazy...religion and politics! Why are we discussing or debating religion...facts....None!!! When you die is when you finally get the answer but who are you going to tell, your dead! Scientist...whats their real agenda!! Be happy and respect others...Stop the non-sense
Peace and Love
I'm on Jason Mallory side on this one. He posts a lot of things on this site and I may not agree/ believe everything he posts. I think as a person its important to expand your mind. Jason is just passing along information he found interesting. You should still show the man respect even if you don't agree with him or his views. Jason thank you sharing new things with us andd please keep posting interesting things like this!
Hovind *is* an eloquent speaker, too bad he's in jail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
I'd also like to point out that this is the problem so many conspiracy "theories" have as well. They are lacking in one or more of the following areas:
SELF-CONSISTENCY
A theory is not a very robust theory if it contradicts itself. Seemly logical paths that fold back on themselves are common to conspiracy theories and is one reason I hate that the term theory is applied to them at all. Example: let's say there's a conspiracy about a government cover-up. The evidence for the cover up is that there is no evidence and/or fake "evidence" has been planted. When it's pointed out to the "theorists" that there is no evidence, they say "Of course. They got rid of it all." While that may even be true, it is not scientific and it is not properly called a theory. Since it is never possible to prove their theory false (because any evidence that contradicts the theory has already been defined as evidence of a cover up) it can never be called a theory. This is also a major problem with creation "science".
OBSERVATION FROM PREDICTION
Many theories started as little more than calculations; some are still only calculations -- string theory one of the most prominent among them; which is in fact a major criticism of the theory. Calculations and thought experiments are great but without observed phenomena it's only so much mental masturbation (as physicists frequently refer to pure mathematics). Einstein -- the physicist, not the black belt :) -- wrote a very compelling paper developed between 1907-1915 that refined the description of gravity. Until then, gravity was described as an unseen force transmitted between massive objects that decreases with the square of the distance between them. Newton first described gravity that way and it conformed very well to observation. But not quite. There were a few things in nature that didn't seem to like Newton's approximations. There was a problem with the procession of the orbit of Mercury. Mercury never returns to the same spot on the same day each year (neither does Earth but it's really close. So close we only have to correct for it by 24 hours every four years). The procession of Mercury's orbit was a big problem for scientists for a long time. There just weren't any laws of motion that accounted for it without the presence of another massive object (and for a very long time it was thought there had to be another planet perturbing the orbit). Then Einstein wrote a paper in which he described gravity as the curvature of space. A massive body bends the space around it like a bowling ball placed on a sheet. If you place another massive object near it, it will follow that curvature of space.
[You can prove it to yourself: throw a baseball to a person standing 30 feet away such that it takes 10 seconds for it to arrive. How would you do that? You'd throw the ball high into the air so that it flew in an arc. Now throw the ball such that it takes 2 seconds to get there. You'd throw a pretty straight line drive, right? OK. Throw a fly ball that only takes two seconds to get there. You can't. Throw a line drive that takes 10 seconds. You can't. The ball MUST travel in the curvature of the space the Earth creates. Now not only baseballs and massive objects must travel in that curved space but so must light in all it's wavelengths. This is why light can never "escape" a black hole. A black hole is just a region of space where gravity has curved space so much that everything just travels in an ever-shrinking orbit until it encounters the singularity at the center. There is an exception to this called "Hawking radiation" that is a great story of two theoretical predictions coming together, observations, and modification of the original theory. If you'd like I'll happily go into that too...]
So what? What did that do? Gravity didn't change at all, only how we described it. Einstein changed the theory of gravity. That's all well and good, but if it's not observed in nature it just isn't very good science. The predictions of Einstein's new theory said that an object as large as a star with that much gravity should bend the light traveling very near it at a predictable rate. If Einstein's curved space were true in nature and not just on paper, it would account for the perturbation of Mercury. Not only that, it should be possible under the right conditions to observe a shift in position of background stars as their light passes near the sun. As it happened, there was an eclipse in 1919 that allowed scientists all over the world to observe the sun and see this "gravitational lensing." I imagine you've heard the term. The reason you've heard the term is because Einstein was right and he became world famous almost overnight. What is important about that from the perspective of a conspiracy "theory" and other non-scientific "theories" is that few if any of them make testable predictions. Without a prediction, General Relativity is just Einstein doing math. Without an observation, it's just a really nice set of equations.
FALSIFIABILITY
This is huge. This is what makes a theory science or not. If any of the postulates of a theory are shown through observation to be false, the theory requires modification. Again, a theory must make predictions. If it does not, it is not a theory by definition. Those predictions must be testable. There must be some way to either design a bench-top experiment, observe in nature, or otherwise test the predictions a theory makes. Most importantly, the experiment must actually test the prediction.
I'll use gravity as an example again. Let's say my theory of gravity says that what we observe as gravity is the result of air pushing objects towards the ground. I can design an experiment that can prove this wrong. Note that what I can't do is prove this true. I can design a million experiments that will all seem to show that air pressure is the reason objects always return to the ground. All I need is ONE experiment that demonstrates this to be false to junk the theory (provided, of course, that experiment is also verifiable by others). This is not what happens with most conspiracy theories and with creation "science". Those "theories" that can't make testable predictions are not theories at all -- they are speculation and nothing more.
I know we have a lot of folks who like conspiracies and conspiracy theories around here. Please note that at no time did I say there are no conspiracies. My problem is with the use of the term "Theory." Understand the terminology and I don't have a problem. :)
Yeah, it is too bad he's in jail. The new world order and our out of control federal government with it's illegal 'incom tax' are the reason he's behind bars. His faith probably has something to do with it too. Here's Aaron Russo's film on the illegality of the so called income tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidJohn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpTVXitOQk
Hey Jason, I'm still going to read your posts, I just jumped on here for a second but will have some time later.
Jason H: That's curious, what predictions does evolution make? I've always had a beef with the testability / observability aspect of the whole thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
I think you just said everything I was going to. It's very important for people to not to accept to organized religion. Eddie made a great point in his book. He said there is so many different Religions and none of them can agree on who God is or how he works. Yea. Get back to us when yall figure out the debate. Until then I'll enjoy my state of Agnosticism. Because we are all human beings and you or any one else do not have supreme knowledge or special powers that allow you to know something I don't.
haha but i agree ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Mallory
Lots of good points made by both sides, and everyone has been really civil about it (Ironically, the least civil statements were by those saying to get it off the board). I my self am an atheist, but I understand it as a purely philosophical view point. I think theism/deism is a completely acceptable philosophy, it just isn't what I think is true. However, I feel there are far too many flaws in most organized religions for them to be accepted as truth. That is my view point on the subject, however I don't really care what you believe in as long as it doesn't sway your morality to some odd extreme.
One thing that bothers me is when "atheists" talk about karma/luck/ect. It's funny how they claim there is no god but follow a "higher" power that is "the universe." They are theists and they don't even know it, simply because of how they define what god is.
Me too! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Joshua: the best place to start is probably with Darwin's four postulates. These are the foundation of Natural Selection which was the mechanism Darwin proposed.
1) in any population there is variability among individuals.
2) variability is heritable.
3) in any population, some individuals will be more successful at survival and reproduction.
4) survival and reproduction are non-random.
As a constructivist, I believe knowledge is best built when understanding is created by the individual. To that end, see if you can make some predictions from these postulates that can be tested. We're still early in building a foundation of understanding here so for now we'll leave out things like the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation and punctuated equllibrium theory. Plus my phone is gonna die any minute here... :)
Ok, I just got a chance to read and focus on this post. I agree, defining the term 'theory' is important so that we are on the same page. I would suggest being a little bit more humble in the way you communicate. You kinda came off like 'I'm smart, your dumb so I have to explain myself to the unninitiated.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt
The theory of evolution is not fact. Darwin himself said that the weakness of his theory is irreducible complexity. He said that if there were machines on the cellular level that could not function unless complete and could not happen by chance then his theory would be proven wrong. In the last 30 years, with the advancements made in technology with microscopes these irreducible machines have been discovered on the cellular level. A single cell, once thought to be a simple entity is actually more complex then the space shuttle with machines that cannot function unless the machine is complete.
Neither Intelligent Design nor the Big Bang theory can be tested by the scientific process. Neither can be observed, neither can be tested in the laboratory or duplicated. What we can do is make note of observations in the physical universe and interpret them. Intelligent Design/Creation Science is about making observations, testing and creating theories, the same as evolutionists do.
For example, Uranium & Polonium Radiohalos formed in granite are scienfic, observable proof of a young earth. I won't go into detail on it here but for anyone reading this that's interested check this link out.
http://creation.com/radiohalosstartl...-a-young-earth
Again, the tone of this post is totally friendly. This is an intelligent discussion, not a fight. The video below is pretty good about explaining irreducible complexity and natural selection. Check it out !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHbDrjMf104
The term 'conspiracy theory' is a psyop, propaganda term to discredit people that are exposing conspriacies like the 911 attacks. I don't agree with the use of that term either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt
Sure, I learn best when I can form systems (not a random soup of facts). These four observations are easy, and I have no problem with them (survival of the individual is unpredictable but non-random). As the environment changes, those creatures who are best suited to the environment survive and live to pass on their genes. We would expect to see that in nature. We do (the whole black butterflies thing). We would expect to see that in the fossil record. We do to one degree or another (this is debatable and not my strong point, so for now I'll cede the point). All fine, Natural Selection is fine. This isn't foreign to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt
What's next?
Actually, maybe i can get to the heart of my issue. At some point, someone must postulate all of the following crap:
* "Life can spring and indeed has sprung spontaneously from chemicals in a process we can't possibly duplicate in an undirected experiment, observe or test for sheer lack of time." (Yes, I understand that they've pieced together proteins in directed experiments, that's truly not the same thing) Sure, you can make observations that are consistent with the idea, but how do you get beyond that? Not a rhetorical question, I hunger for knowledge.
* "Hey, all life on earth has a common ancestor which didn't have a parent but was capable of getting energy, dealing with it's own biproducts and having children but it died without leaving any trace of itself that we can find." Again, you can make observations that are consistent with the idea and build towards a concept that it is possible, but can you reproduce the event? Impossible. Or is it?
* At some point, a creature with n chromosomes that reproduced sexually got it on with another creature with n chromosomes that reproduced sexually and managed to produce viable offspring with n+1 chromosomes. Somehow, a viable mate was there, love was in the air, both survived to mating age and it was rad. If you can explain how that's possible, my entire day will be made (nobody can explain this to me because people don't know jack).
* At some point a creature that reproduced asexually produced a creature that reproduced sexually *and* had the instinct to know not only how to do it but how to be a gentle and sensitive lover. Oh and there was another creature that was female there, and they fell in love, survived to mating age, had 2.3 beautiful children and retired happily at the age of 55. Ok, that last part I threw in for fun, it's not really sciency. Again, if you can point out a mechanism that makes this possible, my day is made.
OK f*ck you, you, you, your'e cool, and f you. sigh... I like posts like this 'cause I like to ponder on things like "where did I come from". The why questions that can't be answered are always interesting.
thanks for the post jason
In response to Josh, sex is one of the biggest question marks in the theory of evolution as it applies to species growing from single-cells over time. However, just like the "missing link," just because we don't know how doesn't mean it didn't happen.
And, if you want the brutal honesty, the first life forms that had sex probably engaged in some sort of primitive rape. Or, and this is even more likely, they probably had eggs in the water that were fertilized outside of the body. Remember: only humans see rape as a bad thing. In actuality, it probably helped push our species to where it is now
...I in no way support rape.
That's not Science. And it's definitely pretty crappy ground to do a lot of posturing on an internet forum about how other beliefs are retarded and yours are 100% chalk full of win and are absolutely true nevermind the fact that you don't understand them. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Here I'm not accusing you of being a jerk Ben. Let me make that clear. On a second reading, that looked like a crappy thing to say like I had a personal bone to pick with you. I don't.
I'm gonna wait for Jason's response, I'm not trying to win, I'm trying to learn.
The problem with these ideas is that you are assuming what probably happend. There is no evidence from nature to support anything that you have said supposedly happend in the past. Just sayin' :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Jason: I'm going to take the time to craft a proper response as I am also trying very hard to keep this a civil discussion not a name-calling contest. You've been civil, I've certainly tried to be (and apologies if I came off as "you're dumb". The implied "you're" isn't YOU personally, it's the ubiquitous "you" we mean in conversation. Just like the "they" in "they always say...") and if I'm going to start something I might as well not half-ass it. It's just that ever since undergrad I've been having this discussion and it's exhausting. It requires a very significant amount of background to appreciate the subtleties of evolutionary theory and getting to common understanding can take a really long time -- especially when you have to write everything, use a number of analogies, summarize experiments that took more than one generation of scientist to even perform, etc, etc. Really, that's the problem with the whole thing. Each side tries to distill its argument down to a six-second sound bite and by then we aren't even speaking the same language much less talking about the same topic. I'll do my best to avoid that. From here on out read everything I write with an excited, happy, conversational tone. That's how it's intended. I wouldn't have kicked my ass double-majoring in this crap if I didn't have a deep abiding love for it! :)
Joshua: In large part, that's it. Those four postulates are Darwinian evolution. That's what all the fuss is about. That said, I'm going to make the same effort for you as I promised Jason and give you a proper response. That means a bit of work so you may have to wait a bit for a complete response, but we'll get there. :)
Totally understand. Some questions are easy to ask and complex to answer. I can be patient, I've spent years trying to find someone who knew more about evolution than me. I appreciate your effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt
I am concerned, because those four postulates seem to add up to a crappy attempt at strong inductive logic with no basis step. The basis step is everything. There are problem points in there like chromosomes, sex, instinct-structure dependencies....and I've always been curious if there were answers to these questions to explain not only how they evolved but how we KNOW they evolved.
And they don't teach you that crap in school.
That's cool, no problem. I would be interested to see what you thought of Behe in the video below. He too has studied this stuff for decades as you have and is probably smarter than the two of us put together and he has come to the conclusion after his exhaustive study and research that there had to be a designer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Hyatt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHbDrjMf104&feature=player_embedded
Ok Science buffs. Who knows what I am talking about. I can't find the video, but I saw a video from a super smart scientist guy that talked about how he was close to proving that the world was 6,000 years old and also 4.5 billion years old.
He was relating the dates by earth years and "cosmo" (I can't remember what he called them, but something to do with space) years. He said that because the galaxy was expanding, time happens at a different rate depending on where you are in time.
Or something like that. It was very intriguing and does anyone know what I referring too and can the smart people discuss it.
He was basically saying that the bible's years was being calculated differently than how we do it now but that both are referring to the same amount of time, just using a different form of measurement.