NationStates Jolt Archive

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...

No. You are right it is BS. And they always back away from any real debate.

The world rides on the back of a giant turtle.

Duhh... :p

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7507710&postcount=257

:D :D :D

The world rides on the back of a giant turtle.

Duhh... :p

Well, technically, there's four elephants in between ;)

Well, technically, there's four elephants in between ;)
The real question is where the turtle is going....

lmao @ DiscWorld

The real question is where the turtle is going....

Really? I always thought it's gender was rather important :D

And they always back away from any real debate.

Indeed. I was arguing all this over with a friend of mine, he insists that it is evolution which has no evidence to back it! He honestly believes that overwhelming scientific evidence backs up Creation; he was unable to back his claims up properly. I was just told that he had a few thick books at home, which debunked evolution. Though rather amusingly, he hasn't read them (and admitted it!), but he has no doubt that since they were written by 'good' Christian 'scientists' it all must be true.

He is a good arguer, but at the end of the day he relies on using a bunch of big words and complex sentences to leave his opponent(s) dumbfound. In actuality he knows stuff all, saying stupid things like, 'we aren't descended from filthy monkies'. I told him to go read up on evolution, but he insisted he knew it all... the arrogance as well as ignorance of them!

The real question is where the turtle is going....


The turtle sees a bee that leads the world to peace, once it gets there.

The turtle is rather slow though, hence all this war.

The world rides on the back of a giant turtle.

Duhh... :p

No, the entire universe is nothing but a stack of turtles, extending on into infinity, and we are nothing but a mere firing of a synapse or the muscular twitch in the blink of an eye.

Indeed. I was arguing all this over with a friend of mine, he insists that it is evolution which has no evidence to back it! He honestly believes that overwhelming scientific evidence backs up Creation; he was unable to back his claims up properly. I was just told that he had a few thick books at home, which debunked evolution. Though rather amusingly, he hasn't read them (and admitted it!), but he has no doubt that since they were written by 'good' Christian 'scientists' it all must be true.

He is a good arguer, but at the end of the day he relies on using a bunch of big words and complex sentences to leave his opponent(s) dumbfound. In actuality he knows stuff all, saying stupid things like, 'we aren't descended from filthy monkies'. I told him to go read up on evolution, but he insisted he knew it all... the arrogance as well as ignorance of them!


funny thing is, the last issue of National Geographic just toched on the whole evolution debate. They found plenty of evidence for the the evolution side and laid it out thouroughly. You should give it to your friend.

BTW, good job on not being bamboozled.

The thing is, I've watched creationism videos, and if you don't know what they're actually talking about, it SOUNDS authentic.

Wanna know why so many people think creationism is scientifically founded? Because they're taught pure bullshit, that's why. It's wrapped up nicely, so they don't realize it's bullshit. But, well, it is.

funny thing is, the last issue of National Geographic just toched on the whole evolution debate. They found plenty of evidence for the the evolution side and laid it out thouroughly. You should give it to your friend.

lol! His brother actually has that magazine and we were trying to get him to read it, but he says he knows it all already :P.

His brother is an Old Earth Creationist, but at least accepts Evolution as a serious scientific theory. He reckons that adaptation is one thing, but Evolution is another. He told me that the article in National Geographic had plenty of evidence for adaptation but none/very little for Evolution.

lol! His brother actually has that magazine and we were trying to get him to read it, but he says he knows it all already :P.

His brother is an Old Earth Creationist, but at least accepts Evolution as a serious scientific theory. He reckons that adaptation is one thing, but Evolution is another. He told me that the article in National Geographic had plenty of evidence for adaptation but none/very little for Evolution.


Yeah, that's wrong. They should try reading it.

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...

Come on imagine God says right folks you can know stuff now so we discover it.
Maybe God made things evolve
Maybe if Humans know the Truth the world will explode you prepared to risk it?

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...

Yes you are right. The Creation people just basicly say the bible says your wrong or Science cant prove anything. They are all dumb asses

Maybe if Humans know the Truth the world will explode you prepared to risk it?

lol not that is being scared of the truth lol :D

Yes you are right. The Creation people just basicly say the bible says your wrong or Science cant prove anything. They are all dumb asses

Depends who their crowd is. If it's people ready to believe them or impressible kids, they use big, scientific sounding terms to make it sound like it's scientifically possible. I'll give creationists that-they're damn tricky bastards.

Depends who their crowd is. If it's people ready to believe them or impressible kids, they use big, scientific sounding terms to make it sound like it's scientifically possible. I'll give creationists that-they're damn tricky bastards.
I was in reference to the ones on this message board

Well, I know several intelligent and educated catholic persons. None of them think that evolution theory is wrong. They just say that the whole universe "project" was created by God and therefore the evolution of man was just determined by God beforehand.
Apart not being myself a believer, I'd say that at least these people are intelligent enough to not repel scientific evidence.

In any case, I don't think it's a problem of "demonstrating" the scientific soundness of Evolutionism.
Maybe in the next future we'll find scientific evidence that the "mechanism" is different.
The very problem is that "Creationists" do NOT have a scientific approach to it, whatever they say about proofs of their theory.
The fact is that they START form the belief in one theory and AFTERWARDS they look for proofs that demonstrate it. Any proof AGAINST it is discarded as false.
This approach completely deprives Creationism of any scientific credibility.

Well, I know several intelligent and educated catholic persons. None of them think that evolution theory is wrong. They just say that the whole universe "project" was created by God and therefore the evolution of man was just determined by God beforehand.
I went to Catholic schooling *cough* brainwashing *cough* for three years, and that's basically what I was taught.

I went to Catholic schooling *cough* brainwashing *cough* for three years, and that's basically what I was taught.

Yes, maybe. Please note that I did not say that all Catholic people are so intelligent, etc.

I'm Italian. Italy is motherland of Catholicism. However, here we NEVER see such extremist religious positions as in the USA! Or, if we have them, they are from such a tiny minority that they do not even have a national exposure.

Sometimes even the RCC seems rather progressive compared to other denominations, especially the more extreme american protestants.

BTW, good job on not being bamboozled.

Bamboozled? By the Creationist theory?
Sorry but in my mind there is no debate and nothing to be ‘bamboozled’ by; the Scientific Creationist theory is plain wrong – what possible scientific evidence could back this up? It is a millennia (or two) old theory, or, a better description, religious belief that has only recently, since the 1970s, had a ‘scientific’ element tacked on to it, in order to make it more credible.
Now, I’m not a bigot and I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religious expression, but this is an issue (apparently) of ‘scientific’ theory VS scientific theory – Creationism versus Evolutionism respectively – not a religious debate (apparently). As a religious belief, as far as I’m concerned, people can believe in whatever they want, be it Creationist theory or otherwise. However on the scientific arena this theory has no grounds whatsoever and fails in the face of the real scientific evidence of Evolutionist theory – thus a case against Creationist ‘scientific’ theory can be successfully made (& won) without disturbing people’s personal religious beliefs.
The fact that this issue is being raised with regard to Education is just sick – the Creationist theory should be taught in Religious classes, not Science classes, IMO.


Sorry – for a n00b that’s a pretty bold first post! (hi BTW)

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...

Well, from what I understand about Church policy, evolution's fine and dandy. However, the fact that it makes more sense than creationism doesn't make it right. My guess is that the church doesn't want evolution to be taught as fact quite yet. Toward that end, I suspect Creationism is just a handy challenger to the theory of evolution.

Hey Pure metal,welcome,great first post, could not agree more,well said. Love Lisa.

Bamboozled? By the Creationist theory?
Sorry but in my mind there is no debate and nothing to be ‘bamboozled’ by; the Scientific Creationist theory is plain wrong – what possible scientific evidence could back this up? It is a millennia (or two) old theory, or, a better description, religious belief that has only recently, since the 1970s, had a ‘scientific’ element tacked on to it, in order to make it more credible.
Now, I’m not a bigot and I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religious expression, but this is an issue (apparently) of ‘scientific’ theory VS scientific theory – Creationism versus Evolutionism respectively – not a religious debate (apparently). As a religious belief, as far as I’m concerned, people can believe in whatever they want, be it Creationist theory or otherwise. However on the scientific arena this theory has no grounds whatsoever and fails in the face of the real scientific evidence of Evolutionist theory – thus a case against Creationist ‘scientific’ theory can be successfully made (& won) without disturbing people’s personal religious beliefs.
The fact that this issue is being raised with regard to Education is just sick – the Creationist theory should be taught in Religious classes, not Science classes, IMO.


Sorry – for a n00b that’s a pretty bold first post! (hi BTW)


well read the whole thread. you'll find I am not a great fan of creationism either.

And welcome to the forum.

The only way to make the universe work is to combine the two. Without creation, evolution is impossible, but without evolution, creation is base. The only way to logically think about the matter is to consider a divine creation, followed by evolution guided by a supernatural hand. And screw the poor!

well read the whole thread. you'll find I am not a great fan of creationism either.

And welcome to the forum.

thanks and sorry - didnt mean to paint you as a creationist... i just liked the word 'bamboozled' :)

thanks and sorry - didnt mean to paint you as a creationist... i just liked the word 'bamboozled' :)

I like it too.

And no problem. Have a good time here.

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...

I agree with you -- did I make your day? lol

If I ever decide to have children (which is my choice -- er, that goes in a different thread lol) I don't want them to be forced to study anything smelling of creationism -- or Christianity in general.

I agree with you -- did I make your day? lol

If I ever decide to have children (which is my choice -- er, that goes in a different thread lol) I don't want them to be forced to study anything smelling of creationism -- or Christianity in general.
So your telling me that you dont want your kids studying the Constitution which in fact was formed on Christian principles

Creationism is a made up story from a time when we couldnt explain how and why we got here. You want evidence? Look at the fossil record, how old the Earth is, Big Bang theory... the list goes on. Schools dont teach any other religions ideas on creation so why should children be subjected to christian theories on it? Evolution is the ONLY one that has evidence. Unless you can prove the existance of God then you cant prove creationism.

Sorry – for a n00b that’s a pretty bold first post! (hi BTW)
Don't apologize. Your point is as valid as everyone elses. I can't understand why some posters dislike n00bs so visciously; it's not like they're any less intelligent.

Welcome to the board.

So your telling me that you dont want your kids studying the Constitution which in fact was formed on Christian principles

No -- I'm saying I don't want my kids studying C R E A T I O N I S M.
Show me in the Constitution where it says "let there be light..."

So your telling me that you dont want your kids studying the Constitution which in fact was formed on Christian principles

Tell you what -- I wouldn't mind my kids studying creationism as long as it is filed away with the other fairy tales, like Snow White and Cinderella. Maybe Disney should make a clever film about it, complete with songs and animated fish. How about calling it "Finding Bullshit."
Maybe it will make it to the ice capades eventually.
Heh.

I don't know why there's so much debate. You cannot prove that creationism is wrong. You can't because you cannot recreate the world. I choose to believe the evidence that supports creationism and you don't, but you don't have to go stepping all about my beleifs when I have just as much if not MORE proof than you do.

I don't know why there's so much debate. You cannot prove that creationism is wrong. You can't because you cannot recreate the world. I choose to believe the evidence that supports creationism and you don't, but you don't have to go stepping all about my beleifs when I have just as much if not MORE proof than you do.

So what is your proof?

Here's an idea, let's not teach creation or evolution. Both are theories, thus none have proof of eithers existence. Let's make totally elective courses on both in our schools so we can stop insulting each others religious and non religious beliefs. We will never know the truth in this matter, so lets just agree to disagree.

Creationists and the modern evangelical church have learnt the tricks and skills of the cults of the 60s.

their 'brainwashing' techniques include basic psychology 101, and creationism is no different from the babble of greco roman mythos, Egyption mythos etc.

I believe there is a lot of good in a document like the bible, and many of the ethics, laws, morales we base our society on, comes from the bible, the code of justinian, roman principles, british common law etc, and forms a fair basis of our society.

HOWEVER the bible has been used to justify apartheid by the whites in South Africa, the slaughter of romanies and jews by the Nazis, the jim crow laws in the bible belt etc in recent times, and anti semitic laws and practices through the middle ages in europe etc.

similarly other religions have had wars fought over the 'interpretation' of passages.

the fact that there are idiots or sheep at best, who believe in creationism is a worrying trend, and the fact that they teach this rubbish as 'fact' is a sad reflection on society. You might as well teach rutherfords atom as FACT, or phlogiston as FACT or anything else as FACT if you really want to, get them young enough, and many will be indoctrinated.

I grew up with a mother who was RC and a dad who was evangelical (Christmas new years period was one church service after another :( ), the RCs father would make an attempt to answer questions, but the pentacostal pastor treated every question with a dodge, said I should read the bible and cautioned my parents.

I was a geneticist for a while, and I remember going one sunday and copping a sermon on why that branch of science was evil, basically because they were pig ignorant retards and the promulgate that information.

just as the RC church like to limit access to information and education 1000 years ago, the pentacostals are preaching ignorance, supporessing information, lying to their sheep and gaining in power, whihc is pretty much what they want.

the Family first party in Australia, who are basically the fruitloop Assemblies of god, got two senators up in our upper house and are advocating teaching creationism as a fact, banning stem cell research and limiting govt funding to govt schools.

keep the folks ignorant and thus you have power over them. teach them to think for themselves and your power over them erodes.

indsiduous and a crime against children to teach them creationism. I have no problems in teaching them say the history as portrayed in the bible, or the life of JC and his parables, which serve as a good training aid, but teach the bible as a factual document and you are seriously messing wth the minds of kids.

PS Did the children of adam and eve commit incest???

Here in the U.K we do not teach Religion as fact, and I as a Theology Student know that teaching the bible is about as consistent as teaching Mao's red Book (which believe me is probably the worst written pile of crap ever). The fact of the matter is Carbon dating and the like is proven science I can go into an argument about carbon 14 decay and how it works if you want me to but. The bible sets the creation of the world at yes in solar years 6000-4000 years ago, Carbon dating amongst other sources as Geology Climatology ect all support that in fact the each is roughly 4-5 Billion Years old. Creation science is wrong, ffs the whole argument can be argued down violently to "ok God created us, who created god?" To which the creationist will spout some crap about the uncaused cause which is wholly ridiculous in its entirety. ITS A FREAKING PARADOX! The entire idea of Causation is the product of to date a failure in human understanding of the Physical world. The idea of a cause in its self is merely antiquated concept that has no place what so ever in quantum mechanics or any modern theory.
As for evolution, yes it is a theory not a law, but there is a air craft carrier more weight to it than even a strongly proven theory such as global warming hell we have a better understanding of it than most of the bloody bible. If any one who actually argued the creation story, and yes I do know it. Took the time to sit down and read a paper or two on evolution from a respectable university or even the Origin of Species its self. They would quite honestly take a giant retrospective look at there beliefs.

Rant Over

Ignorance is this worlds greatest cancer, and my biggest pet peeve.

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...
True … also want to note that creation science is not a science

Reason:

Scientific method … you have an object or effect … you make a hypothesis on how it will react/fare whatever … you do testing
As data comes in you modify the hypothesis to fit the data … continually refining it and attempting to get more data


Religion (creationism)
They start with not a hypothesis but rather almost a conclusion
As data comes in they do NOT modify it … because it is not possible for it to be fallible so either the data is flawed or misinterpreted (to them) so they cherry pick the data or ignore it all together

So it does not follow the scientific method
So cant be science

So your telling me that you dont want your kids studying the Constitution which in fact was formed on Christian principles
really? only 3 of the 10 Commandments are in any way recognized by American law, and those three are principles shared by pretty much every major religious or ethical school of thought (prohibitions against theft, murder, and dishonesty). God was specifically voted OUT of the US Constitution, an active decision by the framers not just an oversight, so if they wanted to found a country on Christian principles then why would they have deliberately omitted God from the works?

I don't know why there's so much debate. You cannot prove that creationism is wrong. You can't because you cannot recreate the world. I choose to believe the evidence that supports creationism and you don't, but you don't have to go stepping all about my beleifs when I have just as much if not MORE proof than you do.
you don't have any proof at all. you have one particular interpretation of evidence, and that evidence supports other possibilities much more strongly.

the debate is also over why CHRISTIAN Creationism should be taught in schools, as opposed to the Creation myths of any of the other hundreds of religious and spiritual groups in the world. why should we give special recognition to Christian fables while ignoring those of other faiths? how does the evidence support Christian Creationism more than it supports any other Creation myth?

So what is your proof?

www.creationevidence.org

This man has been studying this subject for YEARS. He knows far more than I do and I will leave it up to you to research. It's not my responsibility to go around educating or prooving things to you, if you really want to not be brainwashed, if you really want to be a freethinking find it for your self. Study it on your own time and find out who sounds better.

It's as simple as that. Find out.

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...
Well YOU cannot disprove creationism and YOU cannot prove evolution soooo YOU can have YOUR beliefs and I can have MINE!! Works great for me. :D

Enjoy life while YOU can. :eek:

www.creationevidence.org

This man has been studying this subject for YEARS. He knows far more than I do and I will leave it up to you to research. It's not my responsibility to go around educating or prooving things to you, if you really want to not be brainwashed, if you really want to be a freethinking find it for your self. Study it on your own time and find out who sounds better.

It's as simple as that. Find out.
Lol that’s rich … someone coming from the religious side of the argument accusing the science side of being brainwashed

Well YOU cannot disprove creationism and YOU cannot prove evolution soooo YOU can have YOUR beliefs and I can have MINE!! Works great for me. :D

Enjoy life while YOU can. :eek:
Lol can not disprove it because it is put in a context of “not being understandable” to humans

Lets attribute things to a being we can understand … have never met … don’t know if , where , how , when exists

Then ask the thinkers to try to disprove it :)

Creationists and the modern evangelical church have learnt the tricks and skills of the cults of the 60s.

their 'brainwashing' techniques include basic psychology 101, and creationism is no different from the babble of greco roman mythos, Egyption mythos etc.

I believe there is a lot of good in a document like the bible, and many of the ethics, laws, morales we base our society on, comes from the bible, the code of justinian, roman principles, british common law etc, and forms a fair basis of our society.

HOWEVER the bible has been used to justify apartheid by the whites in South Africa, the slaughter of romanies and jews by the Nazis, the jim crow laws in the bible belt etc in recent times, and anti semitic laws and practices through the middle ages in europe etc.

similarly other religions have had wars fought over the 'interpretation' of passages.

the fact that there are idiots or sheep at best, who believe in creationism is a worrying trend, and the fact that they teach this rubbish as 'fact' is a sad reflection on society. You might as well teach rutherfords atom as FACT, or phlogiston as FACT or anything else as FACT if you really want to, get them young enough, and many will be indoctrinated.

I grew up with a mother who was RC and a dad who was evangelical (Christmas new years period was one church service after another :( ), the RCs father would make an attempt to answer questions, but the pentacostal pastor treated every question with a dodge, said I should read the bible and cautioned my parents.

I was a geneticist for a while, and I remember going one sunday and copping a sermon on why that branch of science was evil, basically because they were pig ignorant retards and the promulgate that information.

just as the RC church like to limit access to information and education 1000 years ago, the pentacostals are preaching ignorance, supporessing information, lying to their sheep and gaining in power, whihc is pretty much what they want.

the Family first party in Australia, who are basically the fruitloop Assemblies of god, got two senators up in our upper house and are advocating teaching creationism as a fact, banning stem cell research and limiting govt funding to govt schools.

keep the folks ignorant and thus you have power over them. teach them to think for themselves and your power over them erodes.

indsiduous and a crime against children to teach them creationism. I have no problems in teaching them say the history as portrayed in the bible, or the life of JC and his parables, which serve as a good training aid, but teach the bible as a factual document and you are seriously messing wth the minds of kids.

PS Did the children of adam and eve commit incest???

"HOWEVER the bible has been used to justify apartheid by the whites in South Africa, the slaughter of romanies and jews by the Nazis, the jim crow laws in the bible belt etc in recent times, and anti semitic laws and practices through the middle ages in europe etc."


So you will allow the minorites of a Church to decide your opinions on the Church? Would you say Muslims are bad? I mean lots of Muslim groups kill people? Are they bad, evil, people? No not really.. just the readical groups that use their beliefs to cause harm?

Right?

Don't let small groups change the idea of the big groups.

PS Yes they did. Back then it wasn't bad because people were created perfect.

True … also want to note that creation science is not a science

Reason:

Scientific method … you have an object or effect … you make a hypothesis on how it will react/fare whatever … you do testing
As data comes in you modify the hypothesis to fit the data … continually refining it and attempting to get more data


Religion (creationism)
They start with not a hypothesis but rather almost a conclusion
As data comes in they do NOT modify it … because it is not possible for it to be fallible so either the data is flawed or misinterpreted (to them) so they cherry pick the data or ignore it all together

So it does not follow the scientific method
So cant be science

Not all scientist start out as creationist. There have been many atheist who have studied it, used their huge knowledge and realized that evolutionism isn't right. And in the process of trying to disprove creationism, proved it to themselves and got saved.

"HOWEVER the bible has been used to justify apartheid by the whites in South Africa, the slaughter of romanies and jews by the Nazis, the jim crow laws in the bible belt etc in recent times, and anti semitic laws and practices through the middle ages in europe etc."


So you will allow the minorites of a Church to decide your opinions on the Church? Would you say Muslims are bad? I mean lots of Muslim groups kill people? Are they bad, evil, people? No not really.. just the readical groups that use their beliefs to cause harm?

Right?

Don't let small groups change the idea of the big groups.

PS Yes they did. Back then it wasn't bad because people were created perfect.

Um perfect? ... when in the garden it can be assumed they were but I believe that ended with that whole apple eating incident … so their children would be born into a non perfect world and not perfect themselves

Not all scientist start out as creationist. There have been many atheist who have studied it, used their huge knowledge and realized that evolutionism isn't right. And in the process of trying to disprove creationism, proved it to themselves and got saved.
But that’s the thing … evolution IS flawed
Because it is still a THEORY
That’s what’s nice about science … as more facts come in the improve the hypothesis

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...
First, there is no need to be rude.
Calling someones beliefs Bullsh!t becaue you dont believe that way is immature and greatly reduces your chances of them even considering listening to your side of the arguement.
Second(As I have said before in the countless threads dedicated to this beaten to death discussion)
I am a devoted Christian(Born Again)
I believe that the bible supports evolution--I dont feel like getting into why.
I do not believe in Creation Science because by its very nature it is not science.
Also by its very nature it defies faith--If you have faith in God you do not need to seek proof-Creation Science therefore is based on a 'lack of faith' and not 'on faith'.
Creationism is simply not a science, theory or otherwise.
It is a theological position, and assumption in the philosophical world-not a science.
I believe God created man--Does that mean I dont believe in evolution, or something like it? NO, because the God I believe in is perfectly capable of using the Natural laws he created as his tools.
There should be no arguement about whether or not Creationism is a science--it is not. It is absurd to argue otherwise and any Christian who does should be ashamed of himself for not using the brain God gave him. On that same measure however, Evolution is a theory and I am entirely sick of these people who think its a fact that has been empirically proven--it has not.
It is a group of ideas that have a fairly abundant amount of information supporting something like it being a reality. Evolution is Probable, Creation is definate, just not like these Creationists claim--
If a Creationist would like to begin quoting scripture-let me start.
Read the Creation in Genesis--it follows the Evolutionary path.
Also many places in the Bible is it mentioned that we do not know "God's Time"
A day to a thousand years, a thousand years to a day.
Let go of the six day thing, really, please.
Even if you are right, you shouldnt need proof--that is faithless.

I believe there was a case like this in the 1930s. Creationism was under threat even back then. (but don't quote me on this, because I can't find the material reference right now).

Creationsist brought their case to their courts, challenging the schools that taught Darwin's theories about natural selection. Their claim was that all material evidence (fossils, for example) could be used to explain a creationsist viewpoint and that Creationism ought to be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution.

Well, the courts heard their case (creation science) and then heard the evolution crowd and their theories. But at the end of the day, a single question was asked to both sides: "Can you, believing this theory as being scientific, keep your objectivity and acknowledge the possibility that it is false".

Those defending evolution said: "Yes, it is very well possible that the theory of evolution is false, and upon collecting enough empirical evidence to support it's false nature, we would have to concede in another theory"

Those defending creationsim said: "Not on your life. There is no way that creationsim is false".

As such, the courts ruled that evolution was the only theory of the two that was actually scientific, and so the alternate scientific method of creation was dismissed as religious doctrine not to be taught in state-sponsored schools.

Well YOU cannot disprove creationism and YOU cannot prove evolution soooo YOU can have YOUR beliefs and I can have MINE!! Works great for me. :D

Enjoy life while YOU can. :eek:

Can you disprove the fact that I am a giant turtle and that your entire universe is in my back? (seriously)
The whole point of this thread is that science is not a belief, it is based in facts. Religion is a belief and believe in it as you want, but, ignoring science and trying to make religion look scientific is BS. Worst yet is trying to teach at school that religion = science. That´s more then BS, that´s a danger to all mankind.

www.creationevidence.org

This man has been studying this subject for YEARS. He knows far more than I do and I will leave it up to you to research. It's not my responsibility to go around educating or prooving things to you, if you really want to not be brainwashed, if you really want to be a freethinking find it for your self. Study it on your own time and find out who sounds better.

It's as simple as that. Find out.
I did waste several of my minutes looking through said website - and I would like them back, thank you very much.
It's based on nothing more than partial truths (at best), items taken out of context, single examples (while ignoring anything that disproves him, dismissing it as scientific propaganda) and incredibly out-dated references to back up completely false and outrageous claims.
For example, he claims that Mammoths weren't suited or developed for cold environments and were wiped out due to a massive flood rather than climate change. He uses a 1887 article entitled "The Mammoth and the Flood" to back up his claim.
Another example:
His explanantion of Carbon dating, and why it can give us a time line older than the Earth (of 6000 years remember)? Simple -
"...Presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years"
Great isn't it? To justify your hypothesis, you create a new set of parameters that can't possibly be measured and then use this new set as justification/proof of your theory.

'Balderdash', as the Victorians would say.
'Complete shit', as my more contemporaries would.

First, there is no need to be rude.
Calling someones beliefs Bullsh!t becaue you dont believe that way is immature and greatly reduces your chances of them even considering listening to your side of the arguement.
Second(As I have said before in the countless threads dedicated to this beaten to death discussion)
I am a devoted Christian(Born Again)
I believe that the bible supports evolution--I dont feel like getting into why.
I do not believe in Creation Science because by its very nature it is not science.
Also by its very nature it defies faith--If you have faith in God you do not need to seek proof-Creation Science therefore is based on a 'lack of faith' and not 'on faith'.
Creationism is simply not a science, theory or otherwise.
It is a theological position, and assumption in the philosophical world-not a science.
I believe God created man--Does that mean I dont believe in evolution, or something like it? NO, because the God I believe in is perfectly capable of using the Natural laws he created as his tools.
There should be no arguement about whether or not Creationism is a science--it is not. It is absurd to argue otherwise and any Christian who does should be ashamed of himself for not using the brain God gave him. On that same measure however, Evolution is a theory and I am entirely sick of these people who think its a fact that has been empirically proven--it has not.
It is a group of ideas that have a fairly abundant amount of information supporting something like it being a reality. Evolution is Probable, Creation is definate, just not like these Creationists claim--
If a Creationist would like to begin quoting scripture-let me start.
Read the Creation in Genesis--it follows the Evolutionary path.
Also many places in the Bible is it mentioned that we do not know "God's Time"
A day to a thousand years, a thousand years to a day.
Let go of the six day thing, really, please.
Even if you are right, you shouldnt need proof--that is faithless.

Thank you … you are defiantly enlightened
(not meaning to be sarcastic)
I think creationism is great taught as a study class (hell I had a bible as lit class back in high school and loved it) because it encouraged people to think about things a bit

But as much as some people would like it creationism is not a science … and should not be taught as an alternative to a scientific theory in a science class (specially not in a required class sort of setting … my bible lit class was an elective)

I did waste several of my minutes looking through said website - and I would like them back, thank you very much.
It's based on nothing more than partial truths (at best), items taken out of context, single examples (while ignoring anything that disproves him, dismissing it as scientific propaganda) and incredibly out-dated references to back up completely false and outrageous claims.
For example, he claims that Mammoths weren't suited or developed for cold environments and were wiped out due to a massive flood rather than climate change. He uses a 1887 article entitled "The Mammoth and the Flood" to back up his claim.
Another example:
His explanantion of Carbon dating, and why it can give us a time line older than the Earth (of 6000 years remember)? Simple -
"...Presence of a water canopy, would have lowered the amount of C14 in the pre-Flood world. Because pre-Flood specimens had so little carbon-14 in them, some might appear to have been decaying for tens of thousands of years"
Great isn't it? To justify your hypothesis, you create a new set of parameters that can't possibly be measured and then use this new set as justification/proof of your theory.

'Balderdash', as the Victorians would say.
'Complete shit', as my more contemporaries would.

I would also like my time back :) ridiculous … specially when he comes no where close to how carbon dating actually works lol

If you would like to waste some more time try this site … which covers most of the other authors points also :)

http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/evolutin.htm
(I just love one of their opening quotes “TO YOU TEACHERS OF EVOLUTION-- A QUESTION
Are you mentally handicapped in any other area?” lol

Can you disprove the fact that I am a giant turtle and that your entire universe is in my back? (seriously)
The whole point of this thread is that science is not a belief, it is based in facts. Religion is a belief and believe in it as you want, but, ignoring science and trying to make religion look scientific is BS. Worst yet is trying to teach at school that religion = science. That´s more then BS, that´s a danger to all mankind.
I can't disprove that anymore than you can disprove creation. Why knock yourself out?

Have a great day, unless you have made other plans?

The biggest thing you have to remember about the bible (I'm Roman Catholic, go to a Catholic school, and have studied the bible under one of the most respected religious scholars in the US) is that while it is truth (according to the Church, at least), it is not literal truth. After all, how many of us believe that Abraham lived to be nearly a thousand years old?

www.creationevidence.org

This man has been studying this subject for YEARS. He knows far more than I do and I will leave it up to you to research. It's not my responsibility to go around educating or prooving things to you, if you really want to not be brainwashed, if you really want to be a freethinking find it for your self. Study it on your own time and find out who sounds better.

It's as simple as that. Find out.

I went and had a look at this site and found it to be a typical American hodge podge of brainwash material and science bashing.
In order to prove any theory you need solid evidence, like carbon dating etc.

Creationism is Christianity behaving like like Scientologists, "lets fill the buggers heads with nonesense and then fleece them"
The web site mentioned above is more about getting donations than any actual scientific facts about creationism.

I went and had a look at this site and found it to be a typical American hodge podge of brainwash material and science bashing.
In order to prove any theory you need solid evidence, like carbon dating etc.

Creationism is Christianity behaving like like Scientologists, "lets fill the buggers heads with nonesense and then fleece them"
The web site mentioned above is more about getting donations than any actual scientific facts about creationism.
Lol I happen to agree but did you HAVE to thrown in the America bashing ... honestly

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...

I don't see what's to "scientific" about evolution. Evolution is one-tenth bad science, nine-tenths bad philosophy.

Im to lazy to read all the post so im probly behind lol. Anyway i believe there is a creator BUT he made us with the ability to evol into what we are today. there is just to much seintific evedeince to back up evolution and all the creator has is a book LOL.

Just lay off man, people are entitled to their opinions, even if they are wrong. You don't connect with people by insulting them and their views. You connect with people through rational discussion that slowly leads up to your crescendo at defeating their points of view, not calling their points of view stupid.

I do agree that creationism isn't right though. Evolution has evidence, and that's what I see.

The biggest thing you have to remember about the bible (I'm Roman Catholic, go to a Catholic school, and have studied the bible under one of the most respected religious scholars in the US) is that while it is truth (according to the Church, at least), it is not literal truth. After all, how many of us believe that Abraham lived to be nearly a thousand years old?


Tens of millions of americans believe that Abraham lived to be 1000 years old.

The barbarian aspects of christianity in the US actually invent biological histories of the human race based upon snippets from the bible.

It is *common* to hear mainstream christians in the US refer offhand to the "fact" that people "used to live alot longer than they do now."

you don't have any proof at all. you have one particular interpretation of evidence, and that evidence supports other possibilities much more strongly.

the debate is also over why CHRISTIAN Creationism should be taught in schools, as opposed to the Creation myths of any of the other hundreds of religious and spiritual groups in the world. why should we give special recognition to Christian fables while ignoring those of other faiths? how does the evidence support Christian Creationism more than it supports any other Creation myth?

very good point dude

The biggest thing you have to remember about the bible (I'm Roman Catholic, go to a Catholic school, and have studied the bible under one of the most respected religious scholars in the US) is that while it is truth (according to the Church, at least), it is not literal truth. After all, how many of us believe that Abraham lived to be nearly a thousand years old?
Could you please name this scholar that I may write him a letter to confirm that you are correctly relating his understandings?

Tens of millions of americans believe that Abraham lived to be 1000 years old.

The barbarian aspects of christianity in the US actually invent biological histories of the human race based upon snippets from the bible.

It is *common* to hear mainstream christians in the US refer offhand to the "fact" that people "used to live alot longer than they do now."
Barbarian?
How very insipid of you to allude by your use of that particular word that you are of a more civilised ilk.

True … also want to note that creation science is not a science

Reason:

Scientific method … you have an object or effect … you make a hypothesis on how it will react/fare whatever … you do testing
As data comes in you modify the hypothesis to fit the data … continually refining it and attempting to get more data


Religion (creationism)
They start with not a hypothesis but rather almost a conclusion
As data comes in they do NOT modify it … because it is not possible for it to be fallible so either the data is flawed or misinterpreted (to them) so they cherry pick the data or ignore it all together

So it does not follow the scientific method
So cant be science
(Bold added)

From what I remember of the scientific method from jr. high, there was a step that had to do with experimenting or testing. Also, the experiments had to be done in such a way as to be repeated any number of times. How can you test in a controlled environment that which, by its very nature cannot be controlled: the creation of the world or even the development of a species that has already developed. Now, granted, I have but a meager understanding of science, but I don't see how anything that can't really be tested and re-tested per the scientific method can really be called scientific. This goes for both sides. Sure, both sides have evidence / brainwashing / whatever, but does evidence alone make something scientific? I may be wrong on this, but I alway thought that the testing part of the scientific method was pretty important.
That's all I have to say about that.

Oh, and there's way too many people using "lol" on this thread. I hate that.

Could you please name this scholar that I may write him a letter to confirm that you are correctly relating his understandings?


Rather not give you his name without his permission. He's written a few textbooks, teaches classes at my school (I had him for Old Testament and Religions of the World). A very intelligent man. Been to Israel, Japan, and (I think) India. Knows more about any religion I can name than most priests/rabbis/monks/(insert job here) that I've met. I'll see what I can do about getting his permission.

According to Vatican II, the bible is more a metaphor than actual historic fact. Will look for link to V2 for those doubting Thomases among us (And yes I realize that V2 only applied to Catholics).

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...

Actually you are absolutely right. There is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. Of course my sofa cannot stack up to a 747 as an airplane either.

Creation is not a scientific theory. Those that try to make it one are rather silly, in my opinion. The idea of Creation (be it the literal biblical idea of Creation or just a belief that there was a creation event) is founded on the idea that there is a God.

The whole concept of God is that of a power beyond proof, reason, understanding or explaination. The concept of God, by its very nature is not proveable, nor disproveable. It's sort of like "love" if you'll forgive the tangent. You can not prove "love". Yet it exisits...or does it? The point being there are things in this world that are reasonable, proveable, explainable, etc... Science is a tool to sort those things out.

There are other things that can not be reasoned or explained (at least not yet), so we as humans choose a belief...a faith. One faith is that all the unexplainable is merely beyond our current knowledge and will someday be understood once our science "catches up". One faith is that some things will always be unreasonable and beyond knowledge, because they transcend science and reason.

Even the most die-hard atheist is relying on faith.

That being said, evolution is a scientific theory. Is it exact? No, thus the theory part. But as a widely accepted theory (even people who believe in God widely accept evolutionary theory), it has a place in academia. Creationism (and the concept of God) is not a scientific theory. It is not even one specific idea. It is a matter of faith and thus belongs nowhere near a science text book.

Oh, and there's way too many people using "lol" on this thread. I hate that.

Including you now! :D :headbang:

(Bold added)

From what I remember of the scientific method from jr. high, there was a step that had to do with experimenting or testing. Also, the experiments had to be done in such a way as to be repeated any number of times. How can you test in a controlled environment that which, by its very nature cannot be controlled: the creation of the world or even the development of a species that has already developed. Now, granted, I have but a meager understanding of science, but I don't see how anything that can't really be tested and re-tested per the scientific method can really be called scientific. This goes for both sides. Sure, both sides have evidence / brainwashing / whatever, but does evidence alone make something scientific? I may be wrong on this, but I alway thought that the testing part of the scientific method was pretty important.
That's all I have to say about that.

You actually can test evolution. You just need something with a short enough generational cycle and a sealed environment to test this. If traits that help the lifeform survive in the environment become widespread and varients of the lifeform without traits begin to die off, you've just proved evolution. So all you need is some amoebas, a way to keep an environment static, and a year or so to burn.

Good example of evolution: Bacterial diseases cause many deaths, until penicillin is discovered. For years, penicillin is prescribed for almost anything. Bacterial diseases are no longer a worry. However, after a few decades, we discover that many strains of bacteria are now resistant to penicillin. Due to penicillin killing off those bacteriums that are vulnerable to penicillin, those mutated bacteriums that were resistant or immune to the effects of penicillin were able to become dominant in their environment. Thus those bacteriums that evolved resistances are now spread across the world, while the non-resistant bacteriums have been virtually eliminated.

You actually can test evolution. You just need something with a short enough generational cycle and a sealed environment to test this. If traits that help the lifeform survive in the environment become widespread and varients of the lifeform without traits begin to die off, you've just proved evolution. So all you need is some amoebas, a way to keep an environment static, and a year or so to burn.

Good example of evolution: Bacterial diseases cause many deaths, until penicillin is discovered. For years, penicillin is prescribed for almost anything. Bacterial diseases are no longer a worry. However, after a few decades, we discover that many strains of bacteria are now resistant to penicillin. Due to penicillin killing off those bacteriums that are vulnerable to penicillin, those mutated bacteriums that were resistant or immune to the effects of penicillin were able to become dominant in their environment. Thus those bacteriums that evolved resistances are now spread across the world, while the non-resistant bacteriums have been virtually eliminated.
Natural experiments, where you retrospectively examine evidence and try to determine underlying factors, are also a valid method of scientific enquiry. You have to be more careful about controls, and interpretation can be less definitive. But they are legitimate, especially when used in bulk and over time to build up a consensus view. I'm no expert, but I suspect that it's this method that underlies much of evolutionary theory, rather than 'hard' science-type predictive experiments of the type you describe. (Though they're good, too.)

So shut up already! That goes for everyone. (http://omgwtf.superlime.com/7569e4ae19e329d50c8c596ff947153e/arguing.jpg)

creationism is not science plain and simple.

science uses empirical techniques to observe measure and test so that a hypothesis can be proved or disproved.

creationism does not do that.

it should not be taught at school except maybe in religion studies.

Dogbert: My theory is that every species that ever existed is still here and they are just hiding....

Rather not give you his name without his permission. He's written a few textbooks, teaches classes at my school (I had him for Old Testament and Religions of the World). A very intelligent man. Been to Israel, Japan, and (I think) India. Knows more about any religion I can name than most priests/rabbis/monks/(insert job here) that I've met. I'll see what I can do about getting his permission.

According to Vatican II, the bible is more a metaphor than actual historic fact. Will look for link to V2 for those doubting Thomases among us (And yes I realize that V2 only applied to Catholics).
You know what nevermind I am just in a foul mood.

Dogbert: My theory is that every species that ever existed is still here and they are just hiding....

In your closet or under your bed?

=)

www.creationevidence.org

OK, here's an example. He says...
"II. Decay Ratios
When the ratio of uranium decay to its decay product (lead) is analyzed, the conclusion is drawn that all the logs within the various geologic formations were buried at the same time. The high lead-to-uranium ratios admit the possibility that both the initial uranium infiltration and the coalification could possibly have occurred within the past several thousand years."

Simply wrong. A high lead:uranium ratio means that extremely long times have elapsed, because it takes a long time for uranium to decay to lead. He's got it completely backwards. A high uranium:lead ratio would support his argument, not the other way round.

That took me about 30 seconds to find - and I passed several more mistakes on the way to that one, though they're more complex to explain to numpties who believe this stuff in the first place.

I don't see what's to "scientific" about evolution. Evolution is one-tenth bad science, nine-tenths bad philosophy.Evidence, please?

www.creationevidence.org

This man has been studying this subject for YEARS. He knows far more than I do and I will leave it up to you to research. It's not my responsibility to go around educating or prooving things to you, if you really want to not be brainwashed, if you really want to be a freethinking find it for your self. Study it on your own time and find out who sounds better.

It's as simple as that. Find out.

Ewww man what a place.

That site just confirms a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I particularly like the DNA anology. A watermelon and a jellyfish share 98% of DNA since they are primarily water.

The Lucy stuff is a freqent misrepresentation

Ahh well. Nice try though....

www.creationevidence.org And here's another load of bollocks...

"2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field... Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.4 Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth's magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the atoms necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth's entire history is young, within a few thousand of years."

Simply untrue. There is evidence of repeated change in the magnetic field of the earth spread over billions of years. When rocks crystalise they retain an imprint of the magnetic field present at the time, both of the magnitude and orientation. Stack up a selection of rocks in chronological order and you can see the magnetic field flip-flop every few tens of thousand years. Near these sudden transitions there is considerable evidence of the field tailing off beforehand.

Again, he says...
"4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year. Practicable application of growth rate throughout human history would be about half that number. Wars, disease, famine, etc. have wiped out approximately one third of the population on average every 82 years. Starting with eight people, and applying these growth rates since the Flood of Noah's day (about 4500 years ago) would give a total human population at just under six billion people. However, application on an evolutionary time scale runs into major difficulties. Starting with one "couple" just 41,000 years ago would give us a total population of 2 x 1089. 9 The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies."

Nuts. You can't assume population growth like that. There have been periods of thousands of years during which Man's numbers didn't grow at all because of a technological or environmental bottleneck. Until methods of farming and the rudiments of civilisation were developed (co-incidentally about 6000 years ago) the population simply couldn't grow like that. There's fossil evidence of groups (tribes?) of people living in one cave system for well over a thousand years with static population size.

Oh, and that coincidence of civilisation emerging at about the same time as the roots of the major religions being invented is NO COINCIDENCE. Religion was developed as a means to control dense populations (of dense people!) because it's easy and efficient to scare people into submission with stories of sky-beings who see all and judge all. Without it, early civilisations may never have kept going. Or, just possibly, a better world might have developed without the poisonous memes of god.

Creationism is a made up story from a time when we couldnt explain how and why we got here. You want evidence? Look at the fossil record, how old the Earth is, Big Bang theory... the list goes on. Schools dont teach any other religions ideas on creation so why should children be subjected to christian theories on it? Evolution is the ONLY one that has evidence. Unless you can prove the existance of God then you cant prove creationism.

Ah the fossil record. One of the great misconceptions of the whole evolution/creation debate. If you look at the fossil record (and I have) you will see something called the Cambrian strata. At that level all sorts of complex animals apper AT once. Not over thousands of millions of years as evolutionists would believe but AT ONCE. And not just in one place either but ALL OVER THE WORLD. Scienctists can try and explain why the animals all evolved that far that fast (as below the Cambrian strata there are no 'working our way up to that level' fossils then that may be hard) but what they cant explain is why in every part of the world, the level is the same. Its not as if they were burried at diffrent times, but ALL AT THE SAME TIME. Could this be something like THE FLOOD at work, or did all volcanos go off at once all around the world.

Good example of evolution: Bacterial diseases cause many deaths, until penicillin is discovered. For years, penicillin is prescribed for almost anything. Bacterial diseases are no longer a worry. However, after a few decades, we discover that many strains of bacteria are now resistant to penicillin. Due to penicillin killing off those bacteriums that are vulnerable to penicillin, those mutated bacteriums that were resistant or immune to the effects of penicillin were able to become dominant in their environment. Thus those bacteriums that evolved resistances are now spread across the world, while the non-resistant bacteriums have been virtually eliminated.

I agree with you, but this is suvival of the fittest not evolution. Here is a big flaw in the evolutionary system. Where did morals evolve from? How did we evolove a section of the brain that has no relevernce to our survival at all. It seems to me that a big flaw in the entire evolution argument is that it bases itself on "Survival" and in there terms this means living long enough to procreate. But if thats the case, surely the most sucessful animals would be (essentially) sex machines which could produce the greatest number of offspring. And also we must explain why we "evolve" things that are in no way a benefit to either our survival (from predetors etc) or our sexual attractiveness.

Why does this kind of pointless debate about creationism only take place in the US?

Cambrian strata? What is appearing AT ONCE? Please get more information before you write such BS.

Cambrian strata? What is appearing AT ONCE? Please get more information before you write such BS.

Read the entire post. I do say what is appering. If you dont know what the Cambrian strata is you are uneducated in your evolutionary knowlege and are just assuming that the record supports you when it doesnt.

I agree with you, but this is suvival of the fittest not evolution. Here is a big flaw in the evolutionary system. Where did morals evolve from? How did we evolove a section of the brain that has no relevernce to our survival at all. It seems to me that a big flaw in the entire evolution argument is that it bases itself on "Survival" and in there terms this means living long enough to procreate. But if thats the case, surely the most sucessful animals would be (essentially) sex machines which could produce the greatest number of offspring. And also we must explain why we "evolve" things that are in no way a benefit to either our survival (from predetors etc) or our sexual attractiveness.

you miss understand evolution and selection. I think this has been explained in other threads.... just because an animal is a sex machine does not mean their offspring will survive and reproduce. Us having a brain, ie morals is relevant to evolution.... we are social animals, and having morals may have helped attract mates, as these morals would make you a more productive member of society....

you miss understand evolution and selection. I think this has been explained in other threads.... just because an animal is a sex machine does not mean their offspring will survive and reproduce. Us having a brain, ie morals is relevant to evolution.... we are social animals, and having morals may have helped attract mates, as these morals would make you a more productive member of society....

You use the word "may" alot there. And this is the nub, evoltuion is a theory. Creation is a theory. Both do have evidence and neither one can be declared above the other for certianty unless someone travels back in time and sees it. And furthermore, how could having morals attract mates? Could you elaborate please?

If I'm not mistaken, the "great deluge" turns up in several mythologies/cultures. I'm not going to say any more than that, and I won't defend it because I'm not a geologist/mythologist/sociologist/whatever.

This is a pointless argument in terms of absolute finality, because one group will modify their theories to incorporate any new knowledge, and the other group will doggedly refuse to acknowledge their incorrectness, regardless of any inconsistencies which may appear. (Which one of those sounds more reasonable and intelligent? I'll leave it up to you.)

Personally, if someone wants to believe in creationism, that's fine and dandy - personal choice, religious freedom, and all that. On the other hand, I consider it an overstepping of bounds when creationists (of ANY religion - why is it exactly that Christian creationists are the most outspoken in our society?) start trying to justify passing their beliefs off as reality to society as a whole. In particular, the young and impressionable part of society...

I could find agreement for some form of compulsive "spirituality" in schools (under strict bounds), where students are educated in a strictly secular and unbiased way in the beliefs and ways of multiple religions - should they then decide that any of those fit their emerging world view, they can go off and investigate on their own accord. But when people like the chap who promulgates that hogwash website full of scientific fallacy start to suggest that their particular doctrine should be forcibly imprinted on any children I may have in the future, I start to get angry.

These views extend to any form of faith-based meddling in what is, in my opinion, a society that isn't secular enough.

You use the word "may" alot there. And this is the nub, evoltuion is a theory. Creation is a theory. Both do have evidence and neither one can be declared above the other for certianty unless someone travels back in time and sees it. And furthermore, how could having morals attract mates? Could you elaborate please?

Simple. In purely biological terms, a female of any species is better off choosing a mate who can look after and provide for her offspring. A male with "morals" - ie one who is not going to impregnate his daughter, or maim his son on a whim - is thus a better choice than one without.

A recent article I read suggested that the term "survival of the fittest" was something of a misnomer. Instead, the phrase "breeding of the fittest" was more appropriate for explaining the basic ideas of Darwin's views on evolution.

Personally, if someone wants to believe in creationism, that's fine and dandy - personal choice, religious freedom, and all that. On the other hand, I consider it an overstepping of bounds when creationists (of ANY religion - why is it exactly that Christian creationists are the most outspoken in our society?) start trying to justify passing their beliefs off as reality to society as a whole. In particular, the young and impressionable part of society...


You know, lots of people complain about the suposed religious indoctrination in the US (In Britain we teach comparitive religion) but those people often dont remember Islamic nations religous indocrination that is indisputeable (unlike the US). In Saudi Arabi for example all children are taught from an early age that Christianity and Jeudaisim are heritical beliefs and that there is only one true God, Allah. Here is an artical from a respected British Periodical to explain

Article begins

The triumph of the East
There’s no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That’s because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all

A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. ‘No,’ I said politely, while thinking, ‘Yup.’ She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred.
Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden’s ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying ‘Islam is the future of Britain’. But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media.
Take Dr Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don’t take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life.
‘Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects,’ he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, ‘Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam.’
Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has ‘star’ status among the world’s Muslims.
Dr Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, which is growing across Europe, and whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman ’Akef declared recently, ‘I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.’
In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be ‘annihilated’ and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. ‘The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia [mediaeval Spain]. The reason for [Western civilisation’s] bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. [This approach] has been one reason for the misery of the human race, for the proliferation of suicide, mental problems and for moral perversion. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation [of Islam].’
Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by our Saudi government ally, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, our so-called race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. He is probably the closest thing in Islam to the Pope, but I haven’t recently heard the Pope call for the overthrow of all other faiths.
Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, ‘The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world.’ Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the US’s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control.
Saudi Arabia’s education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom’s curriculum tells six-year-olds: ‘All religions other than Islam are false.’ A note for teachers says they should ‘ensure to explain’ this point. In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly ‘noble’ bit of the Koran is ‘encouraging the faithful to perform jihad in God’s cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power — all that in a style which contains the highest examples of urging to fight’.
A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. It seems to be agreed that since the West has overwhelming economic, military and scientific power, it could take some time, and a full frontal assault could prove counterproductive. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path.
Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV last month, ‘Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient.’
Islam is now the second religion not just in the US but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England.
Al-Qa’eda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said on the Iqraa TV satellite channel, ‘We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million [Muslims], and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim.’
It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam, which is normally just tickety-boo letting the rest of the world indulge in its false beliefs. Dr Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, ‘Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community.’
In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the ‘field of war’ where the infidels live. ‘The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule,’ wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam.’

The first jihad was in ad 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in ad 732. Muslim armies overthrew the ancient Zoroastrian empire of Persia, and conquered much of central Asia and Hindu India.
Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in his book Why I am not a Muslim, ‘Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations.’
It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged ‘Reconquista’. In the meantime the Turks, a central Asian people, had been converted to Islam and had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed’s first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in ad 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned.
In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed’s second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-’Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government’s King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, ‘We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.’
Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Abyssinia — Ethiopia — is an ancient Christian land where Muslims have come to outnumber Christians only in the last 100 years. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim.
Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries such as Livingstone converted most of Africa.
But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush’s most trenchant critics don’t believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the US actually transferred power to the imams.
I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades (even though they were just attempts to get back former Christian lands) while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom.
In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification, such as the film star Brigitte Bardot, are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. David Blunkett in effect wants to ban criticism of Islam, a protection not enjoyed by Christianity in Muslim countries. Millions of Muslims move to Christian countries, but virtually no Christians move to Muslim ones.
In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies, such as the notorious fake book The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West.

Article ends

In response to your overzealous quote (haven't you ever heard of a hyperlink? The rest of the internet has used 'em for years!), I'll just say something that your mother should have told you long ago:

Just because you're less wrong than someone else doesn't make you right.

You know, lots of people complain about the suposed religious indoctrination in the US (In Britain we teach comparitive religion) but those people often dont remember Islamic nations religous indocrination that is indisputeable (unlike the US). In Saudi Arabi for example all children are taught from an early age that Christianity and Jeudaisim are heritical beliefs and that there is only one true God, Allah.

So because the middle east jumps of a cliff, the west should jump of a cliff?

So because the middle east jumps of a cliff, the west should jump of a cliff?

I never said that, I am just saying dont go around saying "Christians say X, do Z, and believe Y and these are all horrible" thus making it seem that it is Christians alone who do this. They are't, and in the case of Christianity its far less forceful than Islam. Aside from religous schools (Which I personaly think are a bad idea) I doubt there is anywhere in the West where a Religious education class says "Christainty is the only correct religion" and at least in Christian countries you have the option of religious schools and state secular schools. You dont have that in many Muslim nations.

I believe we should all believe the creation fact that the earth was created by Dennis the Magnificent, 34 years ago.

anyone older than that had there memories implanted. Demnis planted the fossil records fakes carbon dating and set the universal constants.

Despite what any silly astronomer may tell you, the Earth is the centre of the universe, and the sun revolves around the earth.

Don't believe the facts, math or anything else told to you by unbelievers as they don't have faith!

there are facts to prove we are not moving.

Does anyone feel like the earth is revolving? or that the earth is moving? or can you feel the solar system moving through the milky way? or the myth the milky way is moving.

Its all rumour, conjecture and theory by unbelievers.

believe me, its called faith

please wire all donations to the church to the following address or dennis the awesome will be cross and make the sun dissapear.

morons.

In response to your overzealous quote (haven't you ever heard of a hyperlink? The rest of the internet has used 'em for years!), I'll just say something that your mother should have told you long ago:

Just because you're less wrong than someone else doesn't make you right.

But we in the West are not wrong (as far as religous freedom goes). We offer full religious freedom, the Islamic nations (not all but many) do not.

I believe we should all believe the creation fact that the earth was created by Dennis the Magnificent, 34 years ago.

anyone older than that had there memories implanted. Demnis planted the fossil records fakes carbon dating and set the universal constants.

Despite what any silly astronomer may tell you, the Earth is the centre of the universe, and the sun revolves around the earth.

Don't believe the facts, math or anything else told to you by unbelievers as they don't have faith!

there are facts to prove we are not moving.

Does anyone feel like the earth is revolving? or that the earth is moving? or can you feel the solar system moving through the milky way? or the myth the milky way is moving.

Its all rumour, conjecture and theory by unbelievers.

believe me, its called faith

please wire all donations to the church to the following address or dennis the awesome will be cross and make the sun dissapear.

morons.

Arent we arrogent. I have two words for you "Cambrian Strata". If you dont know what it is then look it up.

But we in the West are not wrong (as far as religous freedom goes). We offer full religious freedom, the Islamic nations (not all but many) do not.

The nations with the largest islamic populations are pakistan, which has a moderate amount of religious freedom, although the people themselves often are intollerant of other religions.

India, which is about 75% hindu, 15% islamic and smatterings of everything else (going by memory)

Indonesia, which does not have a islamic govt.

the countries that have amongst the worst attitudes to freedom of religion include, saudi, kuwait, bahrain and iran. Only Iran is not an ally ATM, and iran USED to be an ally...

IRaq USED to have a non religious govt, but that was before the US invaded :rolleyes:

We offer comparitively better religious freedom than the "Islamic" nations. We've got a long way to go - when the politicians making decisions about whether or not my girlfriend can have an abortion are doing so on religious grounds, then we're not secular enough.

Again: two wrongs do not make a right.

Arent we arrogent. I have two words for you "Cambrian Strata". If you dont know what it is then look it up.


so are you denying the truth of Dennis the Magnificent?????

UNBELIEVER, FAITHLESS,

where is your evidence that Evidence that Dennis did not create the universe, the facts are there, as for your bible, a copy that Dennis planted to weed out the weak unbelievers who had no faith :rolleyes:

Lots of people have ignored what I said about the Cambrian Strata (mainly because it ruins evolutionism) but I will post it again

Ah the fossil record. One of the great misconceptions of the whole evolution/creation debate. If you look at the fossil record (and I have) you will see something called the Cambrian strata. At that level all sorts of complex animals apper AT once. Not over thousands of millions of years as evolutionists would believe but AT ONCE. And not just in one place either but ALL OVER THE WORLD. Scienctists can try and explain why the animals all evolved that far that fast (as below the Cambrian strata there are no 'working our way up to that level' fossils then that may be hard) but what they cant explain is why in every part of the world, the level is the same. Its not as if they were burried at diffrent times, but ALL AT THE SAME TIME. Could this be something like THE FLOOD at work, or did all volcanos go off at once all around the world.

Do you really understand what you're talking about? The Cambrian period was exactly as you describe - preceded by a so-called "Cambrian explosion." It was the era that saw a huge growth in the number of species on the planet. If you want to carry this further, please do a better job of explaining "all sorts of complex animals apper AT once" [sic].

And, if you want to bring the fossil record into, how about you explain things like dinosaurs (without using the term "behemoth", "leviathan", or "dragon" please).

The fact that creationists aregue is the eye. They are wrong about even that there is clear evidence on how the eye evolved. It's so frustrating that people can be so thickskulled.

Do you really understand what you're talking about? The Cambrian period was exactly as you describe - preceded by a so-called "Cambrian explosion." It was the era that saw a huge growth in the number of species on the planet. If you want to carry this further, please do a better job of explaining "all sorts of complex animals apper AT once" [sic].


Simple, God created them and then when the flood came along they were all burried at once.

The fact that creationists aregue is the eye. They are wrong about even that there is clear evidence on how the eye evolved. It's so frustrating that people can be so thickskulled.

If you are so frustrated please then provide the evidence

If you are so frustrated please then provide the evidence
read a book, for crying out loud. if you aren't going to bother to study evolution then how can you possibly contest it? specify where you think evidence is insufficient and people will respond, but don't expect anybody to waste time copying over a biology book for your benefit.

So your telling me that you dont want your kids studying the Constitution which in fact was formed on Christian principles

Huh? Are you talking about the US Constitution or some other country? If you are refering to the US Constitution, you may want to... well there is no polite way to say this... READ it. It is a legal document that contains not a single reference to God, a creator, a higher power, Jesus, Christianity, or principles for that matter.

The first amendment to the Constitution does reference relgion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But that's it.

Perhaps the document you were thinking of was the Declaration of Independence? That document has reference to God and a Creator. However, both words are found only once a piece and only as introdution to the body of the "letter" that essentially details political greivances.

Also, quite curiously (considering its well accepted that the founding fathers were generally men of great faith and SPECIFIC faiths) the brief mentions of God and Creator are very non-specific (no mention of Jesus for example), to the point of purposeful ambiguity.

The government of the US was not founded on Christian principles. It was founded on political principles by people who happened to be Christian. Those same people went to great lengths to keep their religion seperate from their politics.

Comparing evolution to creationism is a .. very dumb thing to do. Both are founded on different systems. The first being empirical science and the second being faith. While you can port evolution into faith rather easily (God caused the big bang and has been hurling asteroids and what not at earth to advance a plan he has) the opposite is true for creationism.

Quite frankly speaking: If you could prove questions of faith they wouldn't require faith anymore. Faith is believing something without an empirical basis to do so, having faith means trusting and being convinced of something. It's a thing of principals, not of logical arguementation.


And all these creationist scientists are really embarassing me but alas, there's not many Catholics who still walk that path.


For you people who are trying to convert each other: Give it up. There's no point to it.
Faith allows me to disbelieve that dinosaurs existed (if I wanted to) or allows me to believe that the Garden of Eden was an actual location on the surface of the earth in today's Iraq. I believe neither, my idea of Eden is more of an 'alternate space pocket created by God Almighty' one. To describe it in terms commonly used.
So faith obviously allows you to discard any evidence that goes contray to it by stating that God himself put it there to test if your faith was nothing but reasoning or actually well-founded in your heart.

Damnit, some skilled theologicans could argue that God wishes you to prove your loyalty and humility by believing something that seems obviously wrong because he has commanded you to believe it.


To the other side: There's no point in evangelizing people who aren't receptive for it, faith is (as stated above) not a thing of reasoning but an honest conviction from the depths of your very soul. Once someone becomes receptive, once they feel it you can tell them all about the Lord's glory and they will most likely accept and believe it. (This is obviously assuming that everyone not-Christian is misguided, which I believe myself. Don't take it personal.)
So don't try to disprove evolution, simply live and let live, do not judge (a lot of people forget that final, non-subjective judgement is the right of God and no body else's) and come to them when their hearts open.

Creationism Does Not Even Meet the Standards of Christian Belief

That Creationism is not a science is easy enough to prove and has been more than adequately demonstrated. Since Creationism is a religious belief how does it hold up when judged by its own Christian standards of belief?

Since Creationism claims to be a science it must adhere to the scientific method. It is this method, when applied to Christian belief, which undermines the faith of Creationists. This method is composed of fours steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will come along and conflict with, and overturn, a theory.

Therefore, to be a science Creationists must begin with the understanding that their theory is based upon observable and verifiable data, with the possibility that it could one day be overturned.

However, the basis of Christianity is not verifiable data and proof, but rather, faith. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are very clear on the central role of faith. Isaiah commands, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.” This is further reinforced in the New Testament, “The righteous will live by faith” (Romans 1:17).

The Bible is very clear that religious faith takes precedent over the world of men’s ideas. Corinthians’ rejection of the scientific world is unambiguous, “… your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power” (1 Corinthians 2:5).

What is science if not men’s wisdom?

In Hebrews it is written that, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Christianity is not to be proven through pseudo-science or even real science, but must be taken on faith.

Those who continue to pound the dead horse of Creationism are not only bad scientists, but poor Christians, as well.

Creationists and the modern evangelical church have learnt the tricks and skills of the cults of the 60s.

their 'brainwashing' techniques include basic psychology 101, and creationism is no different from the babble of greco roman mythos, Egyption mythos etc.

I believe there is a lot of good in a document like the bible, and many of the ethics, laws, morales we base our society on, comes from the bible, the code of justinian, roman principles, british common law etc, and forms a fair basis of our society.

HOWEVER the bible has been used to justify apartheid by the whites in South Africa, the slaughter of romanies and jews by the Nazis, the jim crow laws in the bible belt etc in recent times, and anti semitic laws and practices through the middle ages in europe etc.

similarly other religions have had wars fought over the 'interpretation' of passages.

/snip

keep the folks ignorant and thus you have power over them. teach them to think for themselves and your power over them erodes.

indsiduous and a crime against children to teach them creationism. I have no problems in teaching them say the history as portrayed in the bible, or the life of JC and his parables, which serve as a good training aid, but teach the bible as a factual document and you are seriously messing wth the minds of kids.

PS Did the children of adam and eve commit incest???

Hehe love the PS. :) I also fully agree with your comments regarding religion. I myself, believe in God. The concept, anyway. I also believe in Jesus. The dispute over Jesus has generally always been not whether he existed but whether or not he was a demi-god or just a guy with good ideas.

But, like yourself I was raised by parents of different religions. I used to have to go to both Catholic and protestant chruch every week. I heard warring grandmothers (hehe) insisting to me why the other was surely going to hell, etc. At a very young age I figured out something reeeeeaaaaly wrong was going on.

Organized religion, in my opinion, is just a way for humans, to control other humans and to justify hurting and hating eachother. Some of the sickest things ever done have been done in the name of a God.

read a book, for crying out loud. if you aren't going to bother to study evolution then how can you possibly contest it? specify where you think evidence is insufficient and people will respond, but don't expect anybody to waste time copying over a biology book for your benefit.

You dont understand. I was responding to a specific post not making a statement. Wenilliss said


The fact that creationists aregue is the eye. They are wrong about even that there is clear evidence on how the eye evolved. It's so frustrating that people can be so thickskulled.


Hes saying that there is loads of evidence to support his idea and so I am asking him to put said evidence forward.

"To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition."

Woody Allen

So your telling me that you dont want your kids studying the Constitution which in fact was formed on Christian principles

God, you dumbass nitpicker. You just have to go on an find any little flaw in what she's saying don't you? You're probably a bible thumping, bush loving christian-- and if you are, :upyours:

If you're not... you're just annoying and should find a better way to spend time.


Sorry--I'm in a bad mood today. But that thing you said WAS out of line.

funny thing is, the last issue of National Geographic just toched on the whole evolution debate. They found plenty of evidence for the the evolution side and laid it out thouroughly. You should give it to your friend.

BTW, good job on not being bamboozled.


What if BOTH are correct? Hear me out...

What if Creationism is correct, but the timeline thereof is flawed? It does make logical sense that life was 'created' at some point in time, but doesn't it just seem like the arrogance of Man that says that we were created as we are? Maybe some 'Diety' created sentient life eons ago, but no written records extend back that far? The Creationists could be correct in principle, if not in specific detail.

None of what I've said is based in fact nor in esearch, just stuff I pulled out of my ass. But I could be right, couldn't I?

I don't think the debate is whether or not Creationism could be correct. Who knows, it might be. Hell, Hindus might be correct and the earth is sitting on the back of a giant tortoise.

The point is they want their faith system taught as a SCIENCE, which, even according to their own beliefs, it cannot be.

www.creationevidence.org

This man has been studying this subject for YEARS. He knows far more than I do and I will leave it up to you to research. It's not my responsibility to go around educating or prooving things to you, if you really want to not be brainwashed, if you really want to be a freethinking find it for your self. Study it on your own time and find out who sounds better.

It's as simple as that. Find out.


That junk is shit. If you check the FAQ they actually have a question about man and dinosaur, and the answer says that they existed at the same time! BS if I ever saw it.

What if BOTH are correct? Hear me out...

What if Creationism is correct, but the timeline thereof is flawed? It does make logical sense that life was 'created' at some point in time, but doesn't it just seem like the arrogance of Man that says that we were created as we are? Maybe some 'Diety' created sentient life eons ago, but no written records extend back that far? The Creationists could be correct in principle, if not in specific detail.

None of what I've said is based in fact nor in esearch, just stuff I pulled out of my ass. But I could be right, couldn't I?


That does make a little sense. I mean, maybe God just--BECAME and then caused the Big Bang by accident, but then from there evolution was true. We never will know for sure, except for the fact that there's overwhelming evidence that humans were NOT just :clap: THERE, just like that. SOMETHING happened.

The biggest thing you have to remember about the bible (I'm Roman Catholic, go to a Catholic school, and have studied the bible under one of the most respected religious scholars in the US) is that while it is truth (according to the Church, at least), it is not literal truth. After all, how many of us believe that Abraham lived to be nearly a thousand years old?
Abraham lived past one hundred years, not one thousand. You are thinking of Methuselah, who lived to 969, if I remember my Bible correctly.
Oh, and yes, I do beleive that he did live that long. ;)

Creationism, if it truly claims to be a science, is bad religion. If it is a religion, then it is bad science.

Here's an alternative:
How about we actually allow teachers to inform their students on both sides of the Evolution debate. I am not advocating teaching a specific religious doctrine, but we should teach both the facts for and against Evolution, which is not happening in today's schools.
In fact, a teacher in Oregon lost his job because he was teaching both sides of the issue (not advocating Christian Creationism). Do not cripple yourself by silencing rational debate.

"One who does not know his opponent's arguments does not truly understand their own."
-Some philosopher whose name I cannot remember right now.

Here are links to two realplayer videos (frist two, sorry if you don't have realplayer) and a booklet that have some good arguments against evolution.

http://www.tomorrowonline.org/programs/playpage.php?id=432&pw=x
http://www.tomorrowonline.org/programs/playpage.php?id=447&pw=x

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/fossilrecord.htm

You actually can test evolution. You just need something with a short enough generational cycle and a sealed environment to test this. If traits that help the lifeform survive in the environment become widespread and varients of the lifeform without traits begin to die off, you've just proved evolution. So all you need is some amoebas, a way to keep an environment static, and a year or so to burn.

Good example of evolution: Bacterial diseases cause many deaths, until penicillin is discovered. For years, penicillin is prescribed for almost anything. Bacterial diseases are no longer a worry. However, after a few decades, we discover that many strains of bacteria are now resistant to penicillin. Due to penicillin killing off those bacteriums that are vulnerable to penicillin, those mutated bacteriums that were resistant or immune to the effects of penicillin were able to become dominant in their environment. Thus those bacteriums that evolved resistances are now spread across the world, while the non-resistant bacteriums have been virtually eliminated.
Here you need to differentiate between Evolution and adaptation. Evolution creates new species, while adaptation merely allows organisms to survive in chaging environments. This is clearly and example of adaptation. No one can deny adaptation, it is obvious in the case of Darwin's Galapagos finches, which have changing beak sizes. However, adaptation has never been shown to yield a new species.

Also, research has shown that if you place the new penicillin-resistant bacteria in an environment without penicillin and also include some of the original strain of bacteria, the new adapted strain will die out. This is known as 'fitness cost,' because the new adaptations require a great devotion of effort by the organism, rendering it noncompetitive with the original.

Here are links to two realplayer videos (frist two, sorry if you don't have realplayer) and a booklet that have some good arguments against evolution.


So the real argument isn't for Creationism, but rather against evolution. And why is that? Why is evolution such a threat? How does the fact that humans are part of an incredibly complex web of life make the act of creation any less miraculous?

Since the time of Galileo religion has seen science as an enemy and has fought blindly to stop humans from trying to discover the world around us. The irony, of course, is that with each new scientific discovery the sheer wonder of "life, the universe, and everything," to borrow from Douglas Adams, is only reinforced.

Those links are also kinda utter crap.

So the real argument isn't for Creationism, but rather against evolution. And why is that? Why is evolution such a threat? How does the fact that humans are part of an incredibly complex web of life make the act of creation any less miraculous?

Since the time of Galileo religion has seen science as an enemy and has fought blindly to stop humans from trying to discover the world around us. The irony, of course, is that with each new scientific discovery the sheer wonder of "life, the universe, and everything," to borrow from Douglas Adams, is only reinforced.

Sorry, I did phrase that bad.
I love science!

Ah the fossil record. One of the great misconceptions of the whole evolution/creation debate. If you look at the fossil record (and I have) you will see something called the Cambrian strata. At that level all sorts of complex animals apper AT once. Not over thousands of millions of years as evolutionists would believe but AT ONCE. And not just in one place either but ALL OVER THE WORLD. Scienctists can try and explain why the animals all evolved that far that fast (as below the Cambrian strata there are no 'working our way up to that level' fossils then that may be hard) but what they cant explain is why in every part of the world, the level is the same. Its not as if they were burried at diffrent times, but ALL AT THE SAME TIME. Could this be something like THE FLOOD at work, or did all volcanos go off at once all around the world.
This is also known as the "Cambrian Explosion." I believe strong fossil record evidence supports this, particularly the Chingjiang excavation site in China, but I probably didn't spell that correctly.

Here's an alternative:
How about we actually allow teachers to inform their students on both sides of the Evolution debate. I am not advocating teaching a specific religious doctrine, but we should teach both the facts for and against Evolution, which is not happening in today's schools.
Do not cripple yourself by silencing rational debate.

But it's not rational debate, because creationism is based on nothing more than the faith in a God. Faith by definition is irrational.
And why should a Science teacher have to teach a set of faith beliefs which have nothing to do with science or their topic, just because it appeases those who can't accept rational scientific theory.

Isn't it just? I'm so sick and tired of the Creation vs. Evolution debate... there is no way in hell that Creation can stack up to Evolution as a scientific theory. There is nothing scientific about Creation, is there? Am I missing something? Am I just ignorant, do I not know enough about the evidence for Creation? Please enlighten me, or make my day and agree with me...

Everyone has their beliefs. It isnt for you to judge what another person thinks. Heck..we wont even know who's right or wrong until after death anyway. The entire debate is moot and its nothing moot but its just as inciteful as demanding a debate against the pro-lifers.

(Bold added)

From what I remember of the scientific method from jr. high, there was a step that had to do with experimenting or testing. Also, the experiments had to be done in such a way as to be repeated any number of times. How can you test in a controlled environment that which, by its very nature cannot be controlled: the creation of the world or even the development of a species that has already developed. Now, granted, I have but a meager understanding of science, but I don't see how anything that can't really be tested and re-tested per the scientific method can really be called scientific. This goes for both sides. Sure, both sides have evidence / brainwashing / whatever, but does evidence alone make something scientific? I may be wrong on this, but I alway thought that the testing part of the scientific method was pretty important.
That's all I have to say about that.
Well, with some sciences you can't, and you can't really prove anything...rather we take what we see in the world around us and come up with explantions for what happened, and see if it holds true in the future, which so far, it has.

The fact that creationists aregue is the eye. They are wrong about even that there is clear evidence on how the eye evolved. It's so frustrating that people can be so thickskulled.
You do not seem to understand the argument about the human eye. It is part of another argument called 'Irreduceable complexity.'

The argument goes something like this:
Life is too complex to have evolved. Certain necessary biological processes require several components which would have to appeared all at once, all together in order for them to work at all. This cannot be rationalized by an Evolutionary worldview.

The eye pertains to this because there are a series of chemicals in the eye that participate in the transfer of information to the brain which are all necessary for the eye to work and are incredibly specific and complex.

In the future, try not to mention arguments for the other side unless you set up a defense against them.

Creationism Does Not Even Meet the Standards of Christian Belief

That Creationism is not a science is easy enough to prove and has been more than adequately demonstrated. Since Creationism is a religious belief how does it hold up when judged by its own Christian standards of belief?

Since Creationism claims to be a science it must adhere to the scientific method. It is this method, when applied to Christian belief, which undermines the faith of Creationists. This method is composed of fours steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon.
2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
3. Use of the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will come along and conflict with, and overturn, a theory.

Therefore, to be a science Creationists must begin with the understanding that their theory is based upon observable and verifiable data, with the possibility that it could one day be overturned.

However, the basis of Christianity is not verifiable data and proof, but rather, faith. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, are very clear on the central role of faith. Isaiah commands, “If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all.” This is further reinforced in the New Testament, “The righteous will live by faith” (Romans 1:17).

The Bible is very clear that religious faith takes precedent over the world of men’s ideas. Corinthians’ rejection of the scientific world is unambiguous, “… your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power” (1 Corinthians 2:5).

What is science if not men’s wisdom?

In Hebrews it is written that, “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” Christianity is not to be proven through pseudo-science or even real science, but must be taken on faith.

Those who continue to pound the dead horse of Creationism are not only bad scientists, but poor Christians, as well.
This is the kind of stupid philosophy which would have Christianity become incompetent and stupid.
We are to have faith and trust in God, but God never commands us not to use our minds. Several verses in Proverbs actually advocate the study of the natural world.
A good book for Christians to read on this subject is Love Your God with All Your Mind.

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/fossilrecord.htm
You might just as well post a link which points out that scientists are far from clear on the details of quantum mechanics. While true, it doesn't stop things like mobile phones and other devices using quantum-based science.

Just because some theories have holes in them and aren't fully complete doesn't mean they're not a good approximation of the truth. They're undoubtedly nearer the truth than cretinism (typo, but too good to change).

Or do you reckon god created mobile phones as well?

<re: dinosaurs>Simple, God created them and then when the flood came along they were all burried at once.
But the evidence says that they lived spread across a time span of millions of years. Do you dispute that?

even so, then how do we determine what is allive? and things didn't need to have always been used for the same purpose, someone said the argument was that not everything can be created at separate times if they must use each part to work, well, it's just like how the eye originally didn't need the brain to see. it was connected to nerves(which now form the modern brain) that could work similar to a computer like this:
if one nerve is on, and the primitive eye sees light, then another nerve wouldn't put it throught the nerves that are on, and only go to the ones that don't already have a message. hmm, this is tough to explain, i need to use a picture...

So the real argument isn't for Creationism, but rather against evolution. And why is that? Why is evolution such a threat? How does the fact that humans are part of an incredibly complex web of life make the act of creation any less miraculous?

Since the time of Galileo religion has seen science as an enemy and has fought blindly to stop humans from trying to discover the world around us. The irony, of course, is that with each new scientific discovery the sheer wonder of "life, the universe, and everything," to borrow from Douglas Adams, is only reinforced.
Many Christians, myself among them, cannot reconcile the concept of Evolution with our theological perspective. Therefore, either I am wrong or Evolution is correct. Since I believe that I am right, I will fight to disprove Evolution until either I change my own beliefs or Evolution is disproved.
Science is not an enemy. Science is impartial and in agreement over the truth. The argument from the religious perspective is not that science is bad, but over what is the conclusion that science points towards.

But it's not rational debate, because creationism is based on nothing more than the faith in a God. Faith by definition is irrational.
And why should a Science teacher have to teach a set of faith beliefs which have nothing to do with science or their topic, just because it appeases those who can't accept rational scientific theory.
No no no. I wasn't implying that you teach any creationism or any religious doctrine. Teach the evidence for and against Evolution and nothing else.
There is strong debate over the validity of Evolution and to ignore that fact can only hinder the learning process.

But the evidence says that they lived spread across a time span of millions of years. Do you dispute that?
Yes. I dispute that the evidence supports the millions of years. Carbon-14 and other forms of radiometric dating are notoriously unreliable. The reliability of C-14 data extends only to about 64,000 years, but even then it has been known to make grievous errors. Living organisms have been dated to times exceeding a few thousand years. Sedimentary rock forms far more rapidly than most Old-Earth advocates would lead you to believe. Cataclysmic events have been shown to produce several meters of rock in a matter of days.

Ah the fossil record. One of the great misconceptions of the whole evolution/creation debate. If you look at the fossil record (and I have) you will see something called the Cambrian strata. At that level all sorts of complex animals apper AT once. Not over thousands of millions of years as evolutionists would believe but AT ONCE. And not just in one place either but ALL OVER THE WORLD. Scienctists can try and explain why the animals all evolved that far that fast (as below the Cambrian strata there are no 'working our way up to that level' fossils then that may be hard) but what they cant explain is why in every part of the world, the level is the same. Its not as if they were burried at diffrent times, but ALL AT THE SAME TIME. Could this be something like THE FLOOD at work, or did all volcanos go off at once all around the world.
*sigh*
Once again we have the sad and irritating spectacle of a creationist overhearing and taking out of context a bit of scientific evidence and misterpreting it entirely to suit their beliefs.
Before I start (unfortunately) having to correct the huge flaws in the above post, let me first say it's funny how often creationists latch onto something like this as proof against evolution, while ignoring other important facts. Like: that the "Cambrian Explosion" occurred over 1/2 a billion years ago, which totally destroys any point they're trying to make about creationism anyway. Unless they seriously believe Noah was around then.

Anyway back to the "Cambrian Explosion".

Unfortunately for Science, using words like 'Explosion' has the unintended effect of conjuring up an immediate event that occurs within a rapid timeframe. To the layperson (or person desperately clutching at straws as evidence for their beliefs), they fail to understand that 'Explosion' in this context is in relation to the history of the World.
The "Cambrian Explosion" didn't happen overnight. Nor did it happen over a few years or even centuries.
The "Cambrian Explosion" occurred over 53 MILLION YEARS. Got that? From 543MYA to 490MYA (MYA=Million Years Ago). This is a blink of an eye to the Earth, but it's still a bloody long time!
And when they talk about a massive explosion in life, they're only talking about trilobites, archaeocyathids, brachiopods, molluscs, and echinoderms. Which are pretty primitive. Also if this is 'proof' of a 'great flood', it still goes against everything in the Bible (Noah, ark, all animals, 40 days rain etc etc).

The Cambrian rocks are in different parts of the World, because the World was vastly different then. Rocks of Cambrian age are distributed in the Great Basin of the western United States, parts of the northeastern United States, Wales, Scandinavia and the Baltic region, Siberia, and China. So far apart! How can this be? Must be Noah and his flood! :rolleyes:
How about:
World climates were mild; there was no glaciation. Most of North America lay in warm southern tropical and temperate latitudes, which supported the growth of extensive shallow-water archaeocyathid reefs all through the Lower Cambrian. Siberia, which also supported abundant reefs, was a separate continent due east of North America. Baltica -- what is now Scandinavia, eastern Europe, and European Russia -- lay to the south. Most of the rest of the continents were joined in a supercontinent known as proto-Gondwana, depicted on the right side of the map; South America, Africa, Antarctica, India, and Australia are all visible. What is now China and east Asia was fragmented at the time, with the fragments visible north and west of Australia. Western Europe was also in pieces, with most of the pieces lying northwest of what is now the north African coastline. The present-day southeastern United States are visible wedged between South America and Africa; they did not become part of North America for another 300 million years.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/tommotian.gif

Above info taken from:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html


And yes at one point in the Earth's history, pretty much all volcanoes did go off at once,but this was much later. It occurred during the Permian era (250 MYA) where 95% of marine life and 70% of land life on Earth became extinct.Compare this to the mass extinction 65MYA which had a 70% kill rate.
Exactly why this death rate occurred is unknown. The most common theory is that the Permian extinction coincides with a flood basalt eruption in what is now Siberia. Flood basalts are sort of super volcanoes. Millions of cubic kilometers of lava are erupted over a period of a few million years. All the Earth's flood basalts have been eroded and covered, but the dark 'seas' on the Moon are believed to be the result of flood basalt eruptions. The Siberian Traps were the largest volcanic eruption in Earth history. The eruptions lasted at full intensity for about a million years which coincides with the extinction.
To put it in perspective, the largest eruption in historic memory occured on Iceland in 1783-84 spewing out 12 cubic km of lava, which dropped Global temperatures by about 1 degree.
The Siberian Traps erupted about 3 million cu km (various estimates of 1 - 4 million cu km), which we can only guess what that would do to the Global temp. But the biggest ever drop in sea level in history occurred at the end of this period, indicating a massive ice age.

Everyone has their beliefs. It isnt for you to judge what another person thinks. Heck..we wont even know who's right or wrong until after death anyway. The entire debate is moot and its nothing moot but its just as inciteful as demanding a debate against the pro-lifers.
Although everyone has beliefs, not everyone is right, so I shall endeavor to discover truth through debate. Just because I probably will not change anyone's mind doesn't mean that I should not try to improve my own.

Yes. I dispute that the evidence supports the millions of years. Carbon-14 and other forms of radiometric dating are notoriously unreliable. The reliability of C-14 data extends only to about 64,000 years, but even then it has been known to make grievous errors. Living organisms have been dated to times exceeding a few thousand years. Sedimentary rock forms far more rapidly than most Old-Earth advocates would lead you to believe. Cataclysmic events have been shown to produce several meters of rock in a matter of days.
Only a very very bad scientist would use C-14 to date an object over 47,000 years old, generally they use the other forms of radiometric dating.

No no no. I wasn't implying that you teach any creationism or any religious doctrine. Teach the evidence for and against Evolution and nothing else.
There is strong debate over the validity of Evolution and to ignore that fact can only hinder the learning process.
But the only 'evidence' against evolution is provided by creationists! So if you teach 'evidence' against evolution you are promoting creationism.
Take my post above. If I was teaching this as Science and evolution, the only argument against the 'Cambrian Explosion' I could give is by saying they all appeared miraculously and some say it's proof of God. So where's the scientific argument?

You do not seem to understand the argument about the human eye. It is part of another argument called 'Irreduceable complexity.'

The argument goes something like this:
Life is too complex to have evolved. Certain necessary biological processes require several components which would have to appeared all at once, all together in order for them to work at all. This cannot be rationalized by an Evolutionary worldview.

Nonsense. And incidently, giving some nonsequiter a name like "irreducible complexity", which is just a longwinded description, and stating it as if it's some kind of mathematical arguement when again all it consists of is a statement ("This cannot be rationalized...") does not convince anybody.
This has been done SO many times it is becoming dull, which is a shame, but here we go anyway. It is quite possible to explain how an eye could have evolved:

1. Your "series of chemicals". There are a large number of compounds synthesised across the spectrum of life on this planet that are chromophores, that is they demonstrate absorbance at wavelength of light. This can often be in the visible region. This is sometimes part of their function (eg melanin) or a biproduct of their structure (eg cytochrome c), and results from certain special structural features. These are not rare; they can easily be synthesised in the lab; and in the case of transition metal complexes, occur in the absense of life. Absorption of energy often has some effect on that molecule. If the genes specifying the synthesis of a similar chromophore were duplicated, an existing chromophore could be modified for the absorbance of light. Existing genes specifying the conveyance of conformational rearrangement to the induction of nerve signals could be copied in the same way (it should be noted that these would have evolved, in their, independently, possible through the copying of a primordial, more general gene. Thus nature makes use of existing chemistry for new functions). Retinol, the chromophore in the human retina, is very similar to beta-carotene, found in vegetables. By bolting together unrelated bits of existing functionality a pigment that converted light exposure to nerve impulses is therefore possible.

2.Why did the original eye have to be complex? What use is half an eye? Damn more useful than no eye at all, and pretty useful if you're an earthworm today. Originally, just a patch of cells containing this chromophore could have constituted the earlier eyes. These would give no indication of colour, focus, or detail, but would indicate whether light was present or not. Pretty useful if you're an insect that has to feed at night to avoid being eaten by birds, or an earthworm that wants to avoid exposing itself. Compared to having no eye at all, that's a serious evolutionary advantage.

3. It isn't a major jump to envisage this patch developing into a small indentation lined with such cells. This then gives the organism an indication of which direction light is coming from.

4. And what if small hairs could grow at the rim of this indentation, trapping a bead of water? This could act as a crude lens, so giving some idea of focus, and has even been observed in some species of worm.

So you've got a retina, an eye like structure, and a lens. We could theorise all day about exactly how colour vision, or binocular vision or whatever has come to exist, but unless we are terminally unimaginative it's ridiculous to assert that it must be impossible. And even if we can't imagine a pathway of evolution, why should that invalidate the model? If our knowledge is incomplete or our imaginations not good enough, too bad for our imaginative abilites; if a pathologist cannot determine the cause of a death, we don't use that as evidence that a death could not have occured, and the body in front of us is immaterial. The ancient Romans could hardly explain how nuclear fission occurs; but that hardly invalidates modern partical physics.

This information is so widely available and so easy to obtain, it can only be deliberate ignorance that creationists bring up this old chesnut. It is extremely ironic that while your half-argument is based on the complexity of living things, you clearly are not in the slightest bit interested in that complexity and elegance, or you might do your research properly. If you want a real reverence for the spontaneous wonder that is life on this planet, look to the disinterested scientists, not to some banal set of preconceptions.

...
Before I start (unfortunately) having to correct the huge flaws in the above post, let me first say it's funny how often creationists latch onto something like this as proof against evolution, while ignoring other important facts. Like: that the "Cambrian Explosion" occurred over 1/2 a billion years ago, which totally destroys any point they're trying to make about creationism anyway. Unless they seriously believe Noah was around then.
...
The "Cambrian Explosion" didn't happen overnight. Nor did it happen over a few years or even centuries.
The "Cambrian Explosion" occurred over 53 MILLION YEARS. Got that? From 543MYA to 490MYA (MYA=Million Years Ago). This is a blink of an eye to the Earth, but it's still a bloody long time!
And when they talk about a massive explosion in life, they're only talking about trilobites, archaeocyathids, brachiopods, molluscs, and echinoderms. Which are pretty primitive. Also if this is 'proof' of a 'great flood', it still goes against everything in the Bible (Noah, ark, all animals, 40 days rain etc etc).
...

This is an impressive post, but I shall try to do it justice. I had to cut out sections to keep my post size down, but I did try to address the majority of your statements.
Near the end you begin to greatly draw from enormous unbased hypotheses regarding what happened during a specific period. The is no scientific way to verify whether of not the were volcanic explosions which lasted for a million years. I shall disregard that last half of the post as insufficient for now.

The Cambrian explosion is not use to support a specifically Christian creation worldview. It is used to support Intelligent Design. And the age assigned to the Cambrian explosion is debatable.

The length of the Cambrian explosion is also debatable. There is no way to verify it, due to the inaccuracy of radiometric dating and the inability to determine the time that it took to form the rock layers in which the Cambrian explosion is contained.

However, the biggest piece of evidence of note regarding the Cambrian explosion is that all the species appear at once. There are no transitional forms and little connection between the fossils. It suggests that, instead of one organism or a few organism evolving into many organisms, there are many organism that appear without predecessors, supporting an Intelligent Design worldview.

Biochemistryland,
You have provided one of the most well-reasoned posts I have read on this forum. I congratulate you, even if you do seem to think that I have not attempted to read the research on this subject. I may still believe you are wrong, but now I am going to have to do some reading before I can respond to your post in full.

Thanks - apologies if I was a little short, in truth I should have read the entirety of the thread before bashing out my point of view. It is also perfectly reasonable that your knowledge may be incomplete in that department - I realise it was a diversion from the main discussion, but it's one of the things that is brought up so many times (I believe) it has ceased to have any bearing on the issue, and seeing it crop up again is a little galling. It is nice to meet people that aren't too rabid too :)

This information is so widely available and so easy to obtain, it can only be deliberate ignorance that creationists bring up this old chesnut. It is extremely ironic that while your half-argument is based on the complexity of living things, you clearly are not in the slightest bit interested in that complexity and elegance, or you might do your research properly. If you want a real reverence for the spontaneous wonder that is life on this planet, look to the disinterested scientists, not to some banal set of preconceptions.

to be fair, it is probably ignorant ignorance on the part of most creationists up until they have this conversation with somebody very much like you or i. after all, they come out of situations with very weak intellectual cultural backgrounds, that often value the word of 'authority' so highly that it isn't questioned or checked. after their error has been pointed out to them and they still persist in repeating the same old claims, then they have chosen deliberate and willful ignorance. and their leaders, who have had this sort of falsehood pointed out to them hundreds of times must be either too stupid to understand the matter, or are "liars for jesus".

Nonsense. And incidently, giving some nonsequiter a name like "irreducible complexity", which is just a longwinded description, and stating it as if it's some kind of mathematical arguement when again all it consists of is a statement ("This cannot be rationalized...") does not convince anybody.
This has been done SO many times it is becoming dull, which is a shame, but here we go anyway. It is quite possible to explain how an eye could have evolved:

1. Your "series of chemicals". There are a large number of compounds synthesised across the spectrum of life on this planet that are chromophores, that is they demonstrate absorbance at wavelength of light. This can often be in the visible region. This is sometimes part of their function (eg melanin) or a biproduct of their structure (eg cytochrome c), and results from certain special structural features. These are not rare; they can easily be synthesised in the lab; and in the case of transition metal complexes, occur in the absense of life. Absorption of energy often has some effect on that molecule. If the genes specifying the synthesis of a similar chromophore were duplicated, an existing chromophore could be modified for the absorbance of light. Existing genes specifying the conveyance of conformational rearrangement to the induction of nerve signals could be copied in the same way (it should be noted that these would have evolved, in their, independently, possible through the copying of a primordial, more general gene. Thus nature makes use of existing chemistry for new functions). Retinol, the chromophore in the human retina, is very similar to beta-carotene, found in vegetables. By bolting together unrelated bits of existing functionality a pigment that converted light exposure to nerve impulses is therefore possible.

2.Why did the original eye have to be complex? What use is half an eye? Damn more useful than no eye at all, and pretty useful if you're an earthworm today. Originally, just a patch of cells containing this chromophore could have constituted the earlier eyes. These would give no indication of colour, focus, or detail, but would indicate whether light was present or not. Pretty useful if you're an insect that has to feed at night to avoid being eaten by birds, or an earthworm that wants to avoid exposing itself. Compared to having no eye at all, that's a serious evolutionary advantage.

3. It isn't a major jump to envisage this patch developing into a small indentation lined with such cells. This then gives the organism an indication of which direction light is coming from.

4. And what if small hairs could grow at the rim of this indentation, trapping a bead of water? This could act as a crude lens, so giving some idea of focus, and has even been observed in some species of worm.

So you've got a retina, an eye like structure, and a lens. We could theorise all day about exactly how colour vision, or binocular vision or whatever has come to exist, but unless we are terminally unimaginative it's ridiculous to assert that it must be impossible. And even if we can't imagine a pathway of evolution, why should that invalidate the model? If our knowledge is incomplete or our imaginations not good enough, too bad for our imaginative abilites; if a pathologist cannot determine the cause of a death, we don't use that as evidence that a death could not have occured, and the body in front of us is immaterial. The ancient Romans could hardly explain how nuclear fission occurs; but that hardly invalidates modern partical physics.

This information is so widely available and so easy to obtain, it can only be deliberate ignorance that creationists bring up this old chesnut. It is extremely ironic that while your half-argument is based on the complexity of living things, you clearly are not in the slightest bit interested in that complexity and elegance, or you might do your research properly. If you want a real reverence for the spontaneous wonder that is life on this planet, look to the disinterested scientists, not to some banal set of preconceptions.
Scientists make up words all the time, so merely because you decide to term an argument with a phrase like 'irreducible complexity,' it does not in any way affect the substance of the argument.

1. Chromophores are not what transfer the information. They are what receive it. The conveyance of information is done by a different series of chemicals. I shall have to quote Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (p.46) here:
When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.
All this is necessary for the transfer of information within even a 'simple' light sensitive spot.

2. Yes, a primitive eye is better than no eye at all, but even the most primitive form of eye is ridiculously complex (as previously stated).

3. Many different proteins participate in the structure and shape of the eye, so the curve of the eye itself is complex.

4. Hair? Why are you arguing about the development of eyelashes? If you want to discuss the trapping of a bead of water to improve focus, why don't you mention the lacrimary glands? That is not a major part of the argument anyway.

Don't give me any of that "Just because we can't prove it doesn't mean it isn't true" junk. That is what many Creationists get burned for and you only destroy your own credibility by even mentioning that argument. We know enough by this point to argue with substantiation in these areas.

Thank you for your high opinion of my knowledge on these areas. I just pick this stuff up off the internet, because they won't teach me enough in my high school.

P.S.
Even if you do allow for the Evolution of the eye, you must also assume the computational ability in the brain or nerve cluster is already available to make it work.

Thanks - apologies if I was a little short, in truth I should have read the entirety of the thread before bashing out my point of view. It is also perfectly reasonable that your knowledge may be incomplete in that department - I realise it was a diversion from the main discussion, but it's one of the things that is brought up so many times (I believe) it has ceased to have any bearing on the issue, and seeing it crop up again is a little galling. It is nice to meet people that aren't too rabid too :)
Concise is nice. I simply haven't seen the issue raised enough in my experience to have satisifed myself on it yet.
Just because I am as far right (politically and socially) as you can get doesn't mean I have to be stupid and rude.

Scientists make up words all the time, so merely because you decide to term an argument with a phrase like 'irreducible complexity,' it does not in any way affect the substance of the argument.

1. Chromophores are not what transfer the information. They are what receive it. The conveyance of information is done by a different series of chemicals. I shall have to quote Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (p.46) here:
When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (A picosecond [10-12 sec] is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single human hair.) The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters its behavior. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein, called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but different from, GDP.)
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to ‘cut’ a molecule called cGMP (a chemical relative of both GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers its concentration, just as a pulled plug lowers the water level in a bathtub.
All this is necessary for the transfer of information within even a 'simple' light sensitive spot.


Guanosine diphosphate and guanosine triphosphate are both extremely common in every known form of life that functions using aerobically. It is the most basic form of energy that the human body creates. What you just described is actually a very basic chemical process. Energy is acquired, and creates a new molecule. The energy acquired is usually in the form of GTP turning into GDP, as the lost phosphate releases energy, and GDP gaining a phosphate also creates energy through a reverse process. This is all basic parts of all cell functions. In this case the altered protein bonds with another protein as its form and thereby linkage capabilities have been changed. To facilitate this linking a phosphate is added to the transducin GDP, creating energy that allows the necessary bonds to form. This product protein then is able to break the bonds of what appears to be guanosine monophosphate as that is what its new bonding sites link to. This is all basic biology and chemistry, in fact, this is so exceedingly simple, its almost scary.

Guanosine diphosphate and guanosine triphosphate are both extremely common in every known form of life that functions using aerobically. It is the most basic form of energy that the human body creates. What you just described is actually a very basic chemical process. Energy is acquired, and creates a new molecule. The energy acquired is usually in the form of GTP turning into GDP, as the lost phosphate releases energy, and GDP gaining a phosphate also creates energy through a reverse process. This is all basic parts of all cell functions. In this case the altered protein bonds with another protein as its form and thereby linkage capabilities have been changed. To facilitate this linking a phosphate is added to the transducin GDP, creating energy that allows the necessary bonds to form. This product protein then is able to break the bonds of what appears to be guanosine monophosphate as that is what its new bonding sites link to. This is all basic biology and chemistry, in fact, this is so exceedingly simple, its almost scary.

In fact, just change the nucleic acid and we have our good friend ATP and ADP. The common energy carrier in the cell. Very very basic biological process that has been going on since the first prokaryotes (phosphorylation)

First, there is no need to be rude.
Calling someones beliefs Bullsh!t becaue you dont believe that way is immature and greatly reduces your chances of them even considering listening to your side of the arguement.


I usually wouldn't insult somebody's beliefs like that; it is quite out of character. But I have honestly had it with the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and after reading a number of books presenting the 'scientific' case for Creation I honestly felt my blood boil. These people, the 'Creation Scientists', are brain washing people and preying on their ignorance. There are actual Creation Science textbooks out in the states (mostly for 'homeschoolers' it would appear); I have looked at some of them myself. And my God, unless you take the time to go and read up on Evolution it would be very easy to be fooled by this rubbish. You only have to read some of the posts made in this thread to support my case. Go and take a look at www.creationevidence.org if you haven't already.

It just really irks me. I am certain these 'scientists' are well aware of what they are doing and it irks me even more that they want to teach Evolution and Creation side by side.

Everyone has their beliefs. It isnt for you to judge what another person thinks. Heck..we wont even know who's right or wrong until after death anyway. The entire debate is moot and its nothing moot but its just as inciteful as demanding a debate against the pro-lifers.

Blah, blah, blah. If people want to believe 7-day Creation based on faith, then I have not got a problem with that. But when they try to state that Creation is a scientific theory, I have got a real problem. Because it is most certainly not. I have nothing against Christianity or any religion for that matter, but I take personal offence when people try and tell me that Creation is science and deserves equal status as Evolution. That, as I said, is pure BS IMO. And why can't I call it that? My beliefs are constantly insulted by 'Christians'.

And if you are referring to the thread I created on pro-choice, that has got nothing to do with what we are discussing. All I can say is go and read through it.

Raylrynn - I carefully read your post, and spent a good forty five minutes writing out the best response I could, being as thorough as possible. Feeling jolly pleased with myself, I clicked the post button, only to realise the system had logged me out due to such a long period of inactivity. After dutifully entering in my login details, I was presented with a lovely grey error message; not panicking in the slightest, I took my browser back, only to see that my entire response had been deleted. If anyone says god moves in mysterious ways I shall cry...

I shall attempt to recreate the gist of my argument, but the two previous posters have much the correct idea. If I may adress two of the issues in your post:

1. The even our simple light-sensitive-patch eye is absurdly complex
2. That we cannot argue that a lack of proof for a God disproves the existence of god, while apparently doing the same for evolution.

I'll try to be brief. On the first point; you are quite correct, the simplest eye is mind boggling complicated. But nobody is suggesting it just popped into existence - this is the exact antithesis of evolution! Lets see what we have. The function of the eye, the way we define what an eye is, is the conversion of light impulses into chemical changes that can induce a nerve impulse. There are plenty of other, more primative examples (such as the pain reflex; pain actually originates in the release of prosteoglandins from damaged cells, which then induce pain receptor firing) where a chemical stimulus induces neurone firing. What is unique to the eye is the transuction mechanism for the conversion of the light; and so the chromophore, retinal, is the important factor in the development of the eye. Why? Because all the other systems are used in different contexts in the same organism, and have been purloined and recombined in a reasonably novel way to produce a light-sensitive-neurone. Specifically:

1. Rhodopsin. What does this protein actually do? Well, it binds two other factors: one the chromophore retinal, and the other the protein transducin. Its affinity for the one is determined by the conformation of the other. This is largly a matter of cause and effect: the Rhodopsin must be a specific shape to actively bind retinal; the major conformational shift occuring upon photon absorption will force the rhodopsin to assume another conformation, to retain the energy released upon binding; changing of the shape in this way is likely to affect binding interactions with other components, such as the transducin, as binding is very much dependent on the 3D structure of a protein. None of these properties even come close to being unique; in fact the vast majority of enzymes have differing binding interactions, or different activities, according to what is already bound to them. It is nature's most widespread trick for regulation, and there are plenty of proteins that perform a similar role in many other areas of metabolism. After all, this activity has nothing to do with light or seeing, only in the binding of two different molecules.

2. Transducin. This is one of the great family of G-proteins, those that use the differential hydrolysis of GTP to exert some regulatory role. These are almost totally ubiquitous within animal metabolism; they are used in such diverse systems as protein synthesis, hormone reception, and cell cycle control; and are also frequently associated with the rate of neurone firing. All of these proteins bind GTP, and hydrolyse it at a rate that is determined by what other molecules are bound to the GTPase. Transducin works in exactly the same way; the binding of the activated rhodopsin triggers the existing mechanism.

3. Phospholipase/cGMP synthase. This is another well established metabolic regulatory system, and is very similar to that which controls the response of cells to adrenaline and similar compounds. The adrergic receptor stimulates a similar pathway, whereby ATP is converted to cAMP, and phospholipase is used to cleave inositol from the plasma membrane; cAMP is, you may have guessed, almost identical to cGMP; and most importantly shares the same characteristic cyclic nucleotide shape. It is extremely interesting that cGMP is used in the retina; maybe it runs in parallel to a cAMP system, and the two must not interfere; but the conversion of a cAMP system to a cGMP requires only slightly different binding affinities for the two nucelotides, and this could be achieved with just one point mutation. This is turn caused an influx of calcium ions, and is one of the controlling factors in neurones deciding whether they should fire.

So all the components of the system, with the exception of the transducer retinal, will already be present in your average cell. If this cell is a neurone; and we must remember that the retina is a neural tissue, and is derived from the developing brain embryologically; and if that neurone is positioned reasonably close to the outside world (in the same way as touch receptors in the skin; earth worms are fairly transparent, so even if the neurones were not directly exposed, they could still function as the primitive light-sensitive-patch); then we already have a

i. A chemical cascade that can convert a change in conformation in a protein into the influx of calcium and sodium ions
ii. The nerve itself, which will use this to generate the firing impulse
iii. A connection into the brain

The only missing factor, the only that is unique to the eye, is the retinal transducer; and this I have already discussed in my previous post. This is the point; the simplest eye is absurdly complex, but then it evolved out of absurdly complex tissues in itself. You are quite right in saying that a brain is necessary for the processing of the information; it is hard to envisage how the information would be processed or used in any helpful way without the presence of a brain. And this is the major point: every single component of every single protein of every single cell in every tissue is absurdly complex. There are so many interlocking mechanisms, so many functional components in a working organism, that the vast majority of new development results from the recombination (literally occuring in the DNA) of those components. Nobody argues that if you get a monkey to wire together millions of transistors you are likely to get a working computer. But if you give it a processor, a motherboard, some memory, large components that already function in themselves, the number of permutations is vastly reduced, and random production of a useful development becomes massively more likely. Of course, very, very occasionally something entirely new will come along; even more occasionally this will of of value. How are the large components assembled? In exactly the same way, but from slightly smaller components. How were these produced? Ditto, until we get down to the point where we are discussing the association of single molecules that are produced spontaneously upon the action of sunlight on the coctail of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide and water that would have constituted the earth's earliest atmosphere. Incidently, by applying more energy and so accelerating the process, this has been achieved in the lab; RNA molecules have even been shown to be spontaneously produced in the absense of life simply by discharging an electrical current through a suitable mixture of small organic molecules. RNA molecules can act as both the carriers of genetic material and their expression (enzymes consisting entriely of RNA are at work within me and you right now, and some of the most fundamental systems, such as transcription and translation, have an RNA basis with proteins performing supporting and enhancing roles). If you take transitors and wire them together at random, you might take a million years to make a computer, but you'll make a logic gate much faster. And if you then make new combinations of multiple logic gates, you start to build up more complex functionalities. Keep going for long enough and you have a computer. You could do it at random: all you have to do is be able to spot when a good, working version has been produced. In life, the simple test of this is whether an organism survives, in the context of competition with other individuals in its species, its predators and prey. Nature never starts from scratch to put something as complex as an eye together. It is a perversion of the evolutionary argument to suggest this is the case, and one that is made too many times now to look like carelessness.

Incidently, you have a good point with reference to the lachrymatory glands (I didn't think of that ... now you're thinking like a scietist ;) ); but this strengthens my second argument. We shall never know how the eye evolved. Eyes, unless you are stupidly lucky, do not fossilize. We can assume that some of the more "primative" creatures have stuck to their simple eyes purely because they have no need of a more complex one (there's not much point having human vision if you spend most of the time underground), but this is one hell of an assumption to make. We shall never know for sure how the eye developed (although we can be sure it developed several times, quite independently). The point of my argument is not to tell you how the eye evolved, but to show that it is possible, using only infinitesimal evolutionary steps, to envisage how an eye could have been generated. But even if we cannot construct an evolutionary pathway, this does not constitute evidence against the theory itself. It doesn't support it either; but even if there are plenty of things that we cannot explain right now (such as the overlapping genes in retroviral genomes; space saving par excellence), there are plenty of things that we can. Noone really knows how gravity works, but just because physicists can't satisfactorily explain this is doesn't invaldiate say, nuclear physics, or material science, even though gravity may be important to both of these. So what's the evidence for evolution? On a purely empiracle level, without any theorising about past events, there are two factors that make evolution by far the best means of explaining the generation of complexity from simplicity. Specifically

1. Evolution must occur if three criteria are met.

i. The diversity of characteristics within a group
ii. The passing of characteristics to progeny
iii. Some pressure to survive, in that not all individuals live to reproduce, or produce the same number of progeny.

Living things not only meet these criteria - the first two are almost a basic definition of what constitutes life. If these are met, those organisms that are best suited to prevailing conditions will reproduce more; those characteristics will be inherited; and ultimately, those that are best optimised for existing will be those that predominantly exist. As long as new random diversity is introduced through mutation, and this has always been the case, the population will become optimised for the prevailing conditions, whatever they may be. This has been done with molecules in test tubes, with computer programs, with networks and mathematical problems in reseach. If the three conditions are met, evolution must occur, by mathematical necessity. Life today (with possible exception of the last hundred years of human history on the third point) fulfills the three criteria.

2. Evolution is happening, right now! Lovely hospital superbugs, and the biology teacher's favorite, the damned speckled moth, are clear cut examples of adaptation in the face of changing conditions. If it can happen now, why shouldn't it have occured in the past?

Of course I cannot disprove the existence fo God. If God exists, it is quite true that evolution can be screwed up. But there are problems with this

1. Evolution is, by a very long way, the best description of how complexity is generated from simplicity. Complexity is not an inherant quality of the universe; energy (in the form of light from our sun) is required, as well as clever transducing processes (life itself is a transducing process) to create it. We must continue to take in energy, else all complex things fall apart in time. For a creator to have produced such a dearth of complexity, he/she/it must have been fairly complex in itself. Where did this come from? It is passing the buck ... it is not philosophically or intellectually satifying.

2. Evolution is likely! Given that it occurs now; that we can see it must occur if similar situations existed in the past; evolution becomes the most likely solution. Why on earth, if we work from first principles, should we need to invoke a god? It is superfluous. Of course we can work backwards, and assume a God, but this is not science; this is faith, and good on those who practise it, but it is not science. To return to the original thread title, creation science is hence quite invalid.

You could keep throwing me examples ... I could keep racking my brains and researching and trying to give you answers. But there's no reason why you can't do this for yourself. If you try, for a moment, to get rid of the assumption of the existence of a God, you find infinitely more intellectual pleasure in the contemplation of the objective truths of genetics and biology. Try reading a strait bio textbook - pop science books are often badly presented, and in many cases plain wrong.

Raylrynn - I carefully read your post, and spent a good forty five minutes writing out the best response I could, being as thorough as possible. Feeling jolly pleased with myself, I clicked the post button, only to realise the system had logged me out due to such a long period of inactivity. After dutifully entering in my login details, I was presented with a lovely grey error message; not panicking in the slightest, I took my browser back, only to see that my entire response had been deleted. If anyone says god moves in mysterious ways I shall cry...
I've had that prob. It always says invalid thread. I wish they would fix it!
I always select all and copy b4 I click the post button. I find if you have quoted anyone, when you go back, only the quote's there. If you have't included a quote, everything you've typed's there.
BTW extremely good posts. Though unfortunately I can't see it changing anyones mind.

The other thing that drives me crazy is when it only allows you to perform a search every 3 minutes. I realise there's the capacity for abuse, but come on guys! I fear you might be right about these arguments falling on dead ears. The truth is that many creationists aren't interested in life at all, but on a set of philosophical problems. Once they get into a conversation that concerns the actual complex mechanisms of the things they're arguing about, they haven't got much to say. They just go somewhere else and rattle off the old rubbish about not "being able to imagine" evolution occuring. :)