Creationism = Science Illiteracy

[cutter7]

if we did not evolve from rocks , is the big bang theory wrong? any true evolutionists care to explain?

[cliffy1]

if we did not evolve from rocks , is the big bang theory wrong? any true evolutionists care to explain?

Nobody wants to explain the absurd notion you are putting forward. You are not making any sense. Who ever said anything about evolving from a rock or the rocks had anything to do with the Big Bang. To me the Big Bang is just as crazy as creationism because both require some sort of magic. Anyway, good luck trying to use that as bait to hook someone into a ridiculous discussion.

[fluffy]

if we did not evolve from rocks , is the big bang theory wrong? any true evolutionists care to explain?

Golly, I wish I could help, but it's been three and a half billion years and somebody lost the user's manual that came with the first rock.

[youjustcomplain]

I've been banging rocks together all week, even added a little water… got some sparks but no life evolved.

Can any evolutionists explain how we evolved from rocks?

Evolution isn't a topic for debate is it? Science has proved it as fact. It has nothing to do with banging rocks together or adding water.

I can't explain how evolution works exactly. I'm not qualified. You, obviously, are not either. But are you suggesting god did it unless we can prove otherwise?

[Glacier]

Evolution isn't a topic for debate is it? Science has proved it as fact. It has nothing to do with banging rocks together or adding water.

I can't explain how evolution works exactly. I'm not qualified. You, obviously, are not either. But are you suggesting god did it unless we can prove otherwise?

We all know cutter was making a sarcastic remark. We also know the point he was making is that no scientist anywhere can explain how life formed spontaneously. Given the 2nd law of Thermodynamics where everything goes to disorder, trying to explain how intricate and complex structures came in to being by natural processes is science illiteracy.

[youjustcomplain]

We all know cutter was making a sarcastic remark. We also know the point he was making is that no scientist anywhere can explain how life formed spontaneously. Given the 2nd law of Thermodynamics where everything goes to disorder, trying to explain how intricate and complex structures came in to being by natural processes is science illiteracy.

I think you've been listening or reading too much Ken Hamm.

Lets agree then that if Science can't explain the origin of life, that the best way to explain the event is "I don't know how it happened".

It's so much easier than invoking magic to explain what obviously happened, somehow.

[Nomaster]

Why this argument doesn't actually stump real scientists.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-mis ... tml#thermo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6595SJMrHg

[Glacier]

Everything in the universe goes toward disorder. Genetic entropy exists just like every other kind of entropy. If you see a brick wall, it was built by someone. If you see a complex structure of DNA it was built by an external force.

[Nomaster]

Biologists world wide don't follow that weak Watch Maker argument.

read any biology textbook at a university level. No, sir, that 'it must have a designer' argument is lame.

[annexi]

Science tells us that everything originates from hydrogen in a star. Bonded and compressed multiple times, the hydrogen transforms to helium, etc. until it eventually becomes all the elements of the periodic table. Then the elements combine to form complex matter, life included.

How is that possible? It is utterly mind blowing if one thinks about it! It seems impossible to me that there isn't some unknown organizing principle at work (ie. something like god but not any religious god we know).

Getting back to the post title, creationism devoid of science literacy is living in a dark age of ignorance, but creationism understood within the context of science is a synergy that can shed new light on the nature of the cosmos.

[cliffy1]

And if you throw consciousness into the formula, you get a unifying aspect to it all. "As above, so below." If we are conscious, so is everything in the Universe.

[Nomaster]

New age nonsense. No, not everything has consciousness.

[fluffy]

No, not everything has consciousness.

Certainly not on a level as sophisticated as humans, but physiological responses and even memory have been demonstrated in plants. There are areas of knowledge where science has barely scratched the surface.

[cliffy1]

My point is that the Universe is conscious, the Earth is conscious. Science has proven that the biosphere is a living organism of which we are just a minuscule part. Its consciousness is beyond our feeble awareness to comprehend and the Universe trillions of times more so. If you look at solar systems they appear to resemble atomic structures. It is possible that galaxies are like molecular structures. The Universe could be a giant being of infinite proportions and it is that being organized itself. But the infinite is beyond our finite minds to comprehend except in the most crude and fundamental way.

That is not new age nonsense. That is just my over active artist's imagination playing with quantum physics and mechanics.

[fluffy]

There's certainly no reason to discount any theory at this point in time, and science has been edging towards a grasp of the big picture with work on the unified field theory which, according to one physicist, would allow them to create "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God". When you get right down to it, to claim knowledge of the unknown be it for or against, is a shaky proposition at best. Some people like to approach these discussions from a believer/non-believer point of view when, if you take a step back for a minute the difference is more of an open minded/close-minded sort of thing.