Evolution vs. Creation

I think at least one person would disagree with you:

http://www.16pi2.com/binding_energy.htm

I suuuuck at chemistry, and I sucked in Chemistry in school. But the one thing I was fairly good at (when I remembered how to do them) were those chemical equations, where you draw diagrams of the atomic symbol with little dots or dashes around them to represent the number of electrons. Lewis Structures! I rocked the socks off of those things. From what I remember, electromagnetism (i.e. electrons) is a repulsive force when the atoms share the same number of electrons, but when one atom has too few electrons they can't neutralize the atom's protons' attractive force, and so the additional electrons of another atom compensate for the missing electrons of the first, binding the two atoms together. It's like plugging electrons into a socket, the socket being the space empty of electrons. Most atoms are in themselves deficient of some electrons, which is why the world isn't just a big old swirling mass of individual atoms. They are drawn together into molecules by their complimentary electrons/protons, and react rather violently when mankind attempts to split them apart.

Good old Wikipedia can explain it better than I can:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_Dot_Structure

Well, Emily, I respect the scientific viewpoints you point out. I have a slight problem with two things in the first one:

1. Neutrons are neutrally charged, neither positive nor negitive, so I fail to see how they factor in the "binding force of the neutron."

2. The word "possible" in the last line of the equation. Newton's laws of electricty are fairly straightforward when it comes to attraction and repulsion. With the amount of study done in the field of physics, there should be a "there is a variation due to proton discharge" or "no proton discharge of any measurable effect occurs."

I always loved physics myself and I often use this example. Physics lets me know that there is enough space between the molecues of a solid, such as my desk, and those of my hand, for them to pass through each other and not touch. Why can't I do it? I don't believe I can do it. As the sensi used to say, the difference is in your mind.

But it was just a question to turn our minds to science, because in this case, I think the first answer you give plausible. It doesn't quite feel right, but you don't base science on a feeling. Take care.

I am having one huge issue with our little quibble here. There is alot of quoting going on and why should we take these sources to be legitimate? No more "ethicalATHEIST" dot com quotes for sure.

Jollieollie vs. Greenburke
Jollieollie is correct that science accepts evolution as fact and we are working from there. I've seen many studies that make it hard to believe evolution isn't working. Therefore likewise as a scientist with a B.S. in biology and pursuing a Ph.D. in genetics I am in the camp that evolution exists and shapes species.

Greenburke is correct that evolution isn't bulletproof, and there are scientific minds, RECENT scientific minds, that believe it to be false. Though we choose not to listen to them as science always does.

Implications
I am going to assume that the debate is pretty much limited to chrisitan AMERICANS because i haven't noticed any other demographic really posting.

Has anyone read Nietzsche? Let me use him...
"God is dead, and you killed him" From The AntiChrist ~1888

Ok three points

1. If you want to be a creationist: you are an orthodox christain and you can't believe in evolution because it undermines the very foundation that christianity is set upon. That we are from adam, yadda yadda sin.. yadda yadda jesus. yadda yadda redemption.

2. If you want to be a evolutionist: you are an orthodox darwinian and you can't believe in creationism because it, well, it makes no logical sense now does it? Probably means you have to be agnostic otherwise you undermine darwin......

3. If you want to be in the middle, and I urge you never to be middle, but nevermind this is america, by the middle, for the middle, I will digress later about middle, you prescribe to the doctrine of Intelligent Design. What a happy little hybrid we play with here.. God created the species to freely evolve because we know they do evolve. The products we see were always something God conceived. Note:Orthodox Christian beware (refer to 1.)

So out of the three points we have only one option really left for a christian to believe.

Religion is screwed, and it's only natural for them to fight back. Jollieollie was wrong to congratulate Newtonian Physics, @#$% Sir Newton... To steal Decartes( in italian, because I don't know french or latin): "Esiste quindi lo sarà scoperto" ..It exists therefore it will be discovered *found!"

Religion cannot do that. Unless God comes down from Heaven and speaks to the masses as he likes to do in the first testament, religion has nothing for validation. I suppose I should wait for the day of Revelation to come...It might exist it might not...but in the end there is only faith.

Only Zarathustra shall read on
I have no problem with teaching religious things in school. Let them become privy to both sides! Let them weigh their evidence, and for themselves make their own decision! Do we raise SHEEP or do we raise children? Well then if it is infact children I propose to suggest that many are intelligent beings. Sure Sure, the middle are the impressionable and OH no if we lose their minds...To steal from Aldous Huxley.. they are off to be deltas and epsilons anyways...
At the same time I would not recommend trivializing anyones individual life. That's not the point. The point is that at the edges lies the best in society, somewhere I am sure that even I am not included. These are the people that will shape our ideas, religion, societies in the future.
These people are not the pedantic rabble, like us. ON this front Let there be orthodox religion and orthodox evolution... these are the opposing forces that keep the balance. It is opposing forces that MAINTAIN the precious middle that americans covet, and not only that... inspire CREATION. (i.e. cold war)

Sorry I'm ranting.. one more thing

no we are not going to go argue about more important things. @$%^ war, it is a necessary evil. Will you say that war is bad? Name a war, and i'll find something good from it! Plus I have just reread Sun Tzu and really ache to quote it...Let us argue beyond good and evil because nothing is more vague.

Just a couple things... :banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

1. Neutrons are neutrally charged, neither positive nor negitive, so I fail to see how they factor in the "binding force of the neutron."

---

I didn't say "neutrons," I said "protons." Neutrons prevent the protons from repelling each other... or something... they stick them together somehow. This is where I start sucking at chemistry. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

Physics lets me know that there is enough space between the molecues of a solid, such as my desk, and those of my hand, for them to pass through each other and not touch. Why can't I do it? I don't believe I can do it. As the sensi used to say, the difference is in your mind.

---

Mm... Well, I'm no scientist (as previously established), but instinct/reason/something tells me it has less to do with believing and more to do with the attractive forces binding the molecules of your hand and those of the desk, respectively. If they were all just swimming around in the atmosphere, enough for the hand-atoms to pass through the space between the desk-atoms, I don't see why they should be stuck together as hand and desk in the first place. Atoms are stuck together by electromagnetism, and they aren't just stuck together willy-nilly; one type of molecule won't just break apart to go swimming through another type of molecular bond, like your hand-through-desk example. If that were true, there would be an atomic explosion every time you touched your desk. The force holding the atoms together is too strong to break apart simply by touching another object.

Some scientists also speculate that the so-called "space" between atoms isn't space at all, but is made up of a forth kind of subatomic particle, neutrinos, which cannot be observed because simply looking at them produces enough force to move them; but I believe this theory is still being debated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

Just a couple things... :banana:

I didn't say "neutrons," I said "protons." Neutrons prevent the protons from repelling each other... or something... they stick them together somehow. This is where I start sucking at chemistry. :D

---

Ah, no, Emily, you didn't say "neutrons" at all. The guy at the site you posted for an example did. It was not you, m'dear, but he that I was questioning. He was giving neutrons a charge in his equation, but I've always learned they have none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

Mm... Well, I'm no scientist (as previously established), but instinct/reason/something tells me it has less to do with believing and more to do with the attractive forces binding the molecules of your hand and those of the desk, respectively.

---

Whoa-up! You are dangerously close to basing someting on a feeling! :lol: That's faith as I have been told ad nauseum, not science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

If that were true, there would be an atomic explosion every time you touched your desk. The force holding the atoms together is too strong to break apart simply by touching another object.

---

That's kinda my point. Why doesn't it? No real reason why they shouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emily655321

Some scientists also speculate that the so-called "space" between atoms isn't space at all, but is made up of a forth kind of subatomic particle, neutrinos, which cannot be observed because simply looking at them produces enough force to move them; but I believe this theory is still being debated.

---

Not to be difficult, but they have passed solids through each other in the lab, at etreme speeds without damage to either. And please, I mean absolutely no offense, I just wish to point something out. If I speak of God, whom I cannot see nor prove but speculate about what I believe He has done, is this so different from someone asking me to believe in "neutrinos" which they cannot see only speculate about, because just looking at them is enough to move them? :nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pendragon

If I speak of God, whom I cannot see nor prove but speculate about what I believe He has done, is this so different from someone asking me to believe in "neutrinos" which they cannot see only speculate about, because just looking at them is enough to move them? :nod:

---

It wouldn't be if you took the neutrino theory purely on faith, which I would discourage anyone from doing. There are tests which can, and must, be done before that idea will be accepted by the scientific community. The way we know electrons exist is not by seeing them, but that many experiments have been performed in which their behavior has been recorded. Their behavior can be predicted and reproduced again and again under laboratory conditions. This is the closest human beings can get to proving the existance of something so small, but the data suggests that it is so probable as to negate any reasonable debate on the matter. I find the idea of neutrinos to be intriguing, but I haven't heard of any such experiments regarding them. I do not place "belief" in them, and think such assumptions generally hurt the credibility of those scientists who would seek to test the hypothesis. There is a difference between speculating on an interesting idea and placing blind faith in it. If God would deign to participate in multiple lab experiments wherein his behavior could be predicted and reproduced again and again, perhaps then I would be more open to the idea. :p

As I have told others, I respect those who stand for what they believe. I've said my own piece on this topic long ago, and I'm sure not about to change my mind. As the game show says, "It's my final answer, Regius!" I believe that it took a creator to start things, not a series of accidents, but that everything from the smallest microbe to the largest lifeform has been forced to adapt to a changing world. That is what I call evolution. As for how long the creative process took, I simply don't know. I think that trying to place God into a timeline is not going to work. As far as I'm concerned, Biblical recorded time starts with the genelogies, after Adam and Eve left the garden. The time before that who knows? And I bow out of the conversation, still standing on what I believe. But science has it's place and it's function--to explore the unknown. Science you learn in school. I said before and I'll say again, if the churchs would do their job, teach the young about the Bible, about Creation, they would not have to argue about the private sector doing it for them. God bless you, one and all. :angel:

As I have told others, I respect those who stand for what they believe. I've said my own piece on this topic long ago, and I'm sure not about to change my mind. As the game show says, "It's my final answer, Reigus!" I believe that it took a creator to start things, not a series of accidents, but that everything from the smallest microbe to the largest lifeform has been forced to adapt to a changing world. That is what I call evolution. As for how long the creative process took, I simply don't know. I think that trying to place God into a timeline is not going to work. As far as I'm concerned, Biblical recorded time starts with the genelogies, after Adam and Eve left the garden. The time before that who knows? And I bow out of the conversation, still standing on what I believe. But science has it's place and it's function--to explore the unknown. Science you learn in school. I said before and I'll say again, if the churchs would do their job, teach the young about the Bible, about Creation, they would not have to argue about the private sector doing it for them. God bless you, one and all. :angel:

Pendragon, I also respect your assertions, and I respect you as a person for standing firmly on the belief which your gut tells you is right. You seem very knowledgeable in both religion and science, and I'm impressed by your ability to use your powers of both spirituality and reason so harmoniously in your approach to life, or at least to forum discussion. :D Peace, dude.

And peace be with you also, Emily. Perhaps, one more post. Long ago I was faced with being asked questions about things like evolution, and I soon learned that if you know nothing about the subject, it takes about ten seconds for someone to make you look foolish. So I decided then and there to learn about every controversy out there, from philosophy, science, or whatnot. In doing so, I learned that sometimes what we thing is so wrong is just the truth told in a different method. And I learned about the thing with which I disagreed, so that I could talk about them from a standpoint other than one which would be immediately rejected as "narrow-minded". Knowledge did not destroy my Christian belief. Any General who goes into war, even any sports team that is going to play another, first scouts the other out. You need to know. That why I'm never surprised that an Athiest has read the Bible. You need to know what the other will probably say. If you know nothing on the subject being discussed, you're just "a sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal" I Corinthians 13:1. And to all a Happy New Year! :D :thumbs_up :nod:

Well, I certainly came in on the tail end of a fascinating discussion.
I support the evolution camp.
Teaching 'intelligent design' in biology classrooms is an utter waste of everyone's time. Preach it in religious schools. Call it 'biblio-historical-cosmological-pseudo- science' or whatever you like. And while the 'Red States' continue to pore over ancient texts for the latest in scientific discovery, let the 'Blue States' simply get on with teaching the facts.
It has been eighty years since the Scopes trial.
Unfortunately, not all of us have evolved.

There is no debate. I see its been pretty dull around here since early January, recently after the US supreme court ruling. It appears that the dogmatic fundamentalists have run for cover amid the overtone that creationists cannot create or recreate everything or everyone in thier own image, whenever or wherever they want. Take a chill pill and realise
there is no debate. :banana:
I call myself jolly ollie because I know happily that there is no debate. the ollie part has nothing to do with oliver north; it is for Gandalfs name in Illuvitar, given to him by Eru the one.
ID has no place in science and I have come to lead you to a new debate; one that exists. Global warming, proliferation of the use of fossil fuels to the ultimate destruction of us all, creationists and evolutionists alike from the destruction of the ozone layer.
Under the misconception of ID the research in the following link would not be possible because the evidence would have never HAPPENED.
Try driving your gas guzzling sports utility vehicle through this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
CO2 and methane emissions have not been so high in 650,000 years. CO2 emissions are 30% higher, methane 130% higher. mean temperatures could rise as much as 6 degrees celcius in the next century, sea levels will rise 2mm every year.
The evidence is more than 645,000 years older than Moses

[QUOTE=Xamonas Chegwe]
When a catastrophic change occurs in the world environment, and certain humans are more suited to survive it than others, there will be an evolutionary step made. Currently, we are merely diversifying our genetic mix, widening the pool of phenotypes. This is the normal process according to Darwinian theory.
xxx[COLOR=Dark Red]xxx[/COLOR]

I would have to assume that you have read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and I respect that. I am also assuming, however, that you haven't read anything that disproves the Darwinian Theory. Now, being the year 2006, you can go to any sixth grade Life Science class (around the world) and every text book will state the Darwinian Theory wrong.

Since Darwin's time (a very simple time I might add) science and the understanding of life has advanced, far beyond what Darwin thought he knew by observing with only his eyes. We are capable of decyphering the code of a human DNA strand now, and with the knowhow of that it makes evolution, in anyway, shape, or form impossible.

The weak link simply does not survive, there is no evolving about it.

[QUOTE=niteskytwilight]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xamonas Chegwe

When a catastrophic change occurs in the world environment, and certain humans are more suited to survive it than others, there will be an evolutionary step made. Currently, we are merely diversifying our genetic mix, widening the pool of phenotypes. This is the normal process according to Darwinian theory.
xxx[COLOR=Dark Red]xxx[/COLOR]

I would have to assume that you have read "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin, and I respect that. I am also assuming, however, that you haven't read anything that disproves the Darwinian Theory. Now, being the year 2006, you can go to any sixth grade Life Science class (around the world) and every text book will state the Darwinian Theory wrong.

Since Darwin's time (a very simple time I might add) science and the understanding of life has advanced, far beyond what Darwin thought he knew by observing with only his eyes. We are capable of decyphering the code of a human DNA strand now, and with the knowhow of that it makes evolution, in anyway, shape, or form impossible.

The weak link simply does not survive, there is no evolving about it.

---

Oh my!
SO WHAT?
The issue here is not whether mother goose or Bobby Friggin Brady read the bloomin essay, dude( origin of species). You are getting yourself bogged down in useless jargon.
My point, if you had read it, is that this is an antiquated issue. Why not concentrate on the real debates that exist, like Alito on Abortion, US Wars in Iraq and abroad, crimes against humanity and specifically your role in destroying the ozone layer. What can you do to HELP, or are all IDer s too preoocupied with selfcentered gluttinous contempt for any version of nature that is not a cookie cutter copy of your King James bibles version. Have you read the origin of species? WHO CARES. Iam here only to lead the open and willing AWAY from this dumbass debate and on to greener pastures that yearn for inquirer minds.
The issue is ignorance, and how its unfair and sinister to people unbeknownst to it vile curses.
How little some evolve, even when they are spawned from pond water.

Some posts have been edited/or deleted due to flames/inflammatory content.

jollyollie, if you think this is such a "dumb" debate, please refrain from responding to it if you can't dredge up some amount of respect for what other individuals are trying to say.