NationStates Jolt Archive

Enough for being defensive, prove your point. How is creationism a viable theory, and why should it be taught in the classroom?


Besides this, what evidence is there for biblical creation without the bible, and how can you teach creationism without mentioning a "god"?

doesn't seem to be working. figures.

lol! And they are no where to be found. Why? Because Creation Science is junk. It is based around a complete lack of understanding of science, it is based around bizarre and far-fetched ideas which have no actual scientific evidence to back them up. To lay people with no proper understanding of evolution, their arguments sound strong and convincing. But when you start to read into it you find that it is actually just well disguised bullshit.

I liken 'Creation Science' to the science used by the moon landing hoax theorists.

Funny how they can't wait to prove how evolution is wrong, but when asked why creationism is correct, the silence is deafening.

Well, let's be realistic here. The liberals outnumber the conservatives and religious folk BY FAR on the board. There can't be a whole lot of them, and I'm sure they have better things to do then wait on a forum all day and respond to challenges.

Sheesh, they might as well respond to ONE... they spend plenty of time bashing evolution.

Well I'm for Evolution, but what the hell I'll give it a whirl and try to defend Creationism with the best argument that Creationists can come up with, and that is that both theories rely on faith (evolution because it isn't a proven theory, pretty close to it, but not proven). It just so happens that there is more evidence to suggest Evolution is real and absolutely no evidence to prove the other. Funny...

So I am curious, do you attribute life to spontaneous generation, transmutation, and something coming from nothing completely on its own? First of all, spontaneous generation is a scientific impossibility, but the evolutionists try to throw up a smokescreen in your eyes by referring to it as "abiotic genesis." In other words, non-life giving rise to life. Then you have this whole belief that one type of creature can transform into another type completely on its own. Well this is the stuff of fairy tails and does not happen in real life, in fairy tails it is usually some mystical force that causes the change. There are no "missing links." Evolutionists like to attribute changes towards these 2 phenomena:
Natural Selection-Natural selection works by eliminating individuals or species with unsuitable genotypes. The effect of this actually reduces diversity it does not increase it.
Random Mutations in multi-cellular organisms before birth results in a weaker, deformed, and often sterile specimen. A mutation after birth is cancerous. Furthermore, most complex animals have built in naturally occurring abortive mechanisms which will usually cause mutated offspring to be aborted. This mechanism tends to shut down when menopause draws near.

Furthermore, there is this thing called irreducible complexity, which means that if you remove a part then the whole will not function. The eye is irreducibly complex, if you remove any part of the human eye it will not function, therefore the eye could not have ever been simpler than it is now or it would not function.

All evolution does is replace one system of faith with an incredibly another. Evolution is effectively Pantheism, because it attributes the origin of the universe to itself, which would make the universe the supreme force, a.k.a. a pan-universal deity.

Now, you think that your humanist school teachers who teach you evolution don’t have an agenda? I will show you their agenda.

"The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level.."--John Dunphy, a humanist/"atheist." So there you have their agenda and certainly you can see their religious dogmatic properties.

Yes, God does exist. We know there must be a creator because there is a creation. The human brain is thousands of times more complex than the most complex device ever built by humans, and yet it is not in dispute that non-living electronics were created. The Biblical God, YHWH, fits the profile of the kind of God that would be necessary to give rise to the universe and sentient life. First of all, he is the only God that does not behave like a human being, all other Gods conduct themselves as humans, and have the same motivations, desires, and emotions that humans do. YHWH has a distinctly Inhuman nature. Furthermore, the name means something in itself. Most Gods have given names, the name which God gave to Moses means simply "I AM." Now why is this important? It is important because YHWH is the first sentient being and as such there was no one else around to name him, that is why he does not have a name like Thor, Zeus, or Bob. Now, YHWY is the only God (with the exception of Allah) which has existed infinitely. In order to have truly unlimited power one must also have a truly unlimited existence. The reason YHWY is infinitely powerful is because he is infinite. If he had a definite point of beginning then his power would not be truly unlimited. Study up on pagan mythology and different concepts of deity around the world and I do not believe you will find a God with truly unlimited power.

So the pre-requisites for being the creator are:
*Having no point of beginning
*An Inhuman nature

I will conclude by quoting Sir Francis Bacon, "A little philosophy inclineth a man to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."


See the thing is, you cannot explain the origin of life or the universe using science. True science can only study the natural. A bear killing a deer for food is natural, a volcano eruption is natural, a hurricane is natural, and reproduction is natural. Life coming from lifelessness is not natural (supernatural) the universe coming into existence is also not natural.

Before I truly dive into topic there are some things I must clear up with those ignorant of basic biology:

1. Prokaryotes are cells without membrane bound nuclei or organelles (other than ribosomes). Bacteria

2. Eukaryotes are every other type of cell, cells with nuclei, mitochondria, and in the case of plants, chloroplasts.

3. Chloroplasts and mitochondria are symbionts, they are bacteria like organisms that inhabit eukaryotic cells in a mutually beneficial relationship.

According to the evolutionists Eukaryotic cells are descended from prokaryotic cells which somehow created their own nuclei and then swallowed some prokaryotic cells which became mitochondria. OK, does anyone see the problem with this? Let us see if there is any evidence to back up their claim.

So a prokaryote forms a nucleus and becomes an early eukaryote, so then...is there only one of them? Because if there were more than one of them then that means they would reproduce and not all of them would have swallowed a prokaryote. There should still be eukaryotes running around today without mitochondria if this were the case. For instance, bacteria are the most diverse kingdom, and when they mutate they tend to create new species of bacteria but they always remain bacteria. As a side note, mutations in multicellular creatures are cancerous, but in single celled organisms they tend to create a new species. Either way the mutated cells tend to run rampant. So OK...where are the eukaryotes with no symbionts? Maybe there was only one of them. So let’s assume there was only one of them. Single celled organisms do not have long life spans, so the mitochondria would have had to become integrated with the eukaryotic host pretty quick in order for each of the cells offspring to have a symbiont. See realistically there is no way this could happen, unless the early bacteria engulfed by the eukaryote ran rampant. If this had happened the eukaryotic cell would not have reproduced but would have burst, causing an end to the upstart Eukaryotes. There are bacteria that invade human cells today and this is what happens when they do. So then we go back to the fact that there would have to be more than one primitive eukaryote with no symbiont. So then, where are they today? They should still be here if they were ever here in the first place.


Got Truth...



Evolution is mostly falsehood and here’s why. While it is possible for minor changes to occur within a species through human agency, macro-evolution (Speciation), spontaneous generation, and the “Big Bang” are all quite impossible. First of all where did the big lump of matter and energy come from that evolved into the universe? Matter is a physical and finite substance which is incapable of creating itself. There is biological reproduction among living organisms but that does not create new matter it merely re-arranges existing matter. Also energy sources are finite and always dissipate and run out. Therefore this lump of matter and energy could not have existed throughout infinity prior to the “big bang” because the energy would have dissipated. If you don’t believe me think about explosions. When an explosion goes off does the energy just sit there and remain in a cluster? If that was so than Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still be huge mushroom clouds today. Infinity is more than sufficient for any amount of energy to dissipate according to the physical laws of this universe, which are immutable and unchanging.

So that rules out the possibility of the matter and energy having existed forever, therefore it must have had to come from somewhere. Matter and energy do not just spontaneously form from nothing, any more than my PS2 would have formed from fossil fuels and metal beneath the ground on its own. In order to believe in the Big Bang one must suspend the immutable laws of nature and enter into the realm of Makebelieve. While I have nothing against Mr. Rogers and his Neighborhood of Makebelieve I do not think it is proper to adopt a non-verifiable unscientific explanation for the origin of the universe. Also there would be a finite and limited quantity of matter and energy in the big bang which could not give rise to an infinite universe. There is no way of proving any of that stuff because no one was around to witness it. If someone had been around to witness the origin of the universe they would have found that the physical laws were not any different back then.

Now I will address the topic of life spontaneously generating on earth. Most scientists will agree that spontaneous generation is impossible. Many scientists have sought to prove spontaneous generation but it turned out to be nothing more than a primitive superstition. As we learn more about science the absurd should be eliminated. The belief that life generated from rocks and goo is at least as absurd, if not more so, than the belief that flies spontaneously generated from decaying organic matter. I will leave it up to the reader which is more absurd. Evolutionists somehow agree that spontaneous generation occurred at least once and only once in order to create the first living cell on earth. No one has successfully created a living cell from non-living matter. This is something that cannot be proven by science, which would make it a belief system based on faith. In order for something to be considered science it must be observable and reproducible. There are over 355 trillion ways in which random amino acids could arrange themselves if they exist outside of living molecules. Even if there was a strand of DNA or protein free floating there is still no way it could form a living cell because DNA must be a part of a cell in order for it to function. Take viruses for example, viruses are little more than free floating DNA. In order for a virus to reproduce it must invade a pre-existing cell. A virus does not undergo mitosis independent of a host cell, neither does it suddenly “evolve” into a more complex cell. This is a belief system based on faith not science.

At this point I wonder at the necessity of continuing this lecture but I suppose I will keep on keeping on just to finish the job. If there was originally just 1 kind of cell how did it respirate? How is it that it did not use up all the resources and was it closer to a plant or animal cell? If all the first cells were plants then what replenished theCO2. If the first cells were animals then what replenished the oxygen? Perhaps they both spontaneously generated at the same time, which would be even more impossible and require a much larger dose of blind faith. This stuff is extremely unlikely at best, here are some basic facts which refute evolution:

1. No one was around to observe any of this stuff and there is no historical, biological, or archeological proof of this.

2. The “evidence” is really just speculation, theorizing, or wishful thinking.

3. Just because a species appears to be extinct does not mean it was a missing link, it merely means that that species appears to be extinct. Species are still going extinct today.

Moving right along I would like to address Mutation and Natural Selection which to which evolutionists attribute biological diversity. I challenge anyone to name an incidence when mutation is good. In single celled organisms mutation may produce a more aggressive bacteria or amoeba, but it never produces a more complex life form. In multi-cellular organisms mutation before birth tends to produce a deficient and weaker organism. I challenge anyone to name a historically documented case in which a mutation has produced a superior specimen. I love Marvel comics but that stuff just isn’t scientific, if a mutation occurs in a multi-cellular organism after birth than it becomes a cancer. As far as natural selection goes, by the accepted definition of 'natural selection' it is impossible for natural selection to give rise to such diversity. Natural selection defined as survival of the fittest, which means individuals within a population with undesirable characteristics are eliminated. The elimination of certain types of individuals within species and across species has the effect of reducing diversity not increasing it.

Anyways I think I have sufficiently said enough for now.

Hope that satisfies you.

Snip.


That was a long attack on Evolution. Anything in defense of Creationism though?

I didnt just read all of that, but the part about missing links / death is not true: the fact that animals still die today could actually be taken as a sing that evolution does exist.
I've never heard anyone say that every extinct animal is a missing link.

And about the mutation part: its not a case of "good and bad": whats good for one animal, is bad for another species.
A good example is the flu.. there are a lot of different forms of 1 type of virus, and they all cause a similar disease.

Also there are a lot of fossiles that fit into the theory: there have been a lot of fossile-finds that when placed in a chronological order show a development of bonestructure etc.

You can "witness" an artificial evolutionary process with dogs: all those different breeds are part of the same species, and have been bred (sp?) from one type.
You cant deny the fact that when members ofa certain species mate, there are individual members of that species that never get to mate. The unique DNA structure of that member then is lost "forever" (theoratically it is possible that the same dna-structure is reached through a nother breeding-line within the same species, but thats a really small chance). This shows that evolution does work, but it doesnt show that it works like darwin said: that only the stronger species will survive.
I think that that is inherent to the entire idea: strong male and female individuals will breed more often / more likely than weaker ones, you can see an example of that by going to the local mall and see which guys get the hot girls and vice versa...

And you are saying that there is an "infinite god", so to speak, but if thats the case, one might as well say that the universe has existed infinitely... no need for a god-like figure in that case.

Besides, if the universe is realllly old, which I believe (or even infinite maybe), it isnt that unlikely that species have developed: small changes make a large difference when added together.

That was a long attack on Evolution. Anything in defense of Creationism though?

I doubt there is. I can guarentee the only argument you will get from these people is one based on incredulity...

Enough for being defensive, prove your point. How is creationism a viable theory, and why should it be taught in the classroom?


Besides this, what evidence is there for biblical creation without the bible, and how can you teach creationism without mentioning a "god"?

Creationism and Darwinism have one thing in common: Neither can be proven or disproven scientifically. There may be things that strongly support either theory, but neither can be absolutely 100% proven.

Creationism and Darwinism have one thing in common: Neither can be proven or disproven scientifically. There may be things that strongly support either theory, but neither can be absolutely 100% proven.

be that as it may, evolution holds up a hell of a lot better than creationism.

Creationism and Darwinism have one thing in common: Neither can be proven or disproven scientifically. There may be things that strongly support either theory, but neither can be absolutely 100% proven.

Evolution is backed up by actual scientific evidence. Creation, as far as I know, is backed up by nothing like that. The Creation 'Scientists' often try to use science in their arguments, but it usually turns out to be quite bad science.

What is so silly is that they really only use the Bible, claiming that it is inerrant. Well if you go and grab the Old Testament I know a few passages which claim that the Earth is 'flat' and stationary. Surprisingly I have found that some Creationists actually do believe that the Earth is flat, mind you why listen to atheist scientists when you have the word of God in front of you? At that, I conclude it is hardly with debating with most of them.

Creationism and Darwinism have one thing in common: Neither can be proven or disproven scientifically. There may be things that strongly support either theory, but neither can be absolutely 100% proven.
Evolution can be rather easily disproven scientifically, the sticking point is that no one has done so.

But to drag us back on topic, Beardengrade, nice long essay on nothing in particular, if you want a debate on evolution, go to the evolutionists, prove yourselves thread, here we want you to show us proof (not lack of it) that some guy in the clouds created us. We've got time.

People that think science is completely contradictory to religion are jaded beyond belief. In fact, science and faith can work hand in hand. Check out www.creationists.org
It is a website by PhD-holding scientists that are 100% creationists and that use science in correlation with religion.

While I personally do not believe in a God or Diety, I don't understand athiests one bit. If you're not religious, why do you care so much? Isn't it obvious that if you don't believe in a god by faith, the "truth" is impossible for humans to know at this point? And even if it isn't, does it really matter? I don't see why if you're not putting your energy into worshiping a god you don't at least put it into something more productive than the futile search for our origins.

People that think science is completely contradictory to religion are jaded beyond belief. In fact, science and faith can work hand in hand. Check out www.creationists.org
It is a website by PhD-holding scientists that are 100% creationists and that use science in correlation with religion.
Dinsaurs. DINO's

First thing I see on that page is a link to something that says that DINOSAURS lived with humans.

Once I'm done vomiting, I will link to talkorigins...

Furthermore, there is this thing called irreducible complexity, which means that if you remove a part then the whole will not function. The eye is irreducibly complex, if you remove any part of the human eye it will not function, therefore the eye could not have ever been simpler than it is now or it would not function.


Wait wait wait.

You are saying the HUMAN eye would not function without any of it's parts because it's irreducibly complex.

Yet there exist less complex, but functional eyes. So it would seem the eye, in general, is not irreducibly complex.

And because no one is saying that human eyes evolved after the human species itself, but rather as developments of increasingly less complex [perhaps] eye models from prior species, irreducible complexity doesn't aid your argument here.

Otherwise, that'd be like saying because the NASA space shuttle needs all of its ten-jillion parts to launch into and operate in orbit, its irreducibly complex and therefore no simpler machine could ever make it in orbit.

Not that it's relevant since this thread isn't about evolution at all...

Evolution doesn't happen overnight, you need to understand that evolution starts out with a bunch of random elements floating in water and over a very long time enough of them eventually bump into each other and link up to form the most basic strings of DNA. After you have simple genes you can have simple cells, and I can't stress enough how simple they would be, I'm talking dumbest bacteria in the world and all they really do is sit there and soak up anything around them for food kind of like a sponge soaks up water. Sometimes these things take in crap that kills them, sometimes they absorb thing that make them bigger and slightly more complicated. After thousands of years of this sponging, growing, dying, and dividing, some start to get big enough to move around and consume smaller cells. Then a few thousand more years pass and we see cells that divide but don't always split into 2 new organisms, these slightly bigger microscopic organisms are slightly more complicated than their single-celled cousins and go around eating anything smaller than them. Let's skip ahead a few million years and take a good long look at tiny worms; they look like scraps of pasta except they wiggle all on their own, they can't really see, only tell the difference between light and dark, and they eat anything smaller than them. This keeps happening, things getting slightly more complicated and slightly bigger so that they can either have an easier time getting food or to avoid being eaten, those that fail to get bigger and more complicated get eaten before they can reproduce and they become extinct. We eventually get soft blobs like jellyfish, then clams and crabs, then regular fish with scales, then salamanders, and so on. The time bewteen each of those things showing up in the world is thousands if not millions of years, and they never just make a sudden switch; for example: crab shells slowly get more broken up until they become something resembling scales on a fish. Humanity as we know it wouldn't exist if the earth were a few million years younger or if the first really simple cells in that dirty water were killed off by something like a volcanic erruption.

Now I will admit that I can't explain where the universe came from--if it was the big bang then were did the material for it come from and other questions like that--but the origin of the universe is something to be explained by physicis, not biology. I know that almost nothing just pops up out of nowhere but evolution doesn't say that life just popped up out of nowhere, it was a bunch of dirt and crap floating in water, bumping into other dirt and crap, and sticking together to eventually form the first prokaryotes. Anyone who doubts evolution because they think it says life came from nowhere needs to take a serious look at it, look at it with a clear and calm mind, listen to everything before passing judgement. I don't ask you to believe in spontanious generation, I ask you to believe that matter can bond with other matter when those particles collide. Please, listen to reason, you might be suprised at what you hear.

Dinsaurs. DINO's

First thing I see on that page is a link to something that says that DINOSAURS lived with humans.

Once I'm done vomiting, I will link to talkorigins...

*Hands CSW an anti-emetic*

While I personally do not believe in a God or Diety, I don't understand athiests one bit. If you're not religious, why do you care so much? Isn't it obvious that if you don't believe in a god by faith, the "truth" is impossible for humans to know at this point? And even if it isn't, does it really matter? I don't see why if you're not putting your energy into worshiping a god you don't at least put it into something more productive than the futile search for our origins.
oh darlin', there are atheist and there are atheists

there are those who are atheists because they are in some kind of rebellion against their parents or society so they use their current lack of belief as something to rub their parents noses in. they are mad at the god they dont believe in because he couldnt be bothered to arrange life to optimize their pleasures.

then there are those for whom god just isnt an issue. religion isnt part of their lives, they dont think about it, they dont talk about it and they wont bring it up in conversation. they never debate the existance of god anymore than they debate the existance of santa claus.

you just notice the angry ones way more often than you would ever notice the calm ones.

--So I am curious, do you attribute life to spontaneous generation, transmutation, and something coming from nothing completely on its own? First of all, spontaneous generation is a scientific impossibility, but the evolutionists try to throw up a smokescreen in your eyes by referring to it as "abiotic genesis." In other words, non-life giving rise to life. Then you have this whole belief that one type of creature can transform into another type completely on its own. Well this is the stuff of fairy tails and does not happen in real life, in fairy tails it is usually some mystical force that causes the change. There are no "missing links." Evolutionists like to attribute changes towards these 2 phenomena:
Natural Selection-Natural selection works by eliminating individuals or species with unsuitable genotypes. The effect of this actually reduces diversity it does not increase it.--

Wrong. Natural Selection weeds out the weaker genetic species to allow greater species to come forward and diversify the gene pool. If you know anything about genetics you'll know that diversity is not stifled by natural selection. The animal kingdom can speak for itself and look among us humans, we are diverse as well and before all the science and medicine that came along, we were subject to natural selection and yet we still diversified.

--Random Mutations in multi-cellular organisms before birth results in a weaker, deformed, and often sterile specimen. A mutation after birth is cancerous. Furthermore, most complex animals have built in naturally occurring abortive mechanisms which will usually cause mutated offspring to be aborted. This mechanism tends to shut down when menopause draws near. --

Wrong again. Firstly, if there are "random" mutations, you'll have to show them to me. Nothing happens randomly. All things have a cause and effect. Mutations in general are often bad and yes some animals abort, but the human reproductive system has changed considerably in comparison with other mammals. Then you have to consider what "mutation" really is. I could be mutated in the sense that one of my fingers is too short or I have a stubby nose, or a crooked nose, or maybe I'm slower than most people mentally. I'm sure most of us are mutated in one way or another, and I'm positive most of us are not sterile.

--Furthermore, there is this thing called irreducible complexity, which means that if you remove a part then the whole will not function. The eye is irreducibly complex, if you remove any part of the human eye it will not function, therefore the eye could not have ever been simpler than it is now or it would not function.--

The eye wasn't always so complex. Do research on lower level lifeforms. They have extremely simplified eyes compared to ours. Complexity comes with growth and change. Adaptation over time. Our ancestors learned to adapt, that is the evolution of intelligence. Read Carl Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden". Great book that teaches about the evolution of human intelligence.


--"The battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level.."--John Dunphy, a humanist/"atheist." So there you have their agenda and certainly you can see their religious dogmatic properties.--

Umm...all I can say is wtf?

--Yes, God does exist. We know there must be a creator because there is a creation. The human brain is thousands of times more complex than the most complex device ever built by humans, and yet it is not in dispute that non-living electronics were created. The Biblical God, YHWH, fits the profile of the kind of God that would be necessary to give rise to the universe and sentient life. First of all, he is the only God that does not behave like a human being...--

Wrong, he does just as many vile and horrible things as humans do. He only threw plagues and death and destruction on us a few times according to the Bible, we do that to each other too. Again Carl Sagan's book talks about the human brain and he goes into a little section about the comparisons between the brain and a computer...

--all other Gods conduct themselves as humans, and have the same motivations, desires, and emotions that humans do. YHWH has a distinctly Inhuman nature. Furthermore, the name means something in itself. Most Gods have given names, the name which God gave to Moses means simply "I AM." Now why is this important? It is important because YHWH is the first sentient being and as such there was no one else around to name him, that is why he does not have a name like Thor, Zeus, or Bob. Now, YHWY is the only God (with the exception of Allah) which has existed infinitely. In order to have truly unlimited power one must also have a truly unlimited existence. The reason YHWY is infinitely powerful is because he is infinite. If he had a definite point of beginning then his power would not be truly unlimited. Study up on pagan mythology and different concepts of deity around the world and I do not believe you will find a God with truly unlimited power. --

So?


--I will conclude by quoting Sir Francis Bacon, "A little philosophy inclineth a man to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."--

Yes lets quote old and outdated people to prove a point...



--So a prokaryote forms a nucleus and becomes an early eukaryote, so then...is there only one of them? Because if there were more than one of them then that means they would reproduce and not all of them would have swallowed a prokaryote.--

I dunno, I remember in biology watching such cells divide and reproduce, you know through that thing they do which we can't do, asexual reproduction essentially. Cells don't walk up to eachother, start humping and make new cells, they split on their own. Same thing can happen in the animal kingdom. In your Bible too, you know the Virigin Mary, she just spout out a baby one day right? Certain species of frogs have been known to (in lab studies) inseminate themselves and birth young. Etc etc etc. It happens all over the place.

--As a side note, mutations in multicellular creatures are cancerous, but in single celled organisms they tend to create a new species.--

Wrong. Asthma is not cancerous and it is a genetic mutation. Not every genetic mutation or genetic disease as the result of mutation is cancerous.

-- Either way the mutated cells tend to run rampant. So OK...where are the eukaryotes with no symbionts? Maybe there was only one of them. So let’s assume there was only one of them. Single celled organisms do not have long life spans, so the mitochondria would have had to become integrated with the eukaryotic host pretty quick in order for each of the cells offspring to have a symbiont. See realistically there is no way this could happen, unless the early bacteria engulfed by the eukaryote ran rampant. If this had happened the eukaryotic cell would not have reproduced but would have burst, causing an end to the upstart Eukaryotes. There are bacteria that invade human cells today and this is what happens when they do. So then we go back to the fact that there would have to be more than one primitive eukaryote with no symbiont. So then, where are they today? They should still be here if they were ever here in the first place.--

Umm, they just died out since they aren't needed anymore? Happens in the animal kingdom all the time. New species are more effective at surviving than others, the others eventually die out and go through a genetic default that reduces their ability to reproduce. Same thing happened back in the days of the ancient Celts, when they had relations with the Neanderthals. Neanderthals experienced an extreme decrease in population growth due to a something written into their genetic makeup that allowed them to die out should a more superior species arrive.

-- Evolution is mostly falsehood and here’s why. While it is possible for minor changes to occur within a species through human agency, macro-evolution (Speciation), spontaneous generation, and the “Big Bang” are all quite impossible. First of all where did the big lump of matter and energy come from that evolved into the universe? --

Where's the magically lightswitch that created God? Don't tell me "he just existed", because that is impossible. Nothing just exists. It can't. Big Bang is one of those things nobody can fully explain as of yet and I doubt anybody can, just like you can't really explain why God came to be, or how. It's too complex a subject and goes back too far and I doubt we'll ever get to a point where we can actually theorize exactly what happened.

--If that was so than Hiroshima and Nagasaki would still be huge mushroom clouds today.--

Chernobyl anyone? That sucker is still burning and people are afraid it will break out of the tomb they built around it in the next 50 years.


-- So that rules out the possibility of the matter and energy having existed forever, therefore it must have had to come from somewhere. Matter and energy do not just spontaneously form from nothing, any more than my PS2 would have formed from fossil fuels and metal beneath the ground on its own. In order to believe in the Big Bang one must suspend the immutable laws of nature and enter into the realm of Makebelieve. While I have nothing against Mr. Rogers and his Neighborhood of Makebelieve I do not think it is proper to adopt a non-verifiable unscientific explanation for the origin of the universe. Also there would be a finite and limited quantity of matter and energy in the big bang which could not give rise to an infinite universe. There is no way of proving any of that stuff because no one was around to witness it. If someone had been around to witness the origin of the universe they would have found that the physical laws were not any different back then.--

How is make believe in science any different that make believe in Religion? You can't prove God exists. Have you met God? Has God come down on TV and said "hey I exist", or has anyone of his magical mythical people done so?
The Universe isn't infinite. It expands and collapses. It's doing exactly what an explosion would do but on such a wide scale. Think about it. Take a firecracker, and enlarge it a billion times over. The explosion will be larger and the duration will be longer. Same concept for the Universe. Larger explosion of energy, longer duration.

--Evolutionists somehow agree that spontaneous generation occurred at least once and only once in order to create the first living cell on earth. No one has successfully created a living cell from non-living matter.--

Define non-living.

-- This is something that cannot be proven by science, which would make it a belief system based on faith. In order for something to be considered science it must be observable and reproducible. There are over 355 trillion ways in which random amino acids could arrange themselves if they exist outside of living molecules. Even if there was a strand of DNA or protein free floating there is still no way it could form a living cell because DNA must be a part of a cell in order for it to function. Take viruses for example, viruses are little more than free floating DNA. In order for a virus to reproduce it must invade a pre-existing cell. A virus does not undergo mitosis independent of a host cell, neither does it suddenly “evolve” into a more complex cell. This is a belief system based on faith not science.--

Have you ever been capable of reproducing something that took the natural world billions if not trillions of years to manage? Honestly? It's not possible for any one man to do it, and it's not a conceivable thing for science to do at this point.

Define "more complex". Some virus' will evolve into more complex virus' or sometimes consume a host cell and alter it to act as a diseased cell. It happens. The Viral world is extremely complex.

--At this point I wonder at the necessity of continuing this lecture but I suppose I will keep on keeping on just to finish the job. If there was originally just 1 kind of cell how did it respirate? How is it that it did not use up all the resources and was it closer to a plant or animal cell? If all the first cells were plants then what replenished theCO2. If the first cells were animals then what replenished the oxygen? Perhaps they both spontaneously generated at the same time, which would be even more impossible and require a much larger dose of blind faith. This stuff is extremely unlikely at best, here are some basic facts which refute evolution--

Certain forms of bacteria release CO2, as do algae and similar lifeforms. CO2 and Oxygen are not requirements for simplified life.

--I challenge anyone to name an incidence when mutation is good. In single celled organisms mutation may produce a more aggressive bacteria or amoeba, but it never produces a more complex life form. In multi-cellular organisms mutation before birth tends to produce a deficient and weaker organism. I challenge anyone to name a historically documented case in which a mutation has produced a superior specimen. I love Marvel comics but that stuff just isn’t scientific, if a mutation occurs in a multi-cellular organism after birth than it becomes a cancer. As far as natural selection goes, by the accepted definition of 'natural selection' it is impossible for natural selection to give rise to such diversity. Natural selection defined as survival of the fittest, which means individuals within a population with undesirable characteristics are eliminated. The elimination of certain types of individuals within species and across species has the effect of reducing diversity not increasing it.--

Define what you mean by mutation. Mutation is such a broad thing. Are you talking about all mutations, some mutations, what?
Under the rules of nature, natural selection functions perfectly for diversity. Certain species die out since they cannot adapt, others adapt and evolve to their surroundings, creating various lifeforms and species. Some move and evolve in new areas, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. It goes on and on and on and on and on. Diversity comes from being able to evolve and adapt.

[/QUOTE]

I'll give you this, you're damn brave. You should be the almighty Godly leader of the Creationists or something, cause that's pretty darn good there.

What is so silly is that they really only use the Bible, claiming that it is inerrant. Well if you go and grab the Old Testament I know a few passages which claim that the Earth is 'flat' and stationary. Surprisingly I have found that some Creationists actually do believe that the Earth is flat, mind you why listen to atheist scientists when you have the word of God in front of you? At that, I conclude it is hardly with debating with most of them.

tell me where you found that because I have doubts they say that in there i want the exact place in the bible and what bible you are reading (people make altered ones)

Just to clarify completely: Science by it's very nature can never be proven until ever single thing in the universe is completely understood. That being said, Evolution is much further on the scientifically accepted scale than creationism, which has no scientific base.

Now you also said for people to explain Creationism without referring to God or any other Deities. This also is not possible. Creationism relies on the belief that a deity/deities created everything at the present stage, denying evidence of dinosaurs existing in different eras and such.

Point is, both require some degree of faith, but Evolution requires only a little more faith than the law of gravity (which still is not technically "proven")

Here is a brief summary of 'scientific' evidence for Creation. Do enjoy and please refrain from laughing too hard...


1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

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.

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers.. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.

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. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.

That was courtesy of http://www.creationevidence.org/

*Hands CSW an anti-emetic*
Much appreciated.

Looking into it, I see no real evidence besides some refuted 'human foot prints' (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html) and conjecture about dinosaur paintings (generally called having an 'imagination').

The rest of it, well, is all refuted. I suggest readding the talkorgins main page that I linked to.

Until you present absolutely conclusive proof of the evolutionary argument, I see no reason why the creationists should have to present proof of theirs.

Further, while fundamentalism may not be wrong, the world has seen in the last few years the harm unrestrained fundamentalism can do. So while the Bible may be the word of God, God is omnipotent. If he had explained the creation of man to say Moses in evolutionary terms, do you really think Moses would have understood?

Evolution says life began from nothing, correct? Amino acids combining and all that. From the pools of primordial goop or something. Primordial goop sounds a lot like mud to me.

Ever study differing mythologies from around the world? It is amazing how many of them have the creation of life from nothing except by the will of some higher being. Many times, that creation is even from mud or dirt.

Say there is a God. Could not his creation plan have been some form of evolutionary process?

One other thing. Start with nothing. Do the math and calculate the chance of random creation of amino acids in the exact combination to create life.

Alright, now calculate it again. This time, load the dice with a higher being.

Why does this have to be one or the other?

Until you present absolutely conclusive proof of the evolutionary argument, I see no reason why the creationists should have to present proof of theirs.

Further, while fundamentalism may not be wrong, the world has seen in the last few years the harm unrestrained fundamentalism can do. So while the Bible may be the word of God, God is omnipotent. If he had explained the creation of man to say Moses in evolutionary terms, do you really think Moses would have understood?

Evolution says life began from nothing, correct? Amino acids combining and all that. From the pools of primordial goop or something. Primordial goop sounds a lot like mud to me.

Ever study differing mythologies from around the world? It is amazing how many of them have the creation of life from nothing except by the will of some higher being. Many times, that creation is even from mud or dirt.

Say there is a God. Could not his creation plan have been some form of evolutionary process?

One other thing. Start with nothing. Do the math and calculate the chance of random creation of amino acids in the exact combination to create life.

Alright, now calculate it again. This time, load the dice with a higher being.

Why does this have to be one or the other?


Nothing is ever random in biology. Good things get amplified a million times over, bad things get supressed.

Oh, and we have. Often. It tends to get ignored.

tell me where you found that because I have doubts they say that in there i want the exact place in the bible and what bible you are reading (people make altered ones)

Refer to Joshua 10:12; 1 Chronicles 16:30; Psalm 93:1; Psalm 96:10; and Psalm 104:5

There are various others too. 1 Sam 2:8 even says that the Earth rests on pillars.

You should realize that this 'evidence' was used to place Galileo under house arrest for suggesting that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Gee… haven’t times changed?

Oh, I forgot Job 37:3, which says that the Earth has ends and edges. So behold, the almighty says we are flat. All the scientific evidence is wrong, because otherwise the word of God would be wrong - and hell, we all know the Bible is inerrant.

NOTE: The Roman Catholic Church thankfully no longer believes the Earth is flat and at the centre of the Universe, and it officially accepts Evolution. It has on occasion criticised Creation Scientists for making a mockery of Christianity and the Bible.

Check out this article, also...http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Nothing is ever random in biology. Good things get amplified a million times over, bad things get supressed.

Oh, and we have. Often. It tends to get ignored.

The problem you seem to have is that biology is the study of life. Until the random event, the creation of life, occurs, there is no biology. The other problem is that many mutations are, while not truly random, effectively random. After they occur, they get multiplied. We think. But we haven't been studying the processes of life at this level for more than two hundred years. Evolution, by its own theory, requires huge amounts of time.

But to prove either theory requires the ability to travel backwards in time, which, personally, I don't see happening any time soon.

Also, JRV, can you demonstrate conclusively for me that many passages from the Bible are not metaphors or extremely simplified for the purpose of understanding? Thought not.

Clinging desperately to one side or the other is foolish.

Further, if you want to become truly a pain in the ass, one could argue for a non-loving Creator figure out to confuse everyone, who planted an incomplete fossil/geologic record to set all us poor humans against each other so he could watch us bicker over what incomplete pieces of evidence mean, the same way people turn on reality television or wrestling or soap operas to watch people fight. But this is truly a devil's advocate argument.

Asking either side to prove their argument is equivalent to saying to a person from two hundred years ago "Prove my computer doesn't operate on magic blue smoke. After all, when the magic blue smoke comes out, it stops working." Either side asking the other to prove its argument is requiring that it prove something for which there is no data or understanding.

God is unknowable, non-comprehendable to humans. It says that in the Bible somewhere, I'm sure. Evolution, until the discovery of DNA, was frankly not a very sound theory at all. Darwin even refuted it before he died. We've known of DNA for fifty years or so. We don't begin to comprehend it properly or completely.

You cannot prove a negative. It's a fundamental principle of logic. That's exactly what you're trying to accomplish here. You think proving one argument disproves the other. It doesn't. They are not linked.

Belief in God is a personal choice. Inflicting that belief on those who don't want it is just as wrong as inflicting the belief in evolution on people who don't want it.

Sure, we have evidence the Earth is, for the most part, spherical. But what of it? People still believe the Earth is flat.

Even if one theory is proven, and the other proved /wrong/, there will still be people who believe. It's human nature.

So arguing one way or the other merely creates strife and friction where there need not be any. People are different, and hold different beliefs. Accept that and grow up. Move on.

If you believe one side or the other, dedicate your life to proving it. Not arguing it. Experiment, define your own data. Make your own theories. But don't bandy other people's fact back and forth like armies exchanging fire over a battlefield.

Creationism does not exist, it is taught, and learnt. Evolution has been discovered.

for a full example, read this: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html


why is it that Creationism set up to refute Evolution? When evolution does not have any agenda, other than to understand what a human ACTUALLY is.

Also, JRV, can you demonstrate conclusively for me that many passages from the Bible are not metaphors or extremely simplified for the purpose of understanding? Thought not.

Hello! That is my very point. Duh. I thought anybody could have seen that, obviously not. What I am saying is, if you can interpret a non-literal meaning out of those passages then why can you not interpret a figurative meaning out of the 7-day creation story? Most of the Creationists I have debated with take the Book of Genesis literally, and that is my response to them.

Sure, you can be selective and take the parts which benefit your argument literally, while disregarding the stuff I have quoted - but that just makes your argument lack credibility.

Yes, God does exist. We know there must be a creator because there is a creation. The human brain is thousands of times more complex than the most complex device ever built by humans, and yet it is not in dispute that non-living electronics were created. The Biblical God, YHWH, fits the profile of the kind of God that would be necessary to give rise to the universe and sentient life. First of all, he is the only God that does not behave like a human being, all other Gods conduct themselves as humans, and have the same motivations, desires, and emotions that humans do. YHWH has a distinctly Inhuman nature.

Oh man, do I have a good read for you! Pick up this book, its called the Bible, its got this guy in it. He does all this crazy stuff, but no one ever seems to see him just hears him. No matter, hes called God and in the first half of the book he sure gets angry really easy, he even kills off existance as an entirity because he had a bad few centuries. I mean what are a few centureies to an eternal being. And hell, he knew it was all going to happen, he is afterall an omnipotent being. Being allpower he knows all, sees all, has no wants nor needs. And yet calls down to his creations to praise him, offering eternal happiness or a fiery inferno of pain and sorrow, but he still loves you![/derail]

I'd much rather rest on Evolution as the select theory of the development of the human race, I don't pretend like I know how the Universe as we recognize it came into being, like some people we know(you). Creationism has no scientific history, it belongs solely to those alrady of faith. It truly is a waste of time, because those of faith already believe it happen, because it REQUIRES FAITH! I honestly believe human progress is somewhat inhibited by those of faith, taking anything for face value without first putting it in the spottlight is something that was frowned upon during the Renaissance. The age of humanism was a leap forward for the species, the Chruch was a leap back.

I don't want to seem like I despise the religious, event huogh I'm sure I do, I've many friends that are followers and we made livley debate of it. But it never came down to anything, anyone already staunch in the posistion is not going to change it for the world.

It seems odd to me that creationists tend to pick tiny flaws in the theory of evolution (such as a few missing links and some inaccuracy in carbon dating), but they miss the gigantic logic failures in biblical stories (explain exactly how one fits two of each of the 4,800,000 documented animal spices on an arc with the specifications described in the Bible).

It's this type of double standard that causes just about everyone in the scientific community to disregard creationism as a valid theory.

And no I'm not just going to take in on faith because as Friedrich Nietzsche says: "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. "

Because this is a thread on creationism... I'll go through and refute their proofs... though you seem to post them not believing them, there are some who do.


1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."


All references I have found to polystrate fossils have been either trees or that one faked whale...

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/polystrate.html deals with the trees.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html deals with the trees and the whale.

Besides, that isn't evidence "For" creation anyway, just "against" evolution.


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.


As far as I remember, analysis of strata show that earth's magnetic field reverses every several thousand years, with each reversal preceded by a decay and followed by an increase.


3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers.. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html has a very long article on the subject of the flood.

Currently, it's believed that the creation myths probably originated with the flooding of the area that is currently the Black Sea.


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. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html

Quick summary: growth rates change. Notably, recently has been a period of very quick growth; also, before the development of agriculture, the growth would have been slow if any. This also neglects the effect of limited food/resource supplies, a well as the fact that the model cannot be applied to small numbers of people (given eight people, a "two percent growth rate" makes absolutely no sense, and would give silly numbers of people for events that happened soon after the supposed flood).


5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/violences.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html


6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.


Well, as far as I know, they're fakes... details would be appreciated, photographs/published articles in a peer-reviewed journal, etc.


7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.


Helium also leaves the atmosphere in several ways, which would counterbalance its inflow. First of all, there is simple thermal outflow - it is light, so some of it reaches escape velocity just through collisions with other atoms. Also, since it is light and thus very high in the atmosphere, it gets ionized and then pulled out by earth's magnetic field.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE001.html


8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.


This would also give other predictions with respect to cosmic background radiation, which are not confirmed - the background is consistant with an old universe. Also, all sorts of radioactive dating methods give old ages for the earth - and what's more, the different dating methods give the same answers, which suggest an old earth.


9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .


That's not the minimal cell. That's the smallest CURRENT cell, which has also evolved as much as humans have. The first cell would not have as much, and would not be faced with such ridiculous odds - especially considering that those would be the ods for a cell forming on one try, whereas there would be many different independent "trials" - the chemicals don't vanish after they combine to form not-a-cell.

And anyway, how life originated does not matter when discussing the truth of evolution - the first cell could have been drawn by pink monkeys for all evolution cares, all that matters is that it existed, and evolved from there.

details here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/


10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.

And, your point? The existence of something complicated proves/disproves nothing. The brain has gradually evolved, we can find animals with all sorts of brains, from none at all to very advanced ones.

The problem you seem to have is that biology is the study of life. Until the random event, the creation of life, occurs, there is no biology. The other problem is that many mutations are, while not truly random, effectively random. After they occur, they get multiplied. We think. But we haven't been studying the processes of life at this level for more than two hundred years. Evolution, by its own theory, requires huge amounts of time.


Well, in animals with slow reproductive cycles. We've studied evolution in bacteria, which live and die quickly, and have observed it in moths, and have observed speciation in plants. We've seen evolution in action on our scales; on larger scales, it is supported by fossil evidence.


But to prove either theory requires the ability to travel backwards in time,


Just like convicting a man of a crime without eyewitness testomony is impossible without traveling backwards in time? Sure, nobody *saw* it, but we have evidence.


Further, if you want to become truly a pain in the ass, one could argue for a non-loving Creator figure out to confuse everyone, who planted an incomplete fossil/geologic record to set all us poor humans against each other so he could watch us bicker over what incomplete pieces of evidence mean, the same way people turn on reality television or wrestling or soap operas to watch people fight. But this is truly a devil's advocate argument.

And also does not give any testable predictions.


Asking either side to prove their argument is equivalent to saying to a person from two hundred years ago "Prove my computer doesn't operate on magic blue smoke. After all, when the magic blue smoke comes out, it stops working." Either side asking the other to prove its argument is requiring that it prove something for which there is no data or understanding.


Except that scientist DO have data and understanding to show that evolution is almost certainly true. talkorigins.org has plenty, as do many scientific journals.


Sure, we have evidence the Earth is, for the most part, spherical. But what of it? People still believe the Earth is flat.

And they're wrong. As are the people that claim that evolution never happened. If you're likening the creationist argument to those that claim the earth is flat and the evolution argument to those who claim the earth is round... I rest my case.

Listen, I believe in evolution, but I am going to put forth MY understanding for so many people's belief in Creationism. It's roughly derived from "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Creationism is an act of faith. Faith is a belief in something when lacking scientific proof. A faith based religion should emphasize the fact that their beliefs exist outside of our realm, and that therefore there will never be any proof for their beliefs. That you can never totally disprove a faith based belief is also key.

If scientific evidence were to ever be found of creationism or anything faith based, then the beliefs are automatically made null-and-void. The moment you can prove the existence of a faith based deity is the moment that it ceases to be deific and it becomes something mundane, and faithless. While disproving it will never get anyone anywhere.

Why do you want scientific evidence for something that is out of scientific bounds? If god is omnipotent, then why would you need science since he does all that miracle stuff? Jeez, stop complaining. If you don't like creationism, fine. If you don't like evolution, fine. People have the right to their beliefs, just GET ON WITH LIFE!

What if I was to believe that "Life" is basicaly an organic computer, reacting to stimuli from diffrent things in the universe? What is life but something that makes desisions based on what happens aftergoing through a complex and unique desiding prosess? If I made a computer that was complex enough to make desisions based on its own "personality" it gleened from experiances that it has been through and its unique hardware and software, would it be A "Life"? I personally have my own beliefes and these may or may not be them, but it does pose some interesting questions.

Creationism does not exist, it is taught, and learnt. Evolution has been discovered.

for a full example, read this: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html


why is it that Creationism set up to refute Evolution? When evolution does not have any agenda, other than to understand what a human ACTUALLY is.


Because it is the linear descendent of visigoth and vandal barbarism.

There can be no mistaking that fundementalists are opposed to civilization.

They are literally barbarians.

im just a little skeptical a chemical reaction could create life... and if it did, would it be life that would survive for more than 2 seconds? it would have to have a cell wall to keep all its juices inside wouldnt it? and besides that, it would have to be conveniantly engineered to be able to split, and eat.

thoughts spring to mind of a thing coming out of a teleporter that malfunctioned rasping 'kill me....

alright, since no creationist is gonna step up to the plate, let's give 'em a hand. what sort of things would we expect to see if the genesis account were literally true? our hypothesis is that the world went as described in genesis, 6,000 years ago, flood and all. this has some testable consequences, so let's generate a list of them. and then we can offer them to the creationists for their approval before testing them against what the evidence actually says.

alright, since no creationist is gonna step up to the plate, let's give 'em a hand. what sort of things would we expect to see if the genesis account were literally true? our hypothesis is that the world went as described in genesis, 6,000 years ago, flood and all. this has some testable consequences, so let's generate a list of them. and then we can offer them to the creationists for their approval before testing them against what the evidence actually says.


Well, for the great flood we would expect a uniform layer of sediment all across the world from when everything kicked up in the flood waters settled.

As for a young earth, we'd expect not to find any radioactive material that had been decaying for more than 6000 or so years.

Also, we would expect not to find any fossils of life forms which arent described in human historical writings.

Enough for being defensive, prove your point. How is creationism a viable theory, and why should it be taught in the classroom?


It is a viable theory because you can not prove it wrong. If you can come up with a logic reason that shows creationism can no be true, then you have a point. This argument must, with out a doubt, prove that creationism is wrong. If you can not, then it is in the same boat as evolution.

with a spark of life being created by a chemical reaction you can link it too one of two things without breaking away from evolution. That it was the product of a small chance but constantly retryed over a LOOOOOONG period of time, or that there was a devine intervention in the assortment that caused it to do it on the first try insted.

It just so happens that there is more evidence to suggest Evolution is real and absolutely no evidence to prove the other. Funny...
And where's your prove. Funny...

Well, for the great flood we would expect a uniform layer of sediment all across the world from when everything kicked up in the flood waters settled.

As for a young earth, we'd expect not to find any radioactive material that had been decaying for more than 6000 or so years.

Also, we would expect not to find any fossils of life forms which arent described in human historical writings.

good start.

we would expect to find fossils of any animals or plants that died in the flood to be in a jumbled mess within the above mentioned uniform layer. and since all plants and animals that ever existed were alive at the time, we would expect to find a sampling of all of them in that jumbled mess.

and we should be able to find naturally occuring radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives that aren't continually being reformed. for example, calcium-41, iron-60, aluminum-26, etc.

God fashioned a firecracker from nothing, and lit it. Bang, he created the universe. That, or matter which can neither be created or destroyed, burst from a void of nothingness for no good reason.

Either way, both explanations require some degree of faith.

God fashioned a firecracker from nothing, and lit it. Bang, he created the universe. That, or matter which can neither be created or destroyed, burst from a void of nothingness for no good reason.

Either way, both explanations require some degree of faith.

Yeah, even Darwin was unsure of his theory. He believed in a God-created evolution.

Enough for being defensive, prove your point. How is creationism a viable theory, and why should it be taught in the classroom?


Besides this, what evidence is there for biblical creation without the bible, and how can you teach creationism without mentioning a "god"?
Not another one of these threads!!
Is there even an actual creationist on NS?
I knwow there are Christians, but I have yet to run into a real Creationist-an informed one(if that is possible).

Catholicism accepts both the big bang and evolutionary theories, as they are the methods through which god created the universe.

As the Pope told Stephen Hawking, "I am interested in the events prior to the big bang."

Or, Albert Einstein put it, "Mathematics is the alphabet with which God wrote the universe."

Let's get one thing straight. Nobody knows how the world came to be. Nobody can know, because they weren't there to observe.

You get caught between two fervent beliefs. One is that somebody created it in seven days. The other is that we evolved from something simple.

The point is, nobody can prove either belief. That's why they're still arguing. Me? I don't care. The world is here, things are as they are. How they got that way is interesting to wonder about, but it doesn't accomplish anything very important. It's more a philosophical question to waste time with.

Catholicism accepts both the big bang and evolutionary theories, as they are the methods through which god created the universe.

As the Pope told Stephen Hawking, "I am interested in the events prior to the big bang."

Or, Albert Einstein put it, "Mathematics is the alphabet with which God wrote the universe."
I really like that Einstein one, that has always been my veiw of the universe ever since I was a child.
I rmember being introduced to the ideas that science conflicted with God, and wondering how anyone could think that.
Then as an adult I encountered who believed in some half a$$ quasi-science, I was very bothered by the lack of faith these religious zealots had.-yes i know what I just said.

Then as an adult I encountered who believed in some half a$$ quasi-science, I was very bothered by the lack of faith these religious zealots had.-yes i know what I just said.


What you said is correct, if somone becomes obsessed with proving something, it is evidence that they have no faith in it.

Faith is belief without regard for evidence.

Searching for evidence is the sure symptom of a lack of faith.

Darwin died an agnostic. He lived - after his youth - an agnostic.
Creationists are not scientists (per se.)
Creationists have *nothing* but faith to support their contentions.
Faith is belief.
Belief is whatever fantasy you want to conjure.
Those fantasies have been - and continue to be - the ruination of the human species.
When we are weaned of them - kia ora tatou-

our hypothesis is that the world went as described in genesis, 6,000 years ago, flood and all. this has some testable consequences, so let's generate a list of them.

throwing in the tower of babel here, there should be evidence of a single unified world language up until approximately 2200 bce, with many different languages appearing quickly thereafter.

The story of the flood is from the Sumerians as described in the Epic of Gilgamesh. So what happened after the flood? Noah's daughter gets him drunk and does the nasty with him. No one quotes that bit of the Bible. Is this the type of story you call divinely inspired? Sounds like smut to me. Is this the type of filth we want to expose our children to? What about Onan, he jerked off and God killed him. Okay I can see the point, he didn't want to sleep with his sister-in-law, I'd rather be dead than sleep with my sister-in-law. Masturbation is a mortal sin but sleeping with your brother's wife is divine. You know maybe this Bible is not so bad after all if your into incest and dysfunctional family relationships.

heh...nice!
www.landoverbaptist.org

and anyone else notice how god's demeanour changed from the old to the new testament? isn't god to be immutable? change implies a lack of perfection and therefor a lack of a tennet of divinity.

and i have to mention the people who claim (possibly correctly) that Darwin was a theist, Darwin recanted on his deathbed, etc etc...really irk me. that mathematician portrayed in 'a beautiful mind', you know, the one that worked with einstien's so called language of god, that guy who was brilliant (and still might be)...well he was crazy as a shithouse rat. nuts. i mean he saw people that weren't there. does that make his mathematics suspect? of course not. though, if he were possesed by an evil spirit, one might question his ability to converse in god's language...heh.

creationism is a rich metaphor. as an english teacher i can recognise it's beauty for that. however, to claim that because science cannot answer what came before the big bang, it is somehow defunct is a logical leap indeed; especially when it leads one to an even more specious conclusion, namely that god exists. as far as the philosphy of logic is concerned, it is always incumbant upon the person asserting a positive declaration to prove her/his point. The person who negates the point can never fully prove their side. Take for example the statement: There are wombats in Canada. Clearly I can never prove that there are no wombats in Canada, because I lack the ability to be everywhere in Canada at once. All the person who states the positive has to do though is to hold one up by their ears, whilst in Canada, to prove their point.

I am deeply offended by any statement that infers that Athieism, or lack of Christianity, has resulted in some sort of moral degeneration in our society. Pan-historically, one will always find simple minded people bemoaning the way that it used to be, when a simple study of the historical record often shows that we are more or less the same over time. There were pregnancies outside of wedlock prior to the removal of school prayer, just as there will be if we ever choose to (god forbid :-) reinstate it. State secularism was intended, as stated before, to protect religion from the state. One's moral code is something which needs to be arrived at through careful consideration in order that it be a) comprehensible and b) consistent. I have not found (fundamental/born again/Baptist/etc.) Christian ethics ever to meet these deceptively simple criteria. Secular humanism and some existential theories come closer than most Christians I know.

And when did the world become Christian? If the numbers are speaking, you guys have it wrong by a long shot with a couple of other religions waaaay ahead. Maybe you christians really need to find Ganesh...escape your magic and savagry.

Darwin died an agnostic. He lived - after his youth - an agnostic.
Creationists are not scientists (per se.)
Creationists have *nothing* but faith to support their contentions.
Faith is belief.
Belief is whatever fantasy you want to conjure.
Those fantasies have been - and continue to be - the ruination of the human species.
When we are weaned of them - kia ora tatou-

If you have no reason for your beliefs, you have no reason to believe in anything.

The scientific method (shortly put) is a belief as to how one can obtain objective knowledge from observation. Theories are beliefs to explain observations.

If belief is the ruination of our species, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

So, what was the reason for your post?

oops my post was to another thread that i timed out from...sorry. though i do think some of the less acerbic points might still be valid. Please excuse venom not directed at anyone here.

I have not the scientific knowledge to comment accurately on this so I shall just stick with my own personal belief.

Personally I believe in the theory of evolution but that evolution was caused by something. Whether this is God or Allah, I am unsure, and there is no evidence for which one it is.

Sometimes however, man needs to stop looking for evidence and formula and just sometimes believe. Like 'love'. Who here can prove indefinitely whether one is or is not in love? And yet such a thing as love, definitely exists.

But I don't want to preach.

Mindstaristan,

because science cannot answer what came before the big bang, it is somehow defunct is a logical leap indeed; especially when it leads one to an even more specious conclusion, namely that god exists.

Science can not explain a big bang. We almost need to invoke theories of being in a negative energy universe to explain it, despite our being in a positive enery universe. Stephen hawking admits the laws of Physics break down and fail to adequately explain the soundness of the big bang theory. It defies the fundamental of rules upon which physics are based.

So, using the big bang to declare creationism as defunct logic, is well, defunct logic.

Humans often turn to res ipsa loquitor, to explain events. It would not have happened were it not for the actions (affirmative or ommitive) of another. So, I can see, but not entirely agree, with how religions can beleive that we would not be here were it not for the actions of a superior being. As we can not adequately explain away such a belief, they are entitled to it. Therefore, we can not proclaim religion, particularly christianity, to be based on defunct logic. Now creationism, I would lean towards yes, defunct. The belief in God, not defunct.

A neat applicable phrase for both sides:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Also, as an english teacher, please instruct others to use person instead of one. Person more adequately addresses your readers than the first integer in an infinite series. That, and person is... well, more personable.

Boy has this thread gone off on exactly the tangents it wasn't supposed to...

this thread was supposed to be a thread where Creationist would present THEIR arguments FOR teaching Creationism in schools.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," while true and a good way to shut up atheist idiots that claim to be able to prove to you there is no god - is not a valid reason to teach creationism in schools...

Boy has this thread gone off on exactly the tangents it wasn't supposed to...

this thread was supposed to be a thread where Creationist would present THEIR arguments FOR teaching Creationism in schools.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," while true and a good way to shut up atheist idiots that claim to be able to prove to you there is no god - is not a valid reason to teach creationism in schools...

:)I do not need to be proven there is no god, or that one exists. I am agnostic. If I had a real reason to believe one way or the other, I would.

I have in no way advocated creationism, I just disagreed with another posters conclusion on god. In fact, I think I even labeled creationism as defunct.

If you have no reason for your beliefs, you have no reason to believe in anything.

Where did I say that? That is wordplay - and I play words, friend, whereas you play cliches.

The scientific method (shortly put) is a belief as to how one can obtain objective knowledge from observation. Theories are beliefs to explain observations.

Very very shortly put: a scientist observes,tests ,works,wonders, suggests (within known parameters, and possibly hopes to expand those parameters, and is willing to go - IF the evidence before her is such- WAY beyond those parameters)that this exegesis is possible/this one maybe/this one aint-
and *then* puts all findings before her peers - the entire scientific community
who know her paticular field, review her work-normally in form of a paper - and waits for peer review-

If belief is the ruination of our species, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

RELIGIOUS BELIEF is such sicky crap

So, what was the reason for your post?


WHERE are the creationist folk actually giving any kind of proof of their views?
:headbang:

I am afraid I am not very good at this sort of thing (computers) so I dont know how to quote a previous post, but one of you said there are Atheiests (spelling is not to hot either) and Atheiests. Just a note on terminology an Athesist is some one who does not belive in god actively an agnostic is someone who is not interested in god either way, which is the the other sort of Atheiest I think you were refereing to. I could be wrong about what you ment, I often am. Any how interesting reading, but its not getting my work done.

Bye Bye

Originally Posted by Anti Pharisaism
If you have no reason for your beliefs, you have no reason to believe in anything.

Where did I say that? That is wordplay - and I play words, friend, whereas you play cliches.

The scientific method (shortly put) is a belief as to how one can obtain objective knowledge from observation. Theories are beliefs to explain observations.

Very very shortly put: a scientist observes,tests ,works,wonders, suggests (within known parameters, and possibly hopes to expand those parameters, and is willing to go - IF the evidence before her is such- WAY beyond those parameters)that this exegesis is possible/this one maybe/this one aint-
and *then* puts all findings before her peers - the entire scientific community
who know her paticular field, review her work-normally in form of a paper - and waits for peer review-

If belief is the ruination of our species, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

RELIGIOUS BELIEF is such sicky crap

So, what was the reason for your post?
:headbang:

I made the statement, so as to lead to the question, because your original post was devoid of thought. It is not a cliche, it is philosophical look at ones beliefs so as to encourage self reflection. Few others, no others here, use it.

No, you did not really play on words.

I have spent many years as a research scientist in a laboratory in CA with the UC System, you gave the appearance of a person who needed the simply put version. The sceintific method is the belief system of science. We believe it to be the best method to further scientific knowledge. There are other methods, and there are those scientists who have valid reasons to not use them, and not the specific methodology you outlined. I follow the scientific method.

So, again, what is the reason for your post. The reason behind your belief that religion is such sicky icky **** or whatever you proclaim it to be?

AP is not a creationist.

First I would like to reiterate that science by its very nature and definition requires direct observation for any kind of direct scientific proof to occur. Since both origins by creation and evolution are past and not under observation today, both fall outside of what is scientifically provable.

This then leaves science as a tool to attempt to justify one view over another based on what is observable today. The sad part is that the bias of the observer will dramatically sway the interpretation of what is observed toward the bias held. If anything is observed that falls outside the held beliefs of the observer, the typical reaction is to assume that a mistake was made and to then look for a result more in line with the held beliefs. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES. So a reasonable support for one theory would be one that the other side can't explain within their theory.

So for instance, variation within a species can be explained under both models, Evolution through gradual improvements over time and Creation through local diversification of existing species. Each side has claimed their view as the definition of natural selection.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-283.htm

The key difference between the two views is in the genetics.

The progression of evolutionary natural selection would dictate that the genetically superior variation would be the more successful and that modifications via mutation that produce a superior strain would be sustained over time.

The progression of creationist natural selection would dictate that the genetic code for all the species was contained in the genetic code of the original species. Since then, all that has occurred is a reduction and refining of what existing traits predominate in a given sub-species. Environmental factors influence which genes are chosen to be expressed and over time the ones that were less efficient at selecting expression based on the environmental need were weeded out leaving only a species that expresses certain traits. Genetic variance has been lost rather than gained. So as a species spreads, subpopulations would develop in different areas that, while related, would express very different traits and thus form a variety of subspecies.
(This by the way, would give an answer to an earlier post regarding how all the species fit in the ark, namely that the number of species at the time was far less, on top of the fact that it was only 2 of each species, likely young specimens, and that only the subset of animals that wouldn't survive the flood otherwise needed to be on board. Given the considerable dimensions of the ark, there could easily been enough room.)

Now if we look at natural laws such as the law of entropy, we can ask which of the two follows the law of entropy. Evolutionary natural selection claims a net increase in order with a movement from inferior to superior genetics. Creationist natural selection claims a net decrease in order, with a reduction in genetic diversity and selectivity. To me, that leaves the creationist model with a view that more closely follows the natural laws.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-330.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm

Now in response to a different post, I am a Catholic Creationist. The Church teaches creation, not evolution. However, since in general church leaders are NOT scientists, they have no direct way of refuting the claims of those presenting evolution as scientifically based, thus the Church has not condemned the belief in evolution. With the generation that has been raised in public schools that teach belief in evolution, many now in the Catholic Church are left with two belief systems that at the core have no common ground with each other. The easier choice between the two is the one they are bombarded with in the popular media, i.e. evolution. This generation has now grown up with evolutionary beliefs and now count teachers in Catholic schools who perpetuate beliefs to the next generation that are contrary to the religion they claim as their own.

Anyway, I think I have rambled enough for this time.

Here we go. Evolution is real. No denying it. That's why there is variation in species. That's why there are thousands of species of birds. That is why there are millions of types of bacteria. That is why you all look different. To deny evolution would be to deny that the halocaust happened.

<snip>


Nice to see, finally, a creationist putting forward positive reasons for their views, and not just a negation of evolution.

Still wrong, mind you, but good to see none the less.

Defence of Creationism

1) The Cambrian Strata: This is the fossil record layer where across the entire world, masses and masses of complex animals appered at once. The confusing part of this (for evolutionists) is that prior to the Cambrian strata there is nothing that approches the complexity of those animals in the Cambrian strat. So all of a sudden these complex animasl evolve at once? Not only that but they are all BURRIED at once. This is impossible for evolutionists to explain, there is no event that could cause this? Except a global flood? Like the one described in Genesis. Evoltionists may be able to explain one or the other but they cannot explian both.

2) The law of Biogenesis: The law of biogenesis was developed as part of Pasutrs work on germ theory. It states that "Life only comes from life". So far there has been NO experiment where any life has been created from non living matter. However creationism points to GOD a living being as the creator of life. Abiogenesis falls down on this point as it is not an experimented or proven scientific rule.

(note these are not the only two defences, I do have more but my friends have borrowed my resorces)

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.

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

I agree that Christians should live by faith but there is nothing wrong in intellegently debating your viewpoint with that of a non Christian or indeed someone directly attacking Christianity. There is no sin in creationism. Granted we must not rest on our own wisdom but there is nothing wrong in explaining the evidence of something to someone else. Many make the mistake that creationists are using the evidence for creation as the sole basis of their Christian faith. They arent

Still wrong, mind you, but good to see none the less.

Im sorry but this is nothing but arrogence. You ask a creationist to put forward their views. They then do and the you say "Wrong" and dont offer an arguemnt for why it is wrong. Rather than debating this, care to tell me why what you just said is not a case of extreme arrogence (And dont say "Because there is X, Y and Z proof" because I am not asking for you to support your claim, I'm asking you why you didnt support it when you first posted this and for any reason why this is not arrogence)

I agree that Christians should live by faith but there is nothing wrong in intellegently debating your viewpoint with that of a non Christian or indeed someone directly attacking Christianity. There is no sin in creationism. Granted we must not rest on our own wisdom but there is nothing wrong in explaining the evidence of something to someone else. Many make the mistake that creationists are using the evidence for creation as the sole basis of their Christian faith. They arent

You miss the point, however, that Creationism wishes to be regarded as a SCIENCE. That is the justification for asking it be taught in schools. To be a science it must adhere to the scientific method, which among other things, allows that one's "theory" (in this case Christianity) might one day be overturned by new evidence. Without that basic assumption it isn't science.

If Creationists are arguing their beliefs as religion, then your statement is correct. However, as a religion there is no need to make all kinds of convoluted claims for evidence of creation when all that is ultimately needed is faith.

Therefore, Creationism, as a "science," is contrary to Christian belief and as a religion, unnecessary.

You miss the point, however, that Creationism wishes to be regarded as a SCIENCE. That is the justification for asking it be taught in schools. To be a science it must adhere to the scientific method, which among other things, allows that one's "theory" (in this case Christianity) might one day be overturned by new evidence. Without that basic assumption it isn't science.

Therefore, Creationism is contrary to Christian belief.

Yes but the creationists point is that evolution shares the same failings as creationism and thus both should either be taught alongiside one another or not at all.

Yes but the creationists point is that evolution shares the same failings as creationism and thus both should either be taught alongiside one another or not at all.

However, they don't share the same failings. One is a system based upon science, the other on faith. Both are fine and play important roles in society, however, when you start calling religious faith a science then you have lowered the standards of what should be taught in school to a point as to be almost meaningless.

First I would like to reiterate that science by its very nature and definition requires direct observation for any kind of direct scientific proof to occur. Since both origins by creation and evolution are past and not under observation today, both fall outside of what is scientifically provable.

This then leaves science as a tool to attempt to justify one view over another based on what is observable today. The sad part is that the bias of the observer will dramatically sway the interpretation of what is observed toward the bias held. If anything is observed that falls outside the held beliefs of the observer, the typical reaction is to assume that a mistake was made and to then look for a result more in line with the held beliefs. THIS APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES. So a reasonable support for one theory would be one that the other side can't explain within their theory.

So for instance, variation within a species can be explained under both models, Evolution through gradual improvements over time and Creation through local diversification of existing species. Each side has claimed their view as the definition of natural selection.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-283.htm

The key difference between the two views is in the genetics.

The progression of evolutionary natural selection would dictate that the genetically superior variation would be the more successful and that modifications via mutation that produce a superior strain would be sustained over time.

The progression of creationist natural selection would dictate that the genetic code for all the species was contained in the genetic code of the original species. Since then, all that has occurred is a reduction and refining of what existing traits predominate in a given sub-species. Environmental factors influence which genes are chosen to be expressed and over time the ones that were less efficient at selecting expression based on the environmental need were weeded out leaving only a species that expresses certain traits. Genetic variance has been lost rather than gained. So as a species spreads, subpopulations would develop in different areas that, while related, would express very different traits and thus form a variety of subspecies.
(This by the way, would give an answer to an earlier post regarding how all the species fit in the ark, namely that the number of species at the time was far less, on top of the fact that it was only 2 of each species, likely young specimens, and that only the subset of animals that wouldn't survive the flood otherwise needed to be on board. Given the considerable dimensions of the ark, there could easily been enough room.)

Now if we look at natural laws such as the law of entropy, we can ask which of the two follows the law of entropy. Evolutionary natural selection claims a net increase in order with a movement from inferior to superior genetics. Creationist natural selection claims a net decrease in order, with a reduction in genetic diversity and selectivity. To me, that leaves the creationist model with a view that more closely follows the natural laws.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-330.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-331.htm

Now in response to a different post, I am a Catholic Creationist. The Church teaches creation, not evolution. However, since in general church leaders are NOT scientists, they have no direct way of refuting the claims of those presenting evolution as scientifically based, thus the Church has not condemned the belief in evolution. With the generation that has been raised in public schools that teach belief in evolution, many now in the Catholic Church are left with two belief systems that at the core have no common ground with each other. The easier choice between the two is the one they are bombarded with in the popular media, i.e. evolution. This generation has now grown up with evolutionary beliefs and now count teachers in Catholic schools who perpetuate beliefs to the next generation that are contrary to the religion they claim as their own.

Anyway, I think I have rambled enough for this time.
There is no such thing as the 'law of entropy', you are thinking of the second law of thermodynamics, which is all nice and proper in a CLOSED system. If going from disorder to order is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, then it would be violated a million times over every day (synthesis of proteins from amino acids, etc). Guess why it is still a law?

Second, we know (roughly) the genome of some of the species on earth, and none of them carry all of the traits. Some species are so radically different that they only have the very basic in common (such as the RNA/DNA 'code)...

Until you present absolutely conclusive proof of the evolutionary argument, I see no reason why the creationists should have to present proof of theirs.

Evolutionists don't admit that the theory is fullproof or fully proven, but creationists tend to continuously attack the evolutionary theory without providing any real evidence why their idea is any better or any more the truth. It leaves them no room to argue against evolution if they can't even argue to protect their own theories.

Further, while fundamentalism may not be wrong, the world has seen in the last few years the harm unrestrained fundamentalism can do. So while the Bible may be the word of God, God is omnipotent. If he had explained the creation of man to say Moses in evolutionary terms, do you really think Moses would have understood?

Depends how God explained evolution to Moses. If God explained it in the full scientific manner we see today, I doubt Moses would understand a single word, but if he explained it in a simpler way, he might have. Moses wasn't stupid.

Evolution says life began from nothing, correct? Amino acids combining and all that. From the pools of primordial goop or something. Primordial goop sounds a lot like mud to me.

It really depends what manner of Evolution we're talking about. Evolution from the very beginning of the Universe, or Evolution on this planet, or in the Solar System, or the Milky Way. The only thing we know a good deal about is the evolution of after whatever started the Big Bang. We know how Galaxies are created, we know about stars, we know about planets, etc etc. We then know about the materials found in such areas and how they can combine to create complex lifeforms. Can we prove all of it? No, but we're pretty sure it happened that way, or in a similar way since our theories constantly change as new information arrives. Evolution of life is actually far simpler than the Evolution of everything. You'd be surprised what you can find living in mud. Throw some under a high powered microscope, it's amazing.

Ever study differing mythologies from around the world? It is amazing how many of them have the creation of life from nothing except by the will of some higher being. Many times, that creation is even from mud or dirt.

Religion today is no different than Mythology in the past if you look at the similarities. Everything is almost always explained as happening by the powers of some higher being. The fantastic things that happen in the Bible could easily be explained by science or by the great advances in our understanding of human psychology.

Say there is a God. Could not his creation plan have been some form of evolutionary process?

That's just it though. Evolution doesn't deny the fact that there could be a God, or gods, or whatever. Evolution only explains how we came to exist. For all we know, God exists and just started the whole process, maybe God created the first materials that started the chain reaction of life and the Universe. We don't know that far back. We'll never know, all we can know is how life arose on this planet to an extent and really Evolution is the only solid explanation we have at this point. It's the only thing with evidence to suggest it actually happens and is currently the only theory on life we see taking affect today on a small scale.

One other thing. Start with nothing. Do the math and calculate the chance of random creation of amino acids in the exact combination to create life.

Yeah, your chances of winning the lotto are pretty bad too, but it happens. It doesn't matter how minute the chance is that something will happen, eventually it "WILL" happen. That's all there is to it. Your chance of rolling a 6 on a 6 side die is something like 1 in 6, though there is some differentiation in the chances since 6 doesn't roll up as much as the others. So essentially you roll that die 6 times and you are almost guaranteed to get at least one 6. Same concept on a greater scare and smaller probability. It happens.

And where's your prove. Funny...

The fact that you asked that question and spelled "proof" incorrectly tells me you don't know much about science...funny...

What you said is correct, if somone becomes obsessed with proving something, it is evidence that they have no faith in it.

Faith is belief without regard for evidence.

Searching for evidence is the sure symptom of a lack of faith.

??? Or maybe it's just the undeniable curiosity of mankind to learn. I don't know about everyone else but I'm always interested in the new crazy things scientists discover, it's fascinating. Has nothing to do with lack of faith. I realize that evolution doesn't explain everything and can't. I believe in evolution because it makes sense to me and just saying "oh some big guy crapped us all out" doesn't. I like to have reasoning in what I believe in. That's just the way my mind works.

im just a little skeptical a chemical reaction could create life...

Tigranistan, two scientists, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, in 1953, used chemicals and electricity to create amino acids.

Ta da.

Im sorry but this is nothing but arrogence. You ask a creationist to put forward their views. They then do and the you say "Wrong" and dont offer an arguemnt for why it is wrong. Rather than debating this, care to tell me why what you just said is not a case of extreme arrogence (And dont say "Because there is X, Y and Z proof" because I am not asking for you to support your claim, I'm asking you why you didnt support it when you first posted this and for any reason why this is not arrogence)
I'm sorry if it seemed like arrogance on my part. I personally did not ask anyone to put up their views - I was simply an interested observer of the thread but pleased to see someone positively responding to the challenge. My last comment was simply my view on the poster's argument, in case anyone thought that my support for the post implied support for the thesis. Irrespective of my views on evolution, I could see flaws in the argument, so I thought it was wrong. I did not go into details, because there are others around who can state the pro-evolution case much better than I.

An easier explanation is that I am British and the current Creationist/Evolution argument seems at least to be almost exclusively an American phenomenon. The battle over here is long over, bar the occasional skirmish on the fringe of mainstream thought. So my interest in this thread is largely cultural, rather than scientific.

An even easier explanation is that I have a family, and a was supposed to be cooking breakfast. I didn't have time to get drawn into a detailed argument.

So, sorry for any offense caused. In return, I won't take offence at your jumping to hasty conclusions. ;)

what sort of things would we expect to see if the genesis account were literally true? our hypothesis is that the world went as described in genesis, 6,000 years ago, flood and all. this has some testable consequences, so let's generate a list of them.

the list of testable creationist hypotheses thus far:

(New Granada's list)
Well, for the great flood we would expect a uniform layer of sediment all across the world from when everything kicked up in the flood waters settled.

As for a young earth, we'd expect not to find any radioactive material that had been decaying for more than 6000 or so years.

Also, we would expect not to find any fossils of life forms which arent described in human historical writings.

(free soviets' list)
we would expect to find fossils of any animals or plants that died in the flood to be in a jumbled mess within the above mentioned uniform layer. and since all plants and animals that ever existed were alive at the time, we would expect to find a sampling of all of them in that jumbled mess.

we should be able to find naturally occuring radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives that aren't continually being reformed. for example, calcium-41, iron-60, aluminum-26, etc.

throwing in the tower of babel here, there should be evidence of a single unified world language up until approximately 2200 bce, with many different languages appearing quickly thereafter.

--------------------

anyone want to add any more? actual creationists are more than welcome to add some too.

Tigranistan, two scientists, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, in 1953, used chemicals and electricity to create amino acids.

Ta da.
To further expound on this fact, I'll just give a little more detail, and further advances.

Through utilizing all known facts about Earth's gradual atmospheric and geographic changes, scientists attempted to figure out how life could have immerged. By tracing back to the oldest known lifeforms, they went back even further, to try and recreate the conditions Earth was in, to see if life could be created. (Note: I'm keeping this as simple as I can, so those of you who have more detailed knowledge, thats great, but its unnecessary in this case of basic explanation)

By creating a closed system with the same atmospheric conditions, and using all chemicals and materials known to present at that period, scientists tried to see if they could create any known basic parts of life. And boy did they ever. Through intense radiation and electrical currents, the same as would have been present in that priomordial earth's conditions, scientists managed to create a full 18 different amino acids, with the other two expected to either be created later, or present already, but not discovered. They further found traces of the components of fatty acids, and carbon chains that could become carbohydrates. Basically they found all the most basic elements of life, being created under the conditions of earth. Further experimentation led to certain amino chains being created, thereby creating the first true "proteins". The scientists then theorized that perhaps these chains, growing in complexity would eventually be formed into either simple enzymes, and self-replicating strands. Continued replication and mutation would eventually lead to increased complexity, and prokaryote developement would eventually follow as specific chains created basic cell forms, which would gradually develope into increasingly complex forms. Either random combination or mutation would eventually lead to the creation of the nucleus, and so on and so forth.

The basic blocks where there, and all that was necessary was time.

There is no such thing as the 'law of entropy', you are thinking of the second law of thermodynamics, which is all nice and proper in a CLOSED system. If going from disorder to order is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, then it would be violated a million times over every day (synthesis of proteins from amino acids, etc). Guess why it is still a law?

Second, we know (roughly) the genome of some of the species on earth, and none of them carry all of the traits. Some species are so radically different that they only have the very basic in common (such as the RNA/DNA 'code)...

For starters the universe as a whole IS a closed system and while localized order does form all the time, it is at the cost of greater disorder elswhere. So in your example, yes we synthesize amino acids(AA) into proteins. About 3/4ths of the AA used come from proteins we break down in our bodies, and the rest has to come from an outside source. So we eat plants with protein or animals that ate plants that make protein. Where, did the plants get it? Well they have to make it, and to do that requires energy. Plants get energy from the sun. The sun is constantly burning and giving off energy. The sun is finite in its energy and is loosing far more than it might ever gain every second. Thus local order in proteins is counterbalanced by far greater disorder in the sun.

For the second point, all we see today are the subspecies that have addapted and restricted themselves to a more local environment. None of what we see today could truly reflect the original origin species in all if its potential from the pre-global flood times. So all we can do is mark similarities and make educated guesses as to where two subspecies might have seperated from a common source.

For starters the universe as a whole IS a closed system and while localized order does form all the time, it is at the cost of greater disorder elswhere. So in your example, yes we synthesize amino acids(AA) into proteins. About 3/4ths of the AA used come from proteins we break down in our bodies, and the rest has to come from an outside source. So we eat plants with protein or animals that ate plants that make protein. Where, did the plants get it? Well they have to make it, and to do that requires energy. Plants get energy from the sun. The sun is constantly burning and giving off energy. The sun is finite in its energy and is loosing far more than it might ever gain every second. Thus local order in proteins is counterbalanced by far greater disorder in the sun.

For the second point, all we see today are the subspecies that have addapted and restricted themselves to a more local environment. None of what we see today could truly reflect the original origin species in all if its potential from the pre-global flood times. So all we can do is mark similarities and make educated guesses as to where two subspecies might have seperated from a common source.
1. Exactly...the reason why you can't use the second law of thermodynamics to 'disprove' evolution.

2. No, what we are seeing today is species that have evolved to fit certain ecological nitches that were unfilled by earlier animals. However, the idea that one species held all the traits in the world is a bit laughable, considering that new traits are forming all the time (the ability to metabolize nylon).

Tigranistan, two scientists, Harold Urey and Stanley Miller, in 1953, used chemicals and electricity to create amino acids.

Ta da.

Again using far more external energy than even a plant would need to make the amino acid. Also complicating the matter is that the comditions required for them to do so were extreme: oxygen had to be completely absent, they only made 2 of the 20 required proteins, and the other 98% of their resulting sample was very toxic to life forms in general. This makes this explanation of the origins of proteins suspicious at best. Also note that life only uses ONE of the two sterio-isomeres (D vs L) of any amino acid and that the other is also toxic to us. In a lab, a solution always moves toward equal quantities of BOTH sterio-isomeres. To get the alpha helix and beta pleated sheet configurations of proteins we see today, a requirement is that ALL the amino acids have to have the same steric orientation. A single amino acid of the wrong orientation will comlpetely destroy the pattern and thus the protein.

Yes but the creationists point is that evolution shares the same failings as creationism and thus both should either be taught alongiside one another or not at all.

But they dont... they both may be wrong yes ... but evolution theory can be changed to match current data

religion can not ... because it is not science

2. No, what we are seeing today is species that have evolved to fit certain ecological nitches that were unfilled by earlier animals. However, the idea that one species held all the traits in the world is a bit laughable, considering that new traits are forming all the time (the ability to metabolize nylon).[/QUOTE]


I never said ONE species held all the traits of all species on earth. What I am saying is that an original canine kind was created as per genisis and from that original canine all the species of canine were differentiated resulting in the large multitude of subspecies that we see today. Similarly for all other kinds of animals. An original kind was created, and within that was proliferation within that kind. So adam and eve would have had all the genetic traits (many recessive) for all the various human "races".

Interestingly it has already been shown scientifically that the parents will selectivly choose which genes, out of what they have available, to present in the reproductive cells. This selection process is largely based on environmental influences. In the womb, the traits a growing child expresses will continue to be chosen based on the environmental need as interpreted by the mother. In general, harsh environments tend more towards physically durable traits, optimal environments tend more towards mentally advanced traits.

So logically, the longer a species lives in a given environment the more specific traits are selected for that environment, eventually recessive traits not appropriate for the environment will be weeded out leaving just the one trait. This species will then do very well unless the environment is drastically altered, if they have lost the traits needed to adapt, the species will die out. We see this all the time in the news.

Again using far more external energy than even a plant would need to make the amino acid. Also complicating the matter is that the comditions required for them to do so were extreme: oxygen had to be completely absent, they only made 2 of the 20 required proteins, and the other 98% of their resulting sample was very toxic to life forms in general. This makes this explanation of the origins of proteins suspicious at best. Also note that life only uses ONE of the two sterio-isomeres (D vs L) of any amino acid and that the other is also toxic to us. In a lab, a solution always moves toward equal quantities of BOTH sterio-isomeres. To get the alpha helix and beta pleated sheet configurations of proteins we see today, a requirement is that ALL the amino acids have to have the same steric orientation. A single amino acid of the wrong orientation will comlpetely destroy the pattern and thus the protein.
Yes, and scientists have since created 16 other amino acids, raising the total to 18. Oxygen was not present in the system, as oxygen DID NOT EXIST IN ABUNDANCE IN PRIOMORDIAL TIMES. They were recreating the conditions of Earth, not just making things up. Furthermore, the toxicity of the sample is not toxic to the basic structures they were trying to create, for a more complete explanation read my above post.

the list of testable creationist hypotheses thus far:

(New Granada's list)
Well, for the great flood we would expect a uniform layer of sediment all across the world from when everything kicked up in the flood waters settled.

As for a young earth, we'd expect not to find any radioactive material that had been decaying for more than 6000 or so years.

Also, we would expect not to find any fossils of life forms which arent described in human historical writings.

(free soviets' list)
we would expect to find fossils of any animals or plants that died in the flood to be in a jumbled mess within the above mentioned uniform layer. and since all plants and animals that ever existed were alive at the time, we would expect to find a sampling of all of them in that jumbled mess.

we should be able to find naturally occuring radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives that aren't continually being reformed. for example, calcium-41, iron-60, aluminum-26, etc.

throwing in the tower of babel here, there should be evidence of a single unified world language up until approximately 2200 bce, with many different languages appearing quickly thereafter.

--------------------

anyone want to add any more? actual creationists are more than welcome to add some too.

Actually creationists would expect a variety of layers to form based on partical size, density, etc. and it would also make sense that different types of plants and animals would also be sorted by layer as things settled after the global flood.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-328.htm

There has been study done that suggests that decay rates have NOT been constant in the past. And given complete lack of knowedge as to what the initial ratios of elements such as uranium and lead were, we cannot have a truly accurate time measurment based on these ratios.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-376.htm

Interestingly the bible has descriptions of great beasts in it. Job 40:15 -41:34 have descriptions of a behemoth, a leviathan, and what could be interpreted as a dragon. Some scholors believe that the book of Job dates from before the genesis flood.

Actually, one evidence supporting a common root at the tower of babel is the commonality of the Zodiac in virtually all of the ancient cultures, all of which indicate a source from before their culture. Now in Genesis 11:4 we read, "..., let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth."(NIV) A more acurate translation would not have the words "to reach" as being literal, leaving a "tower unto heaven". "Heaven" is used to describe the sky, space, and what is seen there, such as in the passage "the heavens declare the glory of God". Now if God created the heavens, he would also have created the signs in the heavens, these signs give glory to God, and these signs would be the original Zodiac. The tower of babal could easily be a temple dedicated to the Zodiac, not to the Creator, but rather to the creation. This corruption would be one of the reasons for the destruction of the tower and the scattering of the people. This would also explain how the ancient cultures had virtually identical versions of the zodiac, with minor variations that would naturally develop over time.

A christian interpretation of the Zodiac reveals that it tells the whole salvation story starting with Virgo the virgin as a representation of the virgin Mary with the branch (Christ) in one hand and the seed in the other. Different signs represent the different roles and natures of Christ, Satan, Mary, and the Church.

I never said ONE species held all the traits of all species on earth. What I am saying is that an original canine kind was created as per genisis and from that original canine all the species of canine were differentiated resulting in the large multitude of subspecies that we see today. Similarly for all other kinds of animals. An original kind was created, and within that was proliferation within that kind. So adam and eve would have had all the genetic traits (many recessive) for all the various human "races".

Interestingly it has already been shown scientifically that the parents will selectivly choose which genes, out of what they have available, to present in the reproductive cells. This selection process is largely based on environmental influences. In the womb, the traits a growing child expresses will continue to be chosen based on the environmental need as interpreted by the mother. In general, harsh environments tend more towards physically durable traits, optimal environments tend more towards mentally advanced traits.

So logically, the longer a species lives in a given environment the more specific traits are selected for that environment, eventually recessive traits not appropriate for the environment will be weeded out leaving just the one trait. This species will then do very well unless the environment is drastically altered, if they have lost the traits needed to adapt, the species will die out. We see this all the time in the news.

So you admit that mirco-evolution exists?

You are aware of what centuries of micro-evolution does, right?

Besides, I think you are ignorant of basic genetics - There can be more then two alleles (Blood type comes to mind) for a single trait, such as that it would be impossible for a mating pair (say, Adam and Eve) to have all the alleles for that trait (Any one person can only have two alleles for a single trait, one parental and one maternal) and be able to pass them on to the next generation without causing the recessive gene to express itself far often then it should, and deaths due to genetic diseases would be abominably high (three in four would be a good guess).

Yes, and scientists have since created 16 other amino acids, raising the total to 18. Oxygen was not present in the system, as oxygen DID NOT EXIST IN ABUNDANCE IN PRIOMORDIAL TIMES. They were recreating the conditions of Earth, not just making things up. Furthermore, the toxicity of the sample is not toxic to the basic structures they were trying to create, for a more complete explanation read my above post.

Given that the only direct way to prove atmospheric conditions at a given time scientifically is to take a sample of that same atmosphere. We are left with finding fossil samples of the prior atmosphere such as that found in amber. These show that oxygen was actually MORE abundant in past atmosphereic conditions not less. Beyond that is mere speculation. In addition, the speculation that the earths atmosphere had no oxygen is based on the fact that they couldn't form the amino acids any other way, not the other way around.

Plus even if there was a oxygen free atmosphere, how then could an oxygen DEPENDANT life form arise from it. Keep in mind that body function requires constant rebuilding of proteins. The life span of any given protein is measured in minutes to months at most. This is a fully functioning, properly assembled life span, not a random gathering of amino acids. It seems absurd to me that any order greater than a random mishmass of amino acids could spontaniously come together with all only one steric configuration, that could last longer in an unprotected environment than in the protected environment of the body. Then, not only last, but become part of a greater order that requires conditions opposite that of the amino acid formation?

So you admit that mirco-evolution exists?

You are aware of what centuries of micro-evolution does, right?

Besides, I think you are ignorant of basic genetics - There can be more then two alleles (Blood type comes to mind) for a single trait, such as that it would be impossible for a mating pair (say, Adam and Eve) to have all the alleles for that trait (Any one person can only have two alleles for a single trait, one parental and one maternal) and be able to pass them on to the next generation without causing the recessive gene to express itself far often then it should, and deaths due to genetic diseases would be abominably high (three in four would be a good guess).

The primary difference between micro-evolution and creationinst variation of species within a kind is the assumption of the evolutioninst that order is going up rather than down, and that a correlation can be made between random mutations and NEW genetic code of a higher order. Mutation always results in a DECREASE in order and is the source of thousands of different documented diseases. (BTW I am currently in school to become a doctor.)

As far as blood types are conserned a simple allele chart can show that all four variations can arise from two parents. Blood type alleles are refered to as codominant and only have two alleles not three. If a person has both A and B traits, both are represented. O is the resessive trait and is actually the absence of either A or B. If one was type A (= AO) and the other was type B (= BO) then the possible outcomes are AB, AO, BO, OO. Thus all outcomes are possible from the original two. With the second generation this is no longer true with some of the combinations. So if AO and OO seperated themselves from the larger population the only possible outcomes are AO, OA and OO, continued isolation will thus only allow AA, AO, OA, and OO outcomes. The B type simply doesn't exist in this subgroup and unless reintroduced from an outside source, never will. This demonstrates isolation producing a reduction in potential.

The primary difference between micro-evolution and creationinst variation of species within a kind is the assumption of the evolutioninst that order is going up rather than down, and that a correlation can be made between random mutations and NEW genetic code of a higher order. Mutation always results in a DECREASE in order and is the source of thousands of different documented diseases. (BTW I am currently in school to become a doctor.)

As far as blood types are conserned a simple allele chart can show that all four variations can arise from two parents. Blood type alleles are refered to as codominant and only have two alleles not three. If a person has both A and B traits, both are represented. O is the resessive trait and is actually the absence of either A or B. If one was type A (= AO) and the other was type B (= BO) then the possible outcomes are AB, AO, BO, OO. Thus all outcomes are possible from the original two. With the second generation this is no longer true with some of the combinations. So if AO and OO seperated themselves from the larger population the only possible outcomes are AO, OA and OO, continued isolation will thus only allow AA, AO, OA, and OO outcomes. The B type simply doesn't exist in this subgroup and unless reintroduced from an outside source, never will. This demonstrates isolation producing a reduction in potential.

Wrong. Mutations can add order (information) into the genome, but random mutations do not. The problem with your statement is that there is quite a bit of culling of that bad information, leaving only the good mutations to surive.
(Here is a nice bit of discussion on that topic: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/, or if you don't like online resources, I suggest Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468. Or something :)

When you have only one mating pair (making the assumption of adam and eve), the genotype of the individuals must be AB and A/Bi (I being the lack of A or B), so the possible genotypes of the offspring are...AA, Ai, AB, Bi. In all cases, you will eliminate one, if not more, of those alleles in the first generation (assuming that the pair only has one child, which some animals only have). You can do this for just about every 3 or 4 allele in the human genome. You'd lose quite a bit of your genetic variation right off the bat. Say nothing of the fact that you'd have lots of inbreeding and tons of genetic diseases popping up all over the place.

Oh, and what about sex linked diseases? Any males would instantly get them, which would require quite a feat of incest for one pair to continue reproducing...

Plus even if there was a oxygen free atmosphere, how then could an oxygen DEPENDANT life form arise from it.

They didn't. Early lifeforms were most likely anaerobic - not only would they not require oxygen, it was toxic to them. They would release oxygen as a byproduct, and metabolize C02. Such organisms are still found in various places, but not many - only where there is little or no oxygen.

oh darlin', there are atheist and there are atheists

there are those who are atheists because they are in some kind of rebellion against their parents or society so they use their current lack of belief as something to rub their parents noses in. they are mad at the god they dont believe in because he couldnt be bothered to arrange life to optimize their pleasures.

then there are those for whom god just isnt an issue. religion isnt part of their lives, they dont think about it, they dont talk about it and they wont bring it up in conversation. they never debate the existance of god anymore than they debate the existance of santa claus.

you just notice the angry ones way more often than you would ever notice the calm ones.

Makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Evidence from the Rock Record

* Iron (Fe) i s extremely reactive with oxygen. If we look at the oxidation state of Fe in the rock record, we can infer a great deal about atmospheric evolution.
* Archean - Find occurrence of minerals that only form in non-oxidizing environments in Archean sediments: Pyrite (Fools gold; FeS2), Uraninite (UO2). These minerals are easily dissolved out of rocks under present atmospheric conditions.
* Banded Iron Formation (BIF) - Deep water deposits in which layers of iron-rich minerals alternate with iron-poor layers, primarily chert. Iron minerals include iron oxide, iron carbonate, iron silicate, iron sulfide. BIF's are a major source of iron ore, b/c they contain magnetite (Fe3O4) which has a higher iron-to-oxygen ratio than hematite. These are common in rocks 2.0 - 2.8 B.y. old, but do not form today.
* Red beds (continental siliciclastic deposits) are never found in rocks older than 2.3 B. y., but are common during Phanerozoic time. Red beds are red because of the highly oxidized mineral hematite (Fe2O3), that probably forms secondarily by oxidation of other Fe minerals that have accumulated in the sediment.

Conclusion - amount of O2 in the atmosphere has increased with time.

It's amazing to see what fanatical religious people will put in their heads just so their bubble of dogmas won't pop.
I understand why it happens. If I was raised being told that the world around me is and always has been 123 and then suddenly some people I don't know come and say it's 654, I would probably not believe in them either.

Open your minds. Do your own research and make up your own opinions instead of vomiting stupid beliefs that were vomited onto you with no regard for truth.


Do you people even understand why you have to be vaccined for the flu every year?

Wrong. Mutations can add order (information) into the genome, but random mutations do not. The problem with your statement is that there is quite a bit of culling of that bad information, leaving only the good mutations to surive.
(Here is a nice bit of discussion on that topic: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/, or if you don't like online resources, I suggest Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468. Or something :)

When you have only one mating pair (making the assumption of adam and eve), the genotype of the individuals must be AB and A/Bi (I being the lack of A or B), so the possible genotypes of the offspring are...AA, Ai, AB, Bi. In all cases, you will eliminate one, if not more, of those alleles in the first generation (assuming that the pair only has one child, which some animals only have). You can do this for just about every 3 or 4 allele in the human genome. You'd lose quite a bit of your genetic variation right off the bat. Say nothing of the fact that you'd have lots of inbreeding and tons of genetic diseases popping up all over the place.

Even in your example i (= O) is not a lost possability and can be reformed with a combination of Ai and Bi. Also with the genesis account we are dealing with a perfect creation WITHOUT the accumulated resessive mutations that lurk waiting for a bad combination to be expressed such as in inbreeding populations. The first generations after Adam and Eve would have had ZERO negative complications and thus no inbreeding concerns. In addition, the idealitic conditions before the global flood would have significantly reduced the possibility of any mutations forming for several reasons.

First, the pollution count would be zero to start with, food and water would have been pure and untainted resulting in no stressers on the body.

Second, harmful radiation from the sun and other extra-terran sources would have largely (if not completely diflected away from the earth by the water vapor barrior described in genesis as the seperation of the firmaments (Genesis 1:6-8). Water has been scientificly shown to have this property, hence the increased risk of sunburn at the beach as sunlight reflects off of the water. This water vapor barrior would also be the source of the 40 days of rain in Genesis 7:4,11-12. The "fountains of the deep" described could be describing volcanos and would throw a great deal of ash into the air. Rain requires a pollutant to form around and before the eruption of the fountains of the deep, there would not have been enough particulate matter in the atmosphere for rain to form, thus allowing the vapor barrier to remain in place.
Without this barrier after the flood, radiation would be greatly increased. By the geneoligies listed in the bible, lifespans did indeed drop dramaticly after the flood. Within a handful of generations, lifespans dropped from close to a thousand years max, to a mere 200 years and continued to drop.

Third, with such a nutrient rich and healthy diet, any damage that might have occured was far more easily repaired before it could lead to permanent damage.

Evidence from the Rock Record

* Iron (Fe) i s extremely reactive with oxygen. If we look at the oxidation state of Fe in the rock record, we can infer a great deal about atmospheric evolution.
* Archean - Find occurrence of minerals that only form in non-oxidizing environments in Archean sediments: Pyrite (Fools gold; FeS2), Uraninite (UO2). These minerals are easily dissolved out of rocks under present atmospheric conditions.
* Banded Iron Formation (BIF) - Deep water deposits in which layers of iron-rich minerals alternate with iron-poor layers, primarily chert. Iron minerals include iron oxide, iron carbonate, iron silicate, iron sulfide. BIF's are a major source of iron ore, b/c they contain magnetite (Fe3O4) which has a higher iron-to-oxygen ratio than hematite. These are common in rocks 2.0 - 2.8 B.y. old, but do not form today.
* Red beds (continental siliciclastic deposits) are never found in rocks older than 2.3 B. y., but are common during Phanerozoic time. Red beds are red because of the highly oxidized mineral hematite (Fe2O3), that probably forms secondarily by oxidation of other Fe minerals that have accumulated in the sediment.

Conclusion - amount of O2 in the atmosphere has increased with time.

Yes, iron is reactive with oxygen, but the reaction will only occur if the two actually meet. Iron locked in rock layers is not exposed to atmosphere and will have little to no oxydation.

Rapid latering of volcanic flows could explain the high iron, low oxydized deep layers without significant impact from atmospheric conditions.

And again, unless the original quantities of these elements are known (scientifically impossiple at this point), then at best we can only provide a guess which can be heavily biased towards whatever belief you hold.

I'm sure I'll be swatted down very quickly by people who are not familiar with advanced physics and/or genetics if I say anything in depth; but I like getting the word out on a lot of things, so, since I haven't the time to explain it, I would suggest the following site: http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

You miss the point, however, that Creationism wishes to be regarded as a SCIENCE. That is the justification for asking it be taught in schools. To be a science it must adhere to the scientific method, which among other things, allows that one's "theory" (in this case Christianity) might one day be overturned by new evidence. Without that basic assumption it isn't science.

If Creationists are arguing their beliefs as religion, then your statement is correct. However, as a religion there is no need to make all kinds of convoluted claims for evidence of creation when all that is ultimately needed is faith.

Therefore, Creationism, as a "science," is contrary to Christian belief and as a religion, unnecessary.

Actually, a creation scientist is simply a scientist who believes in creation as an explaination of origins. We then use science to explain how what we find today can fit the model we endorse. Creation in and of itself, as an event that has occured only in the past and is not observable today cannot be a science, but its aftermath is explainable, though not provable, with scientific reason.

Hi from France. :D
The evolutionist theory is proven all days at the molecular level. The viruses transfer to adapt to the species which they meet. The bacterias evolve/move to adapt to antibiotics and resist to them. It's that the evolution and the adaptation to environement. We know the chains of the evolution of the species. It is necessary to be an uncultivated American to not be informed of this.
This debate is ridiculous. It would be funny if it didn't take place in the first world power.
Then Americans asks for why the whole world take them for idiotics.

Even in your example i (= O) is not a lost possability and can be reformed with a combination of Ai and Bi. Also with the genesis account we are dealing with a perfect creation WITHOUT the accumulated resessive mutations that lurk waiting for a bad combination to be expressed such as in inbreeding populations. The first generations after Adam and Eve would have had ZERO negative complications and thus no inbreeding concerns. In addition, the idealitic conditions before the global flood would have significantly reduced the possibility of any mutations forming for several reasons.

Of course you can get back i or A, but you aren't going to get it without another breeding pair...which wouldn't exist.

There is no such thing as a perfect creation (appendix anyone?), and even if that was so, we would have to carry traits that are negative (sickle cell anemia) that wouldn't carry a bonus until much much later, and thus would be destroyed by the forces of evolution before the bonus would be conveyed by that gene. There would be no point for having it, so it wouldn't have lasted, so it would have had to have either been re-created by mutations later (thereby increasing order, and proving micro/macro evolution), the dominant/recessive genes somehow got passed down without creating the mess that it does today in inbred populations or god stepped in (again) and made it so. I'd rather believe the former in that situation, the second is out of the question and the third is...well, a leap of faith.

Ah, the flood. Mind providing proof for that?


First, the pollution count would be zero to start with, food and water would have been pure and untainted resulting in no stressers on the body.

No clue what this has to do with evolution...

Second, harmful radiation from the sun and other extra-terran sources would have largely (if not completely diflected away from the earth by the water vapor barrior described in genesis as the seperation of the firmaments (Genesis 1:6-8).

Wooboy. That's a wopper, you know what happens when you put tons of water in the atmosphere? You do realize that water vapor is an excellent greenhouse gas?

Water has been scientificly shown to have this property, hence the increased risk of sunburn at the beach as sunlight reflects off of the water. This water vapor barrior would also be the source of the 40 days of rain in Genesis 7:4,11-12. The "fountains of the deep" described could be describing volcanos and would throw a great deal of ash into the air. Rain requires a pollutant to form around and before the eruption of the fountains of the deep, there would not have been enough particulate matter in the atmosphere for rain to form, thus allowing the vapor barrier to remain in place.

Source on this (the rain, not the bible)?

Without this barrier after the flood, radiation would be greatly increased. By the geneoligies listed in the bible, lifespans did indeed drop dramaticly after the flood. Within a handful of generations, lifespans dropped from close to a thousand years max, to a mere 200 years and continued to drop.

A thousand years is what we call 'bullshit'. Can't happen, doesn't happen.

Third, with such a nutrient rich and healthy diet, any damage that might have occured was far more easily repaired before it could lead to permanent damage.
By that argument, any first world country would have a longer (much longer) lifespan due to the blockage of cancer causing material, which doesn't happen. Cancer rates for the 70+ generation in all countries, regardless of food supply, is about the same.

Hi from France. :D
The evolutionist theory is proven all days at the molecular level. The viruses transfer to adapt to the species which they meet. The bacterias evolve/move to adapt to antibiotics and resist to them. It's that the evolution and the adaptation to environement. We know the chains of the evolution of the species. It is necessary to be an uncultivated American to not be informed of this.
This debate is ridiculous. It would be funny if it didn't take place in the first world power.
Then Americans asks for why the whole world take them for idiotics.



Precisely.

It is like debating whether the earth is flat or round, it is barbaric.

Modern day creationists are the latest iteration in the long line of destructive barbarians going back past the vandals and visigoths that sacked rome.

It is important that the civilized world remember the lessons of history and defend itself against the barbarism of fundementalism.

Ogiek, I tend to agree with you (after accepting Lomia's slight corrective); Chrsitianity is based entirely on faith in God, as the Bible itself so says; this does not mean, however, that we should not attempt to discover the true origin of the universe - selecting a standard to follow (be it the misguided precepts of evolution or reasonable scientific principles in general) is extremely important, and in a very significant way helps to define our worldview in many other situations (for the most part).

Hi Social Republicans.

I saw your post and it seems as though you are confusing microevolution (natural selection) with macroevolution (mythology).

Hi from France. :D
The evolutionist theory is proven all days at the molecular level. The viruses transfer to adapt to the species which they meet. The bacterias evolve/move to adapt to antibiotics and resist to them. It's that the evolution and the adaptation to environement. We know the chains of the evolution of the species. It is necessary to be an uncultivated American to not be informed of this.
This debate is ridiculous. It would be funny if it didn't take place in the first world power.
Then Americans asks for why the whole world take them for idiotics.
Yeah, its almost as ridiculous as sitting by watching the French retreat from the Ivory Coast. Its almost as ridiculous as seeing Imans in France allowed to preach the sanctity of stoning women. Its almost as ridiculous as watching an entire country take the month of August off. Its almost as ridiculous as having the number one best seller of your country be "How to avoid work". It is necessary to be an arrogant yet cowardly frenchman to not be informed of this.
Your argument is ridiculous. It would be funny if it didn't take place in a first world power...oh wait...France doesn't qualify for that if they can't even handle the Ivory Coast.

I'd put that all in French, but why restrict the number of those who can understand what I'm saying? Mais pour vous, l'autour, je dit "As-tu perdu la tête? Je n'y crois pas à ces conneries, pauvre con, c'est rien que de la merde. Garce."

It is important to note that the difference between "micro" evolution and "macro" evolution is a fictional one.

"Macro" evolution is in reality "micro" evolution. The terms constitute a false dichotomy. The intent is generally to throw up a strawman and dishonestly muddle the debate.

Yeah, its almost as ridiculous as sitting by watching the French retreat from the Ivory Coast. Its almost as ridiculous as seeing Imans in France allowed to preach the sanctity of stoning women. Its almost as ridiculous as watching an entire country take the month of August off. Its almost as ridiculous as having the number one best seller of your country be "How to avoid work". It is necessary to be an arrogant yet cowardly frenchman to not be informed of this.
Your argument is ridiculous. It would be funny if it didn't take place in a first world power...oh wait...France doesn't qualify for that if they can't even handle the Ivory Coast.

I'd put that all in French, but why restrict the number of those who can understand what I'm saying? Mais pour vous, l'autour, je dit "As-tu perdu la tête? Je n'y crois pas à ces conneries, pauvre con, c'est rien que de la merde. Garce."


Whoa Clemmut, back to the trailer camp with you.

You may not have understood anything he was talking about, but thats because you havent gone to school and learned about these things yet.

Yeah, its almost as ridiculous as sitting by watching the French retreat from the Ivory Coast. Its almost as ridiculous as seeing Imans in France allowed to preach the sanctity of stoning women. Its almost as ridiculous as watching an entire country take the month of August off. Its almost as ridiculous as having the number one best seller of your country be "How to avoid work". It is necessary to be an arrogant yet cowardly frenchman to not be informed of this.
Your argument is ridiculous. It would be funny if it didn't take place in a first world power...oh wait...France doesn't qualify for that if they can't even handle the Ivory Coast.

I'd put that all in French, but why restrict the number of those who can understand what I'm saying? Mais pour vous, l'autour, je dit "As-tu perdu la tête? Je n'y crois pas à ces conneries, pauvre con, c'est rien que de la merde. Garce."

Was there a point to this other then to mindlessly flame?

I'm sorry Granada, but you are slightly off track.

I'm not going through this again, so if you are interested, I suggest that you refer to the following link:

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

I'm sorry Granada, but you are slightly off track.

I'm not going through this again, so if you are interested, I suggest that you refer to the following link:

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp


Shouldnt you, you know, be in church?

Oh! I almost forgot something; the following link is in case you are interested in Thermodynamics. :)

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

I suppose that means you didn't examine the link. Am I correct?

I suppose that means you didn't examine the link. Am I correct?


"More specifically, I believe the founding members of these groups were created miraculously and separately by God. "


Only all too well my fundementalist friend.

Whoa Clemmut, back to the trailer camp with you.

You may not have understood anything he was talking about, but thats because you havent gone to school and learned about these things yet.

Ah, behold the intellect of the ad hominem! Bravo!

I think you can believe in god and evolution at the same time..I think we could probably get along with creationists better if we brought up that during these arguments..unless of course you're a dirty atheist..then you forfit your right to 72 virgins in heaven when you die.

Oh! I almost forgot something; the following link is in case you are interested in Thermodynamics. :)

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
...No. Once again, you can't use the second law to say that evolution can't happen, because no matter how much crap 'true origin' throws in there, order does increase, and does so often, in biological processes.

The last time I checked, there was a lot more in that link than that simple statement. Therefor I suggest that you read a lot more of it before you offer your critique.

Granada, you should stop offering sarcastic retorts to those who do not agree with your beliefs; I promise you, you would be the recipient of a great deal more respect.

If anyone ever offers you a challenge, question, or statement that you wish to comment on, it would be best for you to remember the following points: either respond to the question using the same manner that was used when the question was put (be that sarcastic, humble, friendly, comical, or what have you), or, to follow the second option, treat all as your equals, and assume that there is something to be learned from them, as individuals.

Evolution can be rather easily disproven scientifically, the sticking point is that no one has done so.

But to drag us back on topic, Beardengrade, nice long essay on nothing in particular, if you want a debate on evolution, go to the evolutionists, prove yourselves thread, here we want you to show us proof (not lack of it) that some guy in the clouds created us. We've got time.

Okay, prove it. Prove me and the other "atheist" (I'm actually a christian) scientists wrong go ahead. Try. Don't use the Bible. Also explain dinosaurs, and don't say they're god's test of faith because that's BS and you all know it.
My opinion, is God created the universe, but not the one WE know. God is immortal, and so time is irrevelvant. 1 milloseccond is the same as 10,000 years. God created dinosaurs, knowing (he's all knowing too, useful eh?) That they would turn into us. Why beats the hell out of me. Maybe he's the producer of some reality series. No, i joke. Point is that's what i believe, prove me wrong Bible Thumpers!

BTW I skimmed some of the article and read the apparent propaganda of "dogmatic evolutionists"...
why is it so hard to believe that probabaly god does exist,that jesus died for us, but some of the prophets in the old testament were simply just selling a book to earn some street cred as a holy man

From the Rev. Novus Arcadia's website (concerning thermo)

"To help ensure an adequate understanding of what the second law means, consider the following, also from Isaac Asimov:


“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]


Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning)."



What the author (and his presumable disciple Rev. N. Arcadia) dont acknowledge or understand is that in the "messy room" of earth, there are people *constantly* organizing it, and have been for billions of years.

A messy room becomes clean when energy is added to it, in the form of being organized by somone (note that these are bad metaphors).

The earth is not a closed system, as referred to in the laws of thermodynamics but rather an open system into which energy is constantly being added.

Okay, prove it. Prove me and the other "atheist" (I'm actually a christian) scientists wrong go ahead. Try. Don't use the Bible. Also explain dinosaurs, and don't say they're god's test of faith because that's BS and you all know it.
My opinion, is God created the universe, but not the one WE know. God is immortal, and so time is irrevelvant. 1 milloseccond is the same as 10,000 years. God created dinosaurs, knowing (he's all knowing too, useful eh?) That they would turn into us. Why beats the hell out of me. Maybe he's the producer of some reality series. No, i joke. Point is that's what i believe, prove me wrong Bible Thumpers!
Prove what?
I'm on your side...

Whoa Clemmut, back to the trailer camp with you.

You may not have understood anything he was talking about, but thats because you havent gone to school and learned about these things yet.
Hmmmmmmm...lets go over a few things shall we Monseigneur?

1) I'm from a blue state, though I am a Conservative.

2) His description was the most basic and in some cases flawed thing I have ever seen. Bacterial adaption is caused by the elimination of all specimens who do not have certain proteins (usually in their cell wall) that stop antibodies. The remaining bacteria are thereby create a population of immune bacteria, effectively reducing the efficiency of the antibody. The main solution to this problem is the creation of a so-called "Medicinal Cocktail", i.e. mixing many antibodies together. Although the effect on health is much more detrimental in this approach, it is much harder for any bacteria to survive, thereby making this from a risk management prospective a wiser course of action for a healthy person.

3) You obviously have not bothered to read a single other thing I have written on Evolution. I won't even bother to go get links of my arguments explaining adaptive evolution, divergent versus convergent evolution, comparative anatomy, vestigial structures, comparative embryology, comparative physiology, biogeography, genetics, paleontology, Darwin vs. Lamarck, the 5 principles of evolution, the 4 major mechanisms of Evolution. Not to mention the arguments unrelated to evolution including quantum theory with an explanation of wave versus particle theory, superstring implications to quantum theory, and how the Big Bang theory works within the parameters of both...and I could go on further.

4) The fact that you manage to write something condemning my intelligence despite my usage of both the real bestseller from this summer in France, and the usage of French in my post. The lack of attention you have displayed is astounding, and I am surprised you managed to create a full sentence, let alone a whole post condemning my reply.

The fact that you thought a badly written, uninformative, unspecific post was in anyway a useful example, despite the fact it was also largely an unsupported hack at America, shows you to be more foolish than should be allowed to post in a public forum.

Prove what?
I'm on your side...

not just you, i want these creationists to prove why they are right without using the Bible, that's it.

Bobslovakia, I am not sure if you have already considered this, but there are only two options for time: either it was created, or it is eternal.

If it is eternal, then I would be the first to presume that it applies to all things, and therefor, God must age . . . I won't go there, since that is a matter of unimportance to me at the moment, but I will express my belief that God is indeed eternal, and would have had to create time itself.

Also, I would consider it insane (and therefor absolutely unscientific) to claim that abiogenesis is responsible for life on earth - it has incredibly high mathematical odds against it.

Bobslovakia, I am not sure if you have already considered this, but there are only two options for time: either it was created, or it is eternal.

If it is eternal, then I would be the first to presume that it applies to all things, and therefor, God must age . . . I won't go there, since that is a matter of unimportance to me at the moment, but I will express my belief that God is indeed eternal, and would have had to create time itself.

true, but i believe God created everything, i have never denied that. He simply did so in a roundabout way. Also if not, it is possible God simply has googles and googles of years to live. (google is a real number, 1 followed by 100 zeroes, or a higher number than exists in all the atoms in the universe.)

Also, I would consider it insane (and therefor absolutely unscientific) to claim that abiogenesis is responsible for life on earth - it has incredibly high mathematical odds against it.

true but if it is a billion to one probability, and there are one trillion possibilities the odds increase dramitcally.

Also, I would consider it insane (and therefor absolutely unscientific) to claim that abiogenesis is responsible for life on earth - it has incredibly high mathematical odds against it.
Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

Fourth time I've said it.

*Bump* :rolleyes: :mp5: ;) :confused: :( :fluffle: :p :sniper: :mad: i likee smilies. :D

gonna surf some other forums, be back soon. :p

Also, I would consider it insane (and therefor absolutely unscientific) to claim that abiogenesis is responsible for life on earth - it has incredibly high mathematical odds against it.


You either refuse to acknowledge or fail to understand that the untold trillions or quadrillions of stars in the universe mean that billions-to-one odds for abiogenesis imply that is is extremely likely, if not guaranteed.


Consider it on numbers you may have a better time comprehending.

If the odds of winning a certain game of random chance are 1 in 20, and you play the game a thousand times, odds are you are going to win.


If the overwhelming deciding factor is whether or not you win *a single time* out of all those thousand games, the mathematical odds for your victory are astronomical.

CSW, I'm going to ask a question . . . barring the idea that a sumpreme being created the universe, and then created the process of evolution, what is the only other explanation for life, in evolutionary terms? I think I know the answer, but I would like you to tell me.

CSW, I'm going to ask a question . . . barring the idea that a sumpreme being created the universe, and then created the process of evolution, what is the only other explanation for life, in evolutionary terms? I think I know the answer, but I would like you to tell me.


There is no "explanation for life" in evolutionary terms.

Evolutionary biology does not describe the origin of life itself, but rather the process by which over time organisms change.

With all due respect Granada, you seem to have shown it as being even more improbable.

Do you actually believe that the right combination of essential chemicals for life actually formed thousands and thousands of time, before it finally evolved into another organism, or spawned others like itself?

. . . Understanding, of course, that as complex as the cell is, there aren't any elements of it that it could live without, as far as I know.

With all due respect Granada, you seem to have shown it as being even more improbable.

Do you actually believe that the right combination of essential chemicals for life actually formed thousands and thousands of time, before it finally evolved into another organism, or spawned others like itself?

. . . Understanding, of course, that as complex as the cell is, there aren't any elements of it that it could live without, as far as I know.
Aware of the difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes?

The simplist cell is just a phospholipid bilayer, some ribosomes and some RNA thrown in for good measure.

With all due respect Granada, you seem to have shown it as being even more improbable.

Do you actually believe that the right combination of essential chemicals for life actually formed thousands and thousands of time, before it finally evolved into another organism, or spawned others like itself?


You may profit by rereading what I posted, you dont seem to be responding to anything I said but rather to something I didnt.

To reiterate what I said (in simpler terms I suppose):

If the "odds" of a chemical reaction forming life are 450,000,000,000 to one, and there are 450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets on which life might form, where each year 1,000,000,000,000,000 chemical reactions occur, over the cours of billions of years, the odds of life forming are

450,000,000,000,000 to (450,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000,000,000 x 2,000,000,000)

I dont know that most caclulators can figure out numbers that big, but I would wager that it approaches 1 to 1.

CSW, I'm going to ask a question . . . barring the idea that a sumpreme being created the universe, and then created the process of evolution, what is the only other explanation for life, in evolutionary terms? I think I know the answer, but I would like you to tell me.
Irrelevent. Theories pertaining to abiogenisis is an entirely different ballgame, and evolution does not need a theory of abiogenisis to be correct. But, barring that, the universe could have always existed. It just is.

einstein said something like this (might get the last word mixed with the other ending..)

"Science without God is lame, God with out science is blind"

basically that means people who believe in God but think all science is lies and such spread by nonbelievers is a bunch of crap...

and science without some belief in God is not going to get very far, also it would explain what is not explainable..


you wanted a defence ok i try my best.. lets not get a stupid flame war though.

now lets start with the Big Bang. there was a singularity that formed and sparked a cosmic explosion... and formed other things which eventually made us to present time...


now space was so tiny there, that a singularity was able to form? now lets think how and what cuased it to form? we really cant say since we have no experiance with black holes, i know that a singularity forms all the time in space but it happens so fast they go away right when they appear... and are to tiny to see

to be able to think on that singularity that created everything you would have to have some form of faith and believe it happend without knowing the real cuase.

now lets look at God, the bible says he was here before time, and really does not explain/tell you how or what or why he become or even bothered to create the universe.

for a believer in God to say that the big bang did not happen would be limiting his beliefs and then limiting God himself.

the only way to believe in creationism is to well believe in it, same with science... something you want to believe or not, most science started as a theory, a faith a belief.

thats all i got.

einstein said something like this (might get the last word mixed with the other ending..)

"Science without God is lame, God with out science is blind"

basically that means people who believe in God but think all science is lies and such spread by nonbelievers is a bunch of crap...

and science without some belief in God is not going to get very far, also it would explain what is not explainable..


you wanted a defence ok i try my best.. lets not get a stupid flame war though.

now lets start with the Big Bang. there was a singularity that formed and sparked a cosmic explosion... and formed other things which eventually made us to present time...


now space was so tiny there, that a singularity was able to form? now lets think how and what cuased it to form? we really cant say since we have no experiance with black holes, i know that a singularity forms all the time in space but it happens so fast they go away right when they appear... and are to tiny to see

to be able to think on that singularity that created everything you would have to have some form of faith and believe it happend without knowing the real cuase.

now lets look at God, the bible says he was here before time, and really does not explain/tell you how or what or why he become or even bothered to create the universe.

for a believer in God to say that the big bang did not happen would be limiting his beliefs and then limiting God himself.

the only way to believe in creationism is to well believe in it, same with science... something you want to believe or not, most science started as a theory, a faith a belief.

thats all i got.


As far as causation of the big bang:

Time is a dimension tied up with the rest of them, and a singularity implies a singularity of time - no before or after, ergo no cause leading temporally to an effect. With all time being single, all events occur simultaneously and "self causation" is the effect.

Uncaused events are observed regularly in the quantum world.

Granada, you're repeating yourself - I understand your point perfectly; understand mine. Assuming that this happened does not consider the possibility that there are no other planets upon which life could "develop" - there may be, but there is no way of knowing that.

Understand also that I never said abiogenesis wasn't possible . . . my point was only to show that if you categorize that as the means by which life came into existence, you are going directly against scientific principles - there is not a reason in the world why you should claim that to be a scientific fact (not that you did, I'm just conveying a point).

Granada, you're repeating yourself - I understand your point perfectly; understand mine. Assuming that this happened does not consider the possibility that there are no other planets upon which life could "develop" - there may be, but there is no way of knowing that.

Understand also that I never said abiogenesis wasn't possible . . . my point was only to show that if you categorize that as the means by which life came into existence, you are going directly against scientific principles - there is not a reason in the world why you should claim that to be a scientific fact (not that you did, I'm just conveying a point).


1)You deny that evidence exists for planets around other stars!????


2) You'll need to elaborate specifically which "scientific principles" are violeted by the idea of abiogenesis.

now lets look at God, the bible says he was here before time, and really does not explain/tell you how or what or why he become or even bothered to create the universe.


Bored perhaps, like us watching television? After trillions of years, u would perhaps get bored. ;) ;) ;) ;)

Could God have created the "Big Bang?" It never really says how he does it (creates the universe.) Isn't it possible? Just bringing up a new topic.

Not again . . .

Okay, one more time - I did not say that scientific principles were violated through the process of abiogenesis; I suppose it could have been made clearer: to assume that this was the cause of life on earth is unscientific, because there is no evidence to support this, whatsoever.

There are three principles of science; they are observation, regularity, and demonstrability.

No, I did not deny the evidence of other planets orbiting around stars, I merely said that your imaginary number was just that - imaginary. There is no way of knowing the exact number of planets in the universe.

Not again . . .

Okay, one more time - I did not say that scientific principles were violated through the process of abiogenesis; I suppose it could have been made clearer: to assume that this was the cause of life on earth is unscientific, because there is no evidence to support this, whatsoever.

There are three principles of science; they are observation, regularity, and demonstrability.

No, I did not deny the evidence of other planets forming around stars, I merely said that your imaginary number was just that - imaginary. There is no way of knowing the exact number of planets in the universe.
And saying that god made them isn't?

I assure you I have no numbers that take us back to day one; no mathematical assembly that can prove either point. "How can you prove God exists?" I can't.

Understand, however, what science is - those three principles that I listed are the very center, but there is more to science then that; there is theoretical understanding - whether "scientific" theories correspond to absolute fact is the important subject here.

The "scientific" theory that God created the universe, is (at least for me; I won't speak for anyone else) based on the many discrepancies of the theory of evolution - meaning, in what may be clearer terms, the success of one (at least empirically) is based upon the failure of the other, up to a point.

Note: there is no evidence that a giant finger stirred the waters of the earth, and lo, it was teeming with life - but when the only alternative (evolution) is disproven, then there is only one other answer.

When it comes down to this situation, where so much has been built up against the outstanding theory, and so much more information is gained, through the opposition, we can accept it as fact. (Note that I mean we can scientifically accept it, without knowing it as absolute fact, which would necessitate every single one of us being able to see God in person, any time, any where, and even then, there would be questions.)

Basically, if one is 100% incorrect, the other is 100% correct.

I assure you I have no numbers that take us back to day one; no mathematical assembly that can prove either point. "How can you prove God exists?" I can't.

Understand, however, what science is - those three principles that I listed are the very center, but there is more to science then that; there is theoretical understanding - whether "scientific" theories correspond to absolute fact is the important subject here.

The "scientific" theory that God created the universe, is (at least for me; I won't speak for anyone else) based on the many discrepancies of the theory of evolution - meaning, in what may be clearer terms, the success of one (at least empirically) is based upon the failure of the other, up to a point.

Note: there is no evidence that a giant finger stirred the waters of the earth, and lo, it was teeming with life - but when the only alternative (evolution) is disproven, then there is only one other answer.

When it comes down to this situation, where so much has been built up against the outstanding theory, and so much more information is gained, through the opposition, we can accept it as fact. (Note that I mean we can scientifically accept it, without knowing it as absolute fact, which would necessitate every single one of us being able to see God in person, any time, any where, and even then, there would be questions.)

Basically, if one is 100% incorrect, the other is 100% correct.
One or the Other.
What if I believe in the Hindu Creatioon Story?
How about the Mormon(which is not the same as your typical Chrisitian).
Dont Buddhists have a creation story-I am certain they do.
There is not CHoice A and CHoice B--even if Evolution was proven to be totally false tommorow it is absurd to use one thing being wrong to prove another is right.
Oh, by the way I am 100% Christian.

Oh God . . . [literally]

I never said that evolution, being false, admits only the god of the Bible - I said God; whoever and whatever that may be.

...No. Once again, you can't use the second law to say that evolution can't happen, because no matter how much crap 'true origin' throws in there, order does increase, and does so often, in biological processes.

I just want to add that the whole process of life, cellular respiration and all, is using the tendency of a system to reach balance through randomness (enthropy) to reach actual order.

There are many misteries to life, like why do organisms have the need to reproduce (the ability to reproduce is the most important factor in genetics, and every other feature of our genome as living beings revolves around the continuation of our species). How and why do organisms struggle to survive, if it goes against (or around) the laws of physics?

There is some driving force behind life AND evolution which HAS been proven. We don't know what it is. Maybe it's "God".

I just want to add that the whole process of life, cellular respiration and all, is using the tendency of a system to reach balance through randomness (enthropy) to reach actual order.

There are many misteries to life, like why do organisms have the need to reproduce (the ability to reproduce is the most important factor in genetics). How and why do organisms struggle to survive, if it goes against (or around) the laws of physics?

There is some driving force behind life AND evolution which HAS been proven. We don't know what it is. Maybe it's "God".
You reproduce (sexually) for genetic variation, nothing more, and how is 'organisms struggling to survive' going against the laws of physics?

Sexual reproduction is just an evolutionary process that allowed living beings to gain more variability through mutations, which in turns allows the beings to adapt to various environments by resisting selective pressures. For example, europeans are resistant to ebola or plague type diseases because we descend from the survivors of the black plague, which killed 2/3rds of the population or something. If there was no difference between genes for that resistance (obtained by sexual reproduction) we would all be dead.

Other features that our genes determine and give origin to, like our nervous system, which allows us to perceive threats from the outside or our aerobic respiration, which allows us to get more energy off matter, are just add-ons that let us reproduce and maintain our species alive more easily by making them resistant to many environment changes.


As for "'organisms struggling to survive' going against the laws of physics" it's about the chemical processes that occur in our cells. Using energy in order to obtain more energy in order to create things that just consume more energy goes "against" entropy. There is a natural tendency for everything to reach a potential energy of 0, and life is basically a fight against that potential (that comes with death)

Also, I would consider it insane (and therefor absolutely unscientific) to claim that abiogenesis is responsible for life on earth - it has incredibly high mathematical odds against it.

You're right. The odds that life would evolve on earth from nothing are— hold on here...

One in one.

The odds of life evolving on any particular planet are miniscule. But the odds of it happening on Earth — being as it already has — are very, very large. Probabilities do not enter into this.

Hmm...

To go way back in the discussion, I was looking at that website with the "refutations" of the 29 proofs of macroevolution. Nobody's addressed that site - it is pretty complicated, but I don't want to leave it hanging...

The basic structure for his arguments was:

1) Summary of the "proof of macroevolution"
2) Summary of the prediction it makes
3) Reason why it doesn't actually make that prediction
4) Reasons why even if the prediction was found to be false, we'd just invent a way around it.

Now, in some cases I can't find a flaw in his reasoning - he knows what he's talking about.
However, in some, the flaw is glaringly obvious... he states that that prediction does not follow from the theory of macroevolution. But the PREDICTION WAS MADE! AND WAS VERIFIED! He's trying to go back and say that "you couldn't have made that prediction!" But that's not valid, the prediction WAS made.

I'll use the example from the page I'm at now - "molecular parology."

The argument for evolution, according to the critic, goes something like:
" If universal common ancestry is true, then some species will have biological molecules that are similar in structure to biological molecules in other species but which perform different functions in the other species."

This is found to be true. However, the website argues that "Paralogous biological molecules are not a necessary result of all possible mechanisms of universal common descent. "

Well, they're not necessary - but they are likely, so the prediction was made, when research into biological molecules was beginning, that some paralogous biological molecules would be found. Nobody made any claims as to which molecules specifically they would be - just that there would be some.

" Neo-Darwinism does not demand paralagous biological molecules; it simply accommodates them. To use Dr. Theobald’s example, if lysozyme and alpha-lactalbumin were not “similar,” it simply would be assumed that alpha-lactalbumin arose by some other evolutionary path. Indeed, lactalbumin was long considered to have arisen de novo in the ancestor of mammals, and this caused no consternation in evolutionist ranks. If the similarities between lysozyme and lactalbumin had not been discovered, the old script would have continued in service of the evolution paradigm."

Now, it is probably true that for this specific molecule, it is true that the theory would work either with this molecule being paralogous or not. BUT, the theory WOULD be falsified if these "paralogous" molecules were not found at all. Again, no scientist would ever make the prediction that "such and such a molecule will be paralogous to something" but he WOULD make the claim that "paralogous molecules will be found."

Same would go for several more of his arguments - they take the form of
"evolution claims to predict X. Here's a specific instance of X that they use to support their claim. However, if this instance had turned out to be different, they still would not have changed their theory." The flaw in this logic is that no evolutionist in their right mind will predict that "X will appear in such and such an animal." What he WOULD predict is that "X will appear in some animals." So any particular instance/not instance of X does not support or invalidate anything; however, if X appeared never or exceedingly rarely, then that would disprove evolution.

A second potential flaw I found in his reasoning is described below, after an example...
"Presumably, the alleged prediction and fulfillment are:

1) If universal common ancestry is true, then the same transposon will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.

2) The same transposon exists in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.

It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the “same transposon”[39] will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species. Evolution does not even predict the existence of transposons, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species. Until transposons were discovered in the late 1940s, conventional wisdom was that all genes worked from a stable position along a chromosome, and no one considered that cause for concern. On the contrary, McClintock’s initial claims about transposons were resisted because they were contrary to the prevailing view of genetics. So, while evolutionary theory was able to accommodate transposons, it was quite comfortable with their absence."

First, he cannot state that "it is not a prediction" when it was, in fact, predicted.

Second - it is true that evolution does not predict transposons. Everything was quite happy before they were discovered. However, once they WERE discovered/proved, evolution would predict that they would appear in the same spot in related species. This was confirmed.

Same goes for a couple of his arguments - some of them follow the form "evolution claims to predict that X will be found in the same/similar state in different species. However, evolution did not predict X, and was quite satisfied before X was discovered..." Of course it was! Evolution was formulated before Darwin even knew how animals inherited traits. Once we discovered that, in fact, they are transmitted through DNA, evolution gave predictions about this DNA. Once we discovered transposons, evolution claimed that the transposons of similar species would have certain properties. Same for pseudogenes, and so on...

Anyhow. I liked the site - it was much more reasonable and scientific than most creationist sites out there... this man at least seems to know what he is talking about and presents a well-reasoned argument. Nice to see. Wish all creationists were like that... though that would make it a lot harder for the rest of us ;)

man, i wrote a huge creation argument, but the stupid forums expired and i lost it :(

so ill just provide a site

www.godandscience.org

if you have any problems with their arguments, use their forums to have them straightened out.

Hmm.. I wonder what atheist he was talking too.

But i'm glad that people are finding out that Evolution does not pose a threat to God. It sure is nice for a change. However, the fact still remains to prove that uneplainable things are God. THat's the point we need to get to.

Congraultions on Becoming less of a Die HArd Religion Christians!

YAY!!!!!!


*You don't know how happy this makes me, No scarsim. Really!

In response to http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp,
...No. Once again, you can't use the second law to say that evolution can't happen, because no matter how much crap 'true origin' throws in there, order does increase, and does so often, in biological processes.

That website claims that the argument dismissing the laws of thermodynamics are invalid because available energy cannot by itself create order. Though this is refuted by several articles, that give examples such as a water wheel lifting water up against gravity (locally decreasing entropy) or a refrigerator that pumps heat out (locally decreasing entropy) - he claims that they are all inapplicable because they all follow a design, a blueprint. He then claims that

"The apparent increase in organized complexity (i.e., decrease in entropy) found in biological systems requires two additional factors besides an open system and an available energy supply. These are:

1. a “program” (information) to direct the growth in organized complexity
2. a mechanism for storing and converting the incoming energy. "

However, the second law of thermodynamics says absolutely nothing about mechanisms and blueprints and design. It applies equally designed systems as to undesigned systems. Making the artificial distinction that man-made systems are allowed to violate the 2nd law in an open system, but "natural processes" are not, is unfounded.

I am sure that the Law of Conservation of Energy plays a role in that somewhere.

Enough for being defensive, prove your point. How is creationism a viable theory, and why should it be taught in the classroom?


Besides this, what evidence is there for biblical creation without the bible, and how can you teach creationism without mentioning a "god"?


Why should we wish to try to explain creationism as you call it without
GOD being involved. He IS the creator.... how can you build a FORD without
Henry Ford? Evolutionism hasn't been proven either but you insist on
teaching it in the classroom as though it has been. So PROVE your
THEORY!

Evolution simplay means changes to a species over time. SInce the world is billions years old and since we HAVE PROVED ADAPTION AND SURVIAL OF THE FITTEST are facts, we can say species evouled to adapt to their envrioments to which we also know changed.

Notes
1) Chrsitians lay off the world is "6000" years old BS. Its not true that's a fact. Carbon Dating has proved that.
2) Christians lay off the crabon dating, One it supports the Conservation of Matter law and two they can use another isotope that has a longer life than Carbon.
3) This was made with Observations so go out and prove to yourselfs this is true.
4) Evolution is a proven thing, the Orgin of Life is not part of the theory.
5) A theory in Sicence means that its an idea that has Hypthesis tested time and time agian with the same result.
6) If you read this all, Kudos to you.

Why should we wish to try to explain creationism as you call it without
GOD being involved. He IS the creator.... how can you build a FORD without
Henry Ford? Evolutionism hasn't been proven either but you insist on
teaching it in the classroom as though it has been. So PROVE your
THEORY!

There's already a thread someplace for that. Evolution as a whole is taught in classrooms as a "THEORY" not a truth and if teachers are teaching it as truth then they are doing their jobs incorrectly. Nevertheless, it is a valid theory for the process of life and therefore needs to be taught in "science" classes so that students know about it. Nobody even tries to admit that we can actually "prove" evolution in whole. It's not possible at this point. But we have evidence and scientific studies, etc etc etc. that provide evidence to suggest that evolution is real. However we can prove that evolution on a smaller scale DOES happen from observing the animal kingdom. Species adapt and change to their environment. New species appear (I was watching an episode of that crazy red haired guy from Animal Planet, Oshay or something, where he discovered a new species of collubrid which he found was a mix between two very different species.). It happens all over that place and a lot of it we probably never find out about, since we don't know everything about our planet.
If Creationists are going to continuously attack the theory of Evolution, they should be ready to defend themselves. Evolutionists do it all the time. It's your turn now and if you can't handle it, then stop bashing the competition.

No, I did not deny the evidence of other planets orbiting around stars, I merely said that your imaginary number was just that - imaginary. There is no way of knowing the exact number of planets in the universe.

No there isn't a way to know, but there is also no way to know how many galaxies or stars are out there. We find new ones everyday as our telescopes get more powerful and we point them in different directions, just like we're finding planets around other stars out there. Given that we may never find the edge of our Universe, we can make a good assumption that there are as far as we can fathom and infinite number of stars, and as far as we can fathom and infinite number of those stars have planets, and so on to habitable planets and so on to the probability of life. Really the probability that life could emerge on one planet around one star in one galaxy of an infinite number of galaxies and stars and planets is high. It only takes one to work.

man, i wrote a huge creation argument, but the stupid forums expired and i lost it :(

so ill just provide a site

www.godandscience.org

if you have any problems with their arguments, use their forums to have them straightened out.

Actually, I'll straighten them out on this forum, because this is the one where I'm discussing.

As seen from a part of their website -

"Characteristics of a successful ID model

A reasonable ID model must possess all of the following characteristics:

1. The intelligent Designer is identified
2. The model is detailed
3. The model can be refined
4. The model is testable and falsifiable
5. The model can make predictions

How does the biblical ID model score on the above characteristics? The intelligent Designer is identified as the Creator God of the Bible. The biblical model of creation is detailed in that the major creation events are listed in a temporal sequence. Dozens of creation passages make specific claims about the nature of the world."

Except when they're proven wrong, creationists say that these were the areas meant to be taken metaphorically. Flat earth? 6000-year-old earth?

Also, there's a page where they list "predictions of naturalism" vs. "predictions of intelligent design."

They get the naturalism predictions all wrong...

Claimed prediction 1: "The existence of a single transcendent being will be refuted."

Nope. No theory says that "god will eventually be disproven."

Claimed prediction 2: ""design" will be shown to be an artifact, due to incomplete knowledge"

Nope... the possibility for design will probably always stay, since it's impossible to say conclusively that "we were not designed."

Claimed prediction 3: "Uniqueness of earth - many rocky planets with oceans and continents will be found"

Not necessarily... we don't know what made our solar system form the way it does, so nobody's made predictions about whether this is a common occurence or a once-in-a-billion occurrence. There's plenty of stars, so some more earth-like planets probably exist, but maybe not - we don't know enough about how other stars develop to predict anything here.

Claimed prediction 4: "Existence of life in the universe -life will be found to be abundant in our galaxy, since it is simply the properties of chemistry and physics."

See #3. We don't know what the probability of conditions suitable for life appearing is, since we have only our Earth to make judgements on. Maybe life is fairly probable, and exists elsewhere. Maybe it is only possible in very specific conditions, and is exceedingly rare.

Claimed prediction 5: "Prebiotic chemistry - a naturalistic scenario for the origin of all biochemical pathways and replicative molecules will be found"

True. Eventually. But maybe not - currently we can't even do a simple three-body problem in gravitation, whe might never find out the specific origin of all biological molecules. I'm sure we'll be able to figure out many though, I'll give them this prediction.

Claimed prediction 6: "Life emerged late, during ideal environmental conditions. Life began as simple systems (pre-bacteria)"

True, in a sense. They don't even offer a refutation for this one... I'll just add that "ideal" conditions would not be the conditions we currently have. Ideal conditions for creating life have long since gone.

Claimed prediction 7: "New designs in nature -Complex new designs would be rare and develop slowly whereas simple transitions would be common"

They claim that more complex transitions in the fossil record is proof of this. However, the claim that they would be "rare and develop slowly" does not mean they would be found less often - the rarity of them is counterbalanced by their slow speed, which gives them more of a chance to be fossilized. No prediction is made there...

Claimed prediction 8: "Mass extinction events - Slow recovery"

True. Slow, meaning, not overnight. They claim that a timescale of 10 000 years is too slow - I don't know enough evolutionary biology to decide whether it's true or not, but it seems that for organisms with quick life cycles it would be plenty.

...and so on... I pick a random page on ID, find flaws...

Another sequence from that page:
"The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?
"

However, there's a slight difference between this and Creationism Intelligent Design...
1, 2) We know that a potential designer could have existed - human beings. We want to find out whether a certain thing is a product of that designer or not. (Or, in case 2, maybe to determine when this designer appeared - if we "know" that a certain pattern is created by humans, than that pattern is evidence of humans.)
3) Similar deal - we know who the "intelligent designer" would be.
4) We try to find an intelligent designer - by saying "ok, this is what we think a designer would do. Lets look for that pattern and if we find it, then that's evidence of a designer."

Creationist ID: "We see the world. It follows certain patterns of complexity. Hence, there must be a designer." The difference between this and 1, 2, 3 - in those cases, we know a designer exists, (or in 3, a potential designer). In 4, we're doing an experiment to test the hypothesis that a designer (aliens) exist... whereas creationists cannot propose any such test.

And so on.

I do beleive in Creation, as well as evolution. I like to call it my little "Ant Farm" story. "Once upon a time, in an Astrial realm of Outer Space there lived a supreme being.....for some reason this being got bored and decided he needed a hobby. He created a Heaven with all his servents and slaves, but some of them Revolted against him, so he decided this would not do...he then created an "ant Farm" called Earth except it wasn't full of ants, but rather people and many strange animals. This amuzed him so, and he played with his "Ant Farm" alot with such acts as burning bushes, lighting striking from above, towers and walls tumbling and even seas parting, but over the Milliniums the Ant Farm got old and boring as all these miricles and feats were getting old, so.....He came down in the form of an ant (or humanity)....but he was disapointed in his creation, so....he left us with the option....Be good little ants and follow him, or be self thinking little ants and be burnt under the Giant magnifing glass on the day of judgement." After this....he put his ant farm on an old dusty shelf, where it still lies. Someday he will get around to getting the Ant Farm off the shelf and the day of judgement shall be upon us when the great magnifing glass is there. As far as the evolution goes.....Us ants are always adapting to our ever changing environment, it was all part of the plan.

As for myself....though a self thinking lil ant at times.....I think I will try to serve the Queen Ant.....better to be a servant to a superior, then a marter to a loosing cause. Feel free to follow me into the Ant hill anytime, you are always welcome and wanted.



Insanity is just so Crazy

Dinsaurs. DINO's

First thing I see on that page is a link to something that says that DINOSAURS lived with humans.

Once I'm done vomiting, I will link to talkorigins...
So PHD holding scientists are all more retarrded then you ?Why somuch vitriolic hatred toward Christians or other Creationist.The burden of proof lies with the evolutionists. This is like a court case...If you wish to convicts us you must disproove us....I have no need to proove my faith it is mine.Why do you hate us so?
If evolution is a fact why did the human species evolve in counter point to all other animals. MAn is the most physically helpless of all mammals but yet the most successful...

Not again . . .

Okay, one more time - I did not say that scientific principles were violated through the process of abiogenesis; I suppose it could have been made clearer: to assume that this was the cause of life on earth is unscientific, because there is no evidence to support this, whatsoever.

There are three principles of science; they are observation, regularity, and demonstrability.

No, I did not deny the evidence of other planets orbiting around stars, I merely said that your imaginary number was just that - imaginary. There is no way of knowing the exact number of planets in the universe.



you're aware arent you that abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory.

You are also then aware that it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution, which is a theory and is backed by considerable evidence and contradicted by little to no evidence.

Attempting to conflate the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution is at best spurious.

Arguing against one does not argue against the other.

There is a 'possibility' that a toaster over from mars put the first organisms on earth, and that evolution took over from there.

Anything is remotely 'possible.' Abiogenesis is just the hypothesis that makes the most sense taking into account the observations which have been made about things.

The basis of science is, afterall, observation.

Why should we wish to try to explain creationism as you call it without
GOD being involved. He IS the creator.... how can you build a FORD without
Henry Ford? Evolutionism hasn't been proven either but you insist on
teaching it in the classroom as though it has been. So PROVE your
THEORY!


A) A theory cannot be proven.
B) You seem to think that evolutionary biology is a hypothesis, this is incorrect, as it is a theory.
C) There is a mountain of evidence in support of evolutionary biology.
D)This evidence is manifest in fossil records, genes and simple observation.
E) There is no more scientific controvery surrounding evolutionary biology than there is plate tectonics or universal gravitation.
D) Schools teach plenty of theories. Among them:
universal gravitation
plate tectonics
sun-center solar system
existence of other planets
physiology of the brain

etc etc. evolutionary biology is no different.

So PHD holding scientists are all more retarrded then you ?Why somuch vitriolic hatred toward Christians or other Creationist.The burden of proof lies with the evolutionists. This is like a court case...If you wish to convicts us you must disproove us....I have no need to proove my faith it is mine.Why do you hate us so?
If evolution is a fact why did the human species evolve in counter point to all other animals. MAn is the most physically helpless of all mammals but yet the most successful...


You're incorrect in saying that the burden of proof lies with the proponents of science.

Evolutionary biology is a theory formulated and based upon vast ammounts of evidence.

The hypothesis of creation is based upon stories in a story book.


The task for the creationist it so disprove the mountain of evidence supporting evolution *and provide evidence supporting creation*

It is to be noted as well that "evolution" has nothing in the world to do with the origin of life, only with the process by which already-living organisms change over time.

There is a reason darwin's book (which is not modern evolutionary biology) is called "the origin of SPECIES" and not "the origin of life."


Man, if you were unaware, evolved a complex brain.
Something more powerful than claws or teeth.

So PHD holding scientists are all more retarrded then you ?Why somuch vitriolic hatred toward Christians or other Creationist.The burden of proof lies with the evolutionists. This is like a court case...If you wish to convicts us you must disproove us....I have no need to proove my faith it is mine.Why do you hate us so?
If evolution is a fact why did the human species evolve in counter point to all other animals. MAn is the most physically helpless of all mammals but yet the most successful...

Because we developed something most animals did not, advanced intelligence. That is what allowed us to become so successful.

Actually creationists would expect a variety of layers to form based on partical size, density, etc. and it would also make sense that different types of plants and animals would also be sorted by layer as things settled after the global flood.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-328.htm

ooh, a competeing hypothesis. so it is your contention that the flood would have left multiple distinct layers, arranged with the most dense material on the bottom and the least dense on the top, yes? and that plant and animal fossils would be similarly distributed by density?

as for the rest, hypotheses first. evidence and special pleading later.

Please don't open this link if it is not your intention to read the whole thing . . .

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Scroll down to the "Evolutionist Spin." Whoever reads this, please don't make a response unless you've read the article. :rolleyes:

Please don't open this link if it is not your intention to read the whole thing . . .

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Scroll down to the "Evolutionist Spin." Whoever reads this, please don't make a response unless you've read the article. :rolleyes:

I did read the whole article.

Several points.

Open system. We can SHOW that an open system can decrease in entropy with an input of energy. The example that the evolutionist he quotes gives - a water wheel raising water, a refrigerator pumping heat out. Or, some of my own examples - if you put a single bacterium in an area where there is food for it, soon there will be many bacteria. Or a more common example - a seed growing into a tree. Decrease in entropy.

That link claims that some sort of "blueprint" or "plan" is necessary for this. However, the law of thermodynamics says nothing about blueprints or plans or whatnot... it applies equally well when there is a "blueprint" as where there isn't. Thermodynamics does not prevent it from happening if there is no blueprint. He claims that would be "improbable" - but that's a wholly different argument... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ that one.

Evidence - Miller-Urey experiment. You take raw materials. Put in energy as input. After a while, you look and poof, you've got some complex amino acids. No 2nd law violations there.

Please don't open this link if it is not your intention to read the whole thing . . .

http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Scroll down to the "Evolutionist Spin." Whoever reads this, please don't make a response unless you've read the article. :rolleyes:

um, yeah, that just made the standard creationist equivocation when it comes to entropy and the 2nd law, but with more words.

"Beginning with the 'Big Bang' and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law."

no. just no. the formation of stars and planets and molecules and atoms and such is part of the universe (and it's totalu usable energy) cooling down and spreading out - otherwise known as an increase in entropy. there is no contradiction to thermo here. if there was then the second law of thermodynamics would be falsified - it wouldn't prove creationism right, it would prove the 2nd law wrong.

as for evolution supposedly violating the second law, here is the problem: entropy is not a measure of how 'complex' or 'physically disorganized on a macro-scale' something is. it is a measure of the spread of the energy in a system. all those life processes you go through every day, like walking and breathing and reading creationist trash, take energy. luckily for us we are able to get energy by eating things and chemically converting them into a usable form. but the thing is, our energy conversion is not 100% efficient. more like 10% really. so in order to do all those things we have to use energy, but in the process energy is dispersed into the surrounding environment as heat - the total amount of energy in the system is less concentrated after we eat than it was before we did. which is what an increase in entropy is.

the chemical reactions that make up the activities of life are energetically favored by the second law of thermodynamics. the products of the reactions contain less energy than their components did. in fact, all spontaneous happenings in the world, including me typing this reply, are examples of the second law in action. evolution included. the fact that creationists don't understand physics and chemistry in addition to biology, anthropology, astronomy, geology, history, surprises exactly no one.

if you want to learn about what the second law really means, you could try reading http://www.secondlaw.com/default.htm
you might be surprised. thermo is important to understanding all sorts of things, after all.

Pro-creationist predictions so far:


Also, we would expect not to find any fossils of life forms which arent described in human historical writings.


Falsified, we do find them. Somewhat of a spurious prediction though, I doubt most creationists would make this one.


we should be able to find naturally occuring radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives that aren't continually being reformed. for example, calcium-41, iron-60, aluminum-26, etc.


Reasonable prediction that is falsified.


Actually creationists would expect a variety of layers to form based on partical size, density, etc. and it would also make sense that different types of plants and animals would also be sorted by layer as things settled after the global flood.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-328.htm


That link says nothing about flood strata - it just shows that geological columns are not perfect... when there is a current.

However, we can look at deposits of, say, black shale. Shale deposits require calm water to form. Shale deposits form a significant portion of the geologic column.

(Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/)

Besides, that link doesn't say what kind of strata they'd expect... it just says that a current messes up chronology.


There has been study done that suggests that decay rates have NOT been constant in the past. And given complete lack of knowedge as to what the initial ratios of elements such as uranium and lead were, we cannot have a truly accurate time measurment based on these ratios.
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-376.htm


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html
http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

They don't deal with this specific study - but they deal with RATE's methods, and basically say that "isochron dating" isn't at all straightforward - some methods work well on some types of strata, others work well on others. "There are a number of ways to produce bad data in geochronology. The easiest is to apply the wrong method to the wrong rocks."When you're trying to analyze something that has little to no potassium, K-Ar data will give you lots of variation. And so on - the different forms of dating all will give accurate results in some situations, inaccurate results in others. In that study, RATE applied every single technique known to a single rock sample, and said - whee! some of them give wildly inaccurate results!
As would, apparently, be expected by any geochronologist.

BTW, this still is not evience of anything creationist...


Interestingly the bible has descriptions of great beasts in it. Job 40:15 -41:34 have descriptions of a behemoth, a leviathan, and what could be interpreted as a dragon. Some scholors believe that the book of Job dates from before the genesis flood.
Okay, so it has dragons... not evidence for anything...


Actually, one evidence supporting a common root at the tower of babel is the commonality of the Zodiac in virtually all of the ancient cultures, all of which indicate a source from before their culture. Now in Genesis 11:4 we read, "..., let us build us a city, and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the earth."(NIV) A more acurate translation would not have the words "to reach" as being literal, leaving a "tower unto heaven". "Heaven" is used to describe the sky, space, and what is seen there, such as in the passage "the heavens declare the glory of God". Now if God created the heavens, he would also have created the signs in the heavens, these signs give glory to God, and these signs would be the original Zodiac. The tower of babal could easily be a temple dedicated to the Zodiac, not to the Creator, but rather to the creation. This corruption would be one of the reasons for the destruction of the tower and the scattering of the people. This would also explain how the ancient cultures had virtually identical versions of the zodiac, with minor variations that would naturally develop over time.


Okay, it's an interesting explanation. But it's not evidence for anything!
It's circular logic.
You want to have evidence to support the biblical story of the tower of Babel.
You come up with a different way to interpret the story. (the zodiac, which is known to be common to many cultures and is hence a good candidate for being an interpretation).
Then you use this interpretation to justify the story.

Circular logic. Not proof.

Keep 'em coming, folks... this was supposed to be the thread where creationists post their arguments, and there've been very few.

A bird flies by a tree, and seeing ants streaming out of the tree's bark, decides to try and get the ants. The bird lands upon a branch and tries to pick up the ants with its beak, but the ants are too quick for it. So like any sensible bird, it tries to make a hole in the tree to get those tasty ants. Unfortunately for the bird, when it bangs it's head up against the tree, it smashes its beak completely and dies.

Now, somehow, this same bird managed to lay an egg just before its ill-fated attempt to eat those ants. This egg hatches and is, shall we deduce, adopted by another bird and raised to adulthood. Upon leaving the nest, this bird too flies past a tree swarming with ants. However, she, unlike her mother, is equipped to eat these ants. So she lands upon a branch and tries to pick them up with her beak; they're too fast! No worries, though, because this next generation has just happened to develop a stronger beak, capable of drilling holes in trees. So the bird gets ready and plows her head against the tree only to have the beak fly thorugh the back of her head upon impact because her skull did not possess fat deposits to cussion the blow and thus keep the beak on the front of her head and not the back.

Never fear! For somehow this bird, too, managed to leave a nest behind her! And this generation is packing: reinforced beak, fat padding around the skull and adapted claws for latching onto the side of a tree. So this bird attempts to suceed where it's predesseors failed. It latches on, drills a hole...but them can't get the ants because the reinforced beak is too thick to allow it.

*Fast forward* And the next generation in this ill-fated bird family decides to go where no one in his family has gone before: an ant feast where ants are consumed! And he's prepared...he has a long, sticky tounge along with the other adaptations his ancestors did. It's perfect for sticking down the hole drilled by its beak and retrieving ants. Unfortunately for him it's also too long for his mouth. As he flies to the tree, his tounge catches on a near by branch and he is swung face first into a tree. Or, if you don't like that death...he tries to drill into the tree but can't manuver around this huge tounge, thus leaving him incapable of eating anything. Darn! I thought we had it this time.

And yet another generation somehow is born...and this generation is unique indeed. See, its super long tounge goes up through the nostril and is stored in the nasal cavity. Think I'm kidding? Check out the anatomy of a woodpecker. That's how it works. So finally this bird family is able to eat those ants.

Now, explain to me how in the world that mutation happened.


Oh, and for those of you would want mounds and mounds of scientific evidence for creation, check outThe Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) Note: many of their professors are among the utmost respected in thier fields and reckognized internationally for their research.

First of all, he is the only God that does not behave like a human being, all other Gods conduct themselves as humans, and have the same motivations, desires, and emotions that humans do. YHWH has a distinctly Inhuman nature.

Is that so? Is that why "God Hates Fags?" Because He doesn't have the same motivations and desires as humans do? Just ask Fred Phelps. He will tell you. http://www.godhatesfags.com

Is that why the Bible reads as nothing more than a frustrating and complex rulebook, rather than divinely-inspired scripture?

I leave you to ponder on this, followed by some of my own pondering on the same...

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “The gods we worship write their names on our faces, be sure of that. And a man will worship something —have no doubt about that, either. He may think that his tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of his heart—but it will out. That which dominates will determine his life and character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.”
-----------my comments-----------
It is for this very reason that I will not worship on blind faith alone. What we are worshipping, we are becoming. Truer words never spoken. I do believe in a higher power, however, I do not believe that this higher power is anything like what Christians say it is...such a being would be beyond human comprehension. And would not concern itself with bullshit like who's sleeping with who, or who works on what day of the week, or who is wearing clothing made from mmixed fibers, or any number of other bullshit Levitical laws that were supposedly Divinely inspired.

You made a nice attack on evolution, I truncated your original post becuase I wanted to respond strictly to this section. But you have not, in any way PROVEN the existence of God, or any god. Yet, you'd like to see Creationism taught in schools, and specifically, CHRISTIAN Creationinsm (along with, of course, Christian hatred, bigotry, and prejudice.)

"Christian," incidentally, could mean either "follower of Christ" or "Christ-like."
I see nothing Christ-like in most modern day so-called "Christians."
I see very few modern-day Christians actually following the real teachings of Christ.
So, neither description is accurate to describe most of todays self-described "Christians." Where is the tolerance, the love, the unconditional love...where is the joy, the peace, the hope? Where is the GOOD NEWS? I don't see any in most modern-day "Christian" proseltyzing. Those who purport to want to "save" me, and convert me to being a "Christian" are doing a spectacularly poor job of it, because the more hatred, bigotry, and prejudice they spew in the name of their God, the farther away it pushes me. It repels me. I'd never worship such a hateful being! If he does not truly love all humans, gay and straight, male and female and transgender, black, white, brown, polka-dotted, whatever...if he does not TRULY love all humans, then I will never worship him.

Wanna "save" me? Work on your message, evangelicals and proseltyzers. Because right now, your message sucks. You sound more like Pharisees than Christians to me.

There's already a thread someplace for that. Evolution as a whole is taught in classrooms as a "THEORY" not a truth and if teachers are teaching it as truth then they are doing their jobs incorrectly. Nevertheless, it is a valid theory for the process of life and therefore needs to be taught in "science" classes so that students know about it. Nobody even tries to admit that we can actually "prove" evolution in whole. It's not possible at this point. But we have evidence and scientific studies, etc etc etc. that provide evidence to suggest that evolution is real. However we can prove that evolution on a smaller scale DOES happen from observing the animal kingdom. Species adapt and change to their environment. New species appear (I was watching an episode of that crazy red haired guy from Animal Planet, Oshay or something, where he discovered a new species of collubrid which he found was a mix between two very different species.). It happens all over that place and a lot of it we probably never find out about, since we don't know everything about our planet.
If Creationists are going to continuously attack the theory of Evolution, they should be ready to defend themselves. Evolutionists do it all the time. It's your turn now and if you can't handle it, then stop bashing the competition.

Here's a thought: Anyone ever stop to think that THE TRUTH is big enough to encompass BOTH Evolution AND Creationism?

Supposing there was a Creator...and He created all forms that now exist...would He create everything from scratch every time...or would He create things as extrapolations of other things He had created? That might explain the similarities between some different species...example: fish scales, and bird's feet. Ever notice how much like scales bird's feet look like?

So, could it be possible BOTH theories contain elements of THE TRUTH...whereas THE TRUTH literally encompasses BOTH theories...and perhaps even other elements we have not, as humans, yet begun to hypothesize?

So PHD holding scientists are all more retarrded then you ?Why somuch vitriolic hatred toward Christians or other Creationist.The burden of proof lies with the evolutionists. This is like a court case...If you wish to convicts us you must disproove us....I have no need to proove my faith it is mine.Why do you hate us so?

One could ask you Christians the same thing, you know....Why do YOU hate US so? We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender HUMANS are still human, we feel, we live, we love, we bleed red when you cut us...your own God commanded you to love us, unconditionally, as you would any other human, yet you hate us. Why?

P.S. And don't try to say you love us. What a load of hogwash!! The way you Christians treat us GLBT people...is THAT how you treat someone you love? If so, I'm sure as hell glad you DON'T hate us!! nothing you say will convince me that Christians do not hate GLBT people by the way. Your actions speak louder than your words.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, from his Poor Richard's Almanack, "I'm sorry sir, I cannot hear you. Your actions are speaking too loudly."

In the United States on Nov. 2, eleven States voted to discriminate, and deny rights to a segment of their population. How do you equate that with love? Do you deny people you love the same rights and freedoms you take for granted? If so, this is a definistion of "love" that I have never heard before! Quick, someone call Noah Webster!!

Now, explain to me how in the world that mutation happened.

That post shows exactly how creationists know NOTHING about how evolution works. They have no true knowledge of Science.

Let me *try* to make it clear for you.

Imagine that there is a population of 100 birds an 10 of them have different genes for the constitution of their beaks caused by mutations during meiosis (This happens and is proved), but in normal conditions, they have no advantage over the other 90 birds.
Then imagine that some climate change happens and there is no more food left, except for some ants inside a tree or whatever you want. The mutation, which was not visible before, allows those 10 birds that are different to get the ants and to live, while the other 90, unable to feed, die.
So only the 10 birds that have stronger beaks, etc, survive and reproduce.

THAT is evolution right there. And the mutations were there, although not visible until there was an evolutive pressure.

These variations can also happen, for example, if you divide two populations. The genetic mutations that happen throughout the time add on in different ways, since population A doesn't mingle with B, meaning that any random mutation that appears on A might not show up on B. After a time, the populations are different.


Next time, do actual research on subjects you discuss before making your mind and trying to disprove others. Do you really want to live with the blindfold that "they" put around your eyes?

So PHD holding scientists are all more retarrded then you ?Why somuch vitriolic hatred toward Christians or other Creationist.The burden of proof lies with the evolutionists. This is like a court case...If you wish to convicts us you must disproove us....I have no need to proove my faith it is mine.Why do you hate us so?
If evolution is a fact why did the human species evolve in counter point to all other animals. MAn is the most physically helpless of all mammals but yet the most successful...
Excuse me. I went over and asked a few phd holding scientists of my own (All of who, by the way, have, PhD's in relevent fields like chem engineering and biology, and actually got their PhD's from a respectable place) and they laughed at it. Point taken?

A bird flies by a tree, and seeing ants streaming out of the tree's bark, decides to try and get the ants. The bird lands upon a branch and tries to pick up the ants with its beak, but the ants are too quick for it. So like any sensible bird, it tries to make a hole in the tree to get those tasty ants. Unfortunately for the bird, when it bangs it's head up against the tree, it smashes its beak completely and dies.

Now, somehow, this same bird managed to lay an egg just before its ill-fated attempt to eat those ants. This egg hatches and is, shall we deduce, adopted by another bird and raised to adulthood. Upon leaving the nest, this bird too flies past a tree swarming with ants. However, she, unlike her mother, is equipped to eat these ants. So she lands upon a branch and tries to pick them up with her beak; they're too fast! No worries, though, because this next generation has just happened to develop a stronger beak, capable of drilling holes in trees. So the bird gets ready and plows her head against the tree only to have the beak fly thorugh the back of her head upon impact because her skull did not possess fat deposits to cussion the blow and thus keep the beak on the front of her head and not the back.

Never fear! For somehow this bird, too, managed to leave a nest behind her! And this generation is packing: reinforced beak, fat padding around the skull and adapted claws for latching onto the side of a tree. So this bird attempts to suceed where it's predesseors failed. It latches on, drills a hole...but them can't get the ants because the reinforced beak is too thick to allow it.

*Fast forward* And the next generation in this ill-fated bird family decides to go where no one in his family has gone before: an ant feast where ants are consumed! And he's prepared...he has a long, sticky tounge along with the other adaptations his ancestors did. It's perfect for sticking down the hole drilled by its beak and retrieving ants. Unfortunately for him it's also too long for his mouth. As he flies to the tree, his tounge catches on a near by branch and he is swung face first into a tree. Or, if you don't like that death...he tries to drill into the tree but can't manuver around this huge tounge, thus leaving him incapable of eating anything. Darn! I thought we had it this time.

And yet another generation somehow is born...and this generation is unique indeed. See, its super long tounge goes up through the nostril and is stored in the nasal cavity. Think I'm kidding? Check out the anatomy of a woodpecker. That's how it works. So finally this bird family is able to eat those ants.

Now, explain to me how in the world that mutation happened.


Oh, and for those of you would want mounds and mounds of scientific evidence for creation, check outThe Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) Note: many of their professors are among the utmost respected in thier fields and reckognized internationally for their research.



That isnt how mutation works.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with how mutation works.

It's pure fiction with nothing in the world to do with evolutionary biology.

The way it works is this:
Five million birds are born a year, ten or twelve of them have much harder beaks than the rest.

Of those 5 million birds, 3 million starve to death because their beaks arent strong enough to eat the ants in the tress.

Of the 2 million that are left, 12 reproduce and pass on their genes, meaning that of the next 5 million birds, maybe 200 have strong beaks.

On and on and on until the train becomes so widespread (over tens or hundreds of thousands of years) that a majority of birds have strong beaks, and eventually all the birds do, barring those ith random mutations that make the beaks weak. And those birds die because they cant get at the ants.

Evolution isnt a semantic response to a challange, it is the accumulation of helpful random pre-birth mutations and the weeding out of unhelpful ones.

Here's a thought: Anyone ever stop to think that THE TRUTH is big enough to encompass BOTH Evolution AND Creationism?

Supposing there was a Creator...and He created all forms that now exist...would He create everything from scratch every time...or would He create things as extrapolations of other things He had created? That might explain the similarities between some different species...example: fish scales, and bird's feet. Ever notice how much like scales bird's feet look like?

So, could it be possible BOTH theories contain elements of THE TRUTH...whereas THE TRUTH literally encompasses BOTH theories...and perhaps even other elements we have not, as humans, yet begun to hypothesize?

Nope, can't say I've ever been in Biology class and wanted the teacher to stop and say "next week we're learning creationism, the other theory of how how we came to be that has no evidence or proof".

After reading several pages of this, I can see that passions have become deeply flared over this subject of Creationism and Evolution. Yes, I am a Christian, but I am a secular Christian in the sense that I believe in the principle of separation of church and state. Religion and government should not be deeply entwined.

However, that does not mean that the two cannot work together in some ways to strengthen each other. I know I will come under attack by some for advocating this, but I believe that in a society there has to be some basic set of ground rules. Now I'm not saying those rules have to be soley Christian, Muslim, Humanist, Atheist inpsired, etc. But the important thing is that all these groups find a common ground on which we can meet and agree. I've seen a lot of attacks on these pages between both sides and I'm sorry to see the lack of respect and tolerance for each other's views. Intolerance breeds intolerance.

Don't generalize people because of the beliefs, ideas or doctrines they adhere to. Yes, each side has spewed negativity towards the other, but where does that get us? Work together to better understand each other. The reason we have so many problems and tensions in the world today is because we as humans can't agree on many things which each of us are deeply passionate about. Passion for a subject is not a bad, but intolerance towards another is. I do strongy disagree with some of the things proponents of evolution have said on this string, but I still deeply respect your opinion and beliefs and as a Chistian I would hope that they would show the same courteousness and respect for my opinion as well.

Remember, "United we stand, divided we fall."

One could ask you Christians the same thing, you know....Why do YOU hate US so? We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender HUMANS are still human, we feel, we live, we love, we bleed red when you cut us...your own God commanded you to love us, unconditionally, as you would any other human, yet you hate us. Why?

P.S. And don't try to say you love us. What a load of hogwash!! The way you Christians treat us GLBT people...is THAT how you treat someone you love? If so, I'm sure as hell glad you DON'T hate us!! nothing you say will convince me that Christians do not hate GLBT people by the way. Your actions speak louder than your words.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, from his Poor Richard's Almanack, "I'm sorry sir, I cannot hear you. Your actions are speaking too loudly."

In the United States on Nov. 2, eleven States voted to discriminate, and deny rights to a segment of their population. How do you equate that with love? Do you deny people you love the same rights and freedoms you take for granted? If so, this is a definistion of "love" that I have never heard before! Quick, someone call Noah Webster!!

It's for your own good! (shouts extreme Christian) Yeah sorry about that, my state (Oregon) voted to ban gay/lesbian marriages, i'm ashamed actually. However you do yourself no credit with an attack on all Christians. I am Christian, and anyone who has been on a religious forum with me, know i have no problem with gays or lesbos. I have to admit it tho, transexuals kinda creep me out. Don't assualt all Christians buddy, many but not all. I can't do anything to show you what i am saying is true, but remember this, not all Christians voted to ban gay marriages. I certainly wouldn't have (i'm 13 so that's irrelevant) I don't love you in the "let's go out" sort of wway, but i don't hate you.

It's for your own good! (shouts extreme Christian) Yeah sorry about that, my state (Oregon) voted to ban gay/lesbian marriages, i'm ashamed actually. However you do yourself no credit with an attack on all Christians. I am Christian, and anyone who has been on a religious forum with me, know i have no problem with gays or lesbos. I have to admit it tho, transexuals kinda creep me out. Don't assualt all Christians buddy, many but not all. I can't do anything to show you what i am saying is true, but remember this, not all Christians voted to ban gay marriages. I certainly wouldn't have (i'm 13 so that's irrelevant) I don't love you in the "let's go out" sort of wway, but i don't hate you.

Gay marriage was banned in Cali too, and what is so funny about that is my Mom is an extremely religious Christian, and she's gay. She blasts gospel and christian rock all the time and she went to church for forever, she even spent months going church to church trying to find one that would accept her sexual orientation. I'm just sort of agreeing with you here on that not all Christians are bad. Problem is that those that aren't bad are not being heard. We have a group in my little town that go around with these huge billboards attached to their cars that have things like "sodomy is the work of satan" and other such horrible attacks. They sit outside churchs. The church I go to on a once in a while basis actually apologized to everyone in a sermon for that group, they even tried to investigate to find out who they were, what their purpose was, and to see if they would stop coming around the church. They didn't get ahold of anyone, but they told members that they did not share the views and that it didn't matter what your sexual orientation was or whether it was evil, faith in God would hold true. It's a neat church, they neither advocate nor condemn gay marriage and gay relations.
So not all Christians are bad, it just so happens that the most loudmouthed anti-gay's are the ones being heard, like on the TV and what not. And unfortunately for us in America, we don't get a dose of the good in our news much. It's almost always tragedy or something bad happening or whatever, hardly anything good.

One could ask you Christians the same thing, you know....Why do YOU hate US so? We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender HUMANS are still human, we feel, we live, we love, we bleed red when you cut us...your own God commanded you to love us, unconditionally, as you would any other human, yet you hate us. Why?

P.S. And don't try to say you love us. What a load of hogwash!! The way you Christians treat us GLBT people...is THAT how you treat someone you love? If so, I'm sure as hell glad you DON'T hate us!! nothing you say will convince me that Christians do not hate GLBT people by the way. Your actions speak louder than your words.

To quote Benjamin Franklin, from his Poor Richard's Almanack, "I'm sorry sir, I cannot hear you. Your actions are speaking too loudly."

In the United States on Nov. 2, eleven States voted to discriminate, and deny rights to a segment of their population. How do you equate that with love? Do you deny people you love the same rights and freedoms you take for granted? If so, this is a definistion of "love" that I have never heard before! Quick, someone call Noah Webster!!

While I can't speak for all christians, I can speak for myself as one. First, let me give some definitions as I see them.

Tolerance means loving someone as a worthwhile person REGARDLESS of the views they hold. Sadly, there are those working to change this definition to holding all views equal regardless of how destructive they are to themselves or others.

Love (agape) is holding someone up as a worthwhile person, and selflessly doing for them what is in that persons best interest. This includes punishments, both physical and social as long as the intent is towards the reformation and redemption of that person. (i.e. tough love)

Now personally, I have a number of friends who are are in the GLBT category and I consider them to be good and worthwhile people. However, I do not approve of their chosen lifestyle. So basicly, while I love and tolerate the person, any "hate" is directed at the lifestyle NOT the person IN the lifestyle.
GLBT is ultimatly harmful to those involved and as such working against it is a form of tough love.

Marriage is a religious institution NOT a federal/state institution. The federal/state institution is called a civil union. Typically both are performed similtaniously in a hetero marriage ceremony. Basicly, we heteros are trying to preserve the religious institution of marriage and keep it distinct from the state by having the state limit itself in regards to this issue. This comes back to the whole issue of seperation of church and state, the goal of which was only to prevent one from physically controling the other, NOT to seperate religious morality from the state. If the state wants to allow a civil union that grants all the same legal benefits associated with traditional marriage, fine. That is between you and the state, don't get us involved. As soon as you attack our institution, we will defend ourselves by protecting our rights to our institution of marriage.

In brief, I would not withhold marriage because of hate, I would withhold it because I love you and want whats best for you.

This has gotten way off topic, so to bring things back a bit on focus I would also like to point out that it is completely LEGAL in all 50 states to teach creation in the classroom. The problem is that organizations such as the ACLU (american civil liberties union) actively discourage the teaching of creation (illegally I might add) by bringing a lawsuit against any public school that trys to teach it. While the lawsuit won't hold any water in court, the principals of these schools don't want to deal with it, take the easy way out, and tell the teachers to not teach creation. Thus, there is active suppression of creation based teaching in the classroom.

Now personally, I have a number of friends who are are in the GLBT category and I consider them to be good and worthwhile people. However, I do not approve of their chosen lifestyle. So basicly, while I love and tolerate the person, any "hate" is directed at the lifestyle NOT the person IN the lifestyle.
GLBT is ultimatly harmful to those involved and as such working against it is a form of tough love.

How is being gay harmful to them? I don't see how that is.

Marriage is a religious institution NOT a federal/state institution. The federal/state institution is called a civil union. Typically both are performed similtaniously in a hetero marriage ceremony. Basicly, we heteros are trying to preserve the religious institution of marriage and keep it distinct from the state by having the state limit itself in regards to this issue. This comes back to the whole issue of seperation of church and state, the goal of which was only to prevent one from physically controling the other, NOT to seperate religious morality from the state. If the state wants to allow a civil union that grants all the same legal benefits associated with traditional marriage, fine. That is between you and the state, don't get us involved. As soon as you attack our institution, we will defend ourselves by protecting our rights to our institution of marriage.

You have your rights. Churches have the right to deny gay marriages in their church. However Marriage is not just a religious institution, it is a legal document that can be acquired in a courtroom. What the religious community is trying to do is completely ban Gays from taking part in any form of marriage, whether religious or legal, which in turn is taking away civil rights, you know sort of like we did to the African Americans and other races a while back...
Sure, the State doesn't have to be devoid of morality, however you need to realize that your morals do NOT apply to everyone. Not everyone believes everything in Christianity, nor Buddhism, or whatever other religion out there. We're a diverse culture and as soon as you start imposing laws on people based on religious reasons, that is breaking the separation of church and state. That's imposing a groups beliefs on another. You'd be in an uproar about the situation if it were reversed and people were trying to make it illegal for Christians to get married, or Catholics, or whatever. The Church has every right to deny Gays to be married within their individual institutions, and they do it all the time, but Churchs should also have the right to accept them and allow them if they so choose to.

In brief, I would not withhold marriage because of hate, I would withhold it because I love you and want whats best for you.

Nobody is going to see that. They are going to see people trying to take away their rights as citizens, they are going to see persecution for their beliefs and the way they feel. It's a different form of racism in their eyes.


This has gotten way off topic, so to bring things back a bit on focus I would also like to point out that it is completely LEGAL in all 50 states to teach creation in the classroom. The problem is that organizations such as the ACLU (american civil liberties union) actively discourage the teaching of creation (illegally I might add) by bringing a lawsuit against any public school that trys to teach it. While the lawsuit won't hold any water in court, the principals of these schools don't want to deal with it, take the easy way out, and tell the teachers to not teach creation. Thus, there is active suppression of creation based teaching in the classroom.

Got any links on that? I'd be interested in learning on it. Sounds fudgy to me, but hey if there's stuff out there that says it's true, I'm up for an educational experience.

Also, evolution, while still "called" a theory, is presented as a fact. I is presented to children as if it was completely true, with no indication that there might be another logical explanation for how we might have gotten here.

Here is a quote for you, "If you say something loud enough and long enough, they will believe it." Care to guess who that is atributed to? Adolf Hitler, who used evolution as a primary basis for starting the world wars and the attempted extermination of the Jews.

Virtually all I see in the popular media is evolution this, evolution that. No support is given, it is simply assumed to be true. If all a child hears growing up is one point of view, they will believe it and believe it so firmly that it can take a significant effort to change even a small part of that ingrained belief.

"Give me a child until he is six and he is ours for the rest of his life." Attributed to the medieval monks. Goes both ways after all.

Also, evolution, while still "called" a theory, is presented as a fact. I is presented to children as if it was completely true, with no indication that there might be another logical explanation for how we might have gotten here.

Here is a quote for you, "If you say something loud enough and long enough, they will believe it." Care to guess who that is atributed to? Adolf Hitler, who used evolution as a primary basis for starting the world wars and the attempted extermination of the Jews.

Virtually all I see in the popular media is evolution this, evolution that. No support is given, it is simply assumed to be true. If all a child hears growing up is one point of view, they will believe it and believe it so firmly that it can take a significant effort to change even a small part of that ingrained belief.

"Give me a child until he is six and he is ours for the rest of his life." Attributed to the medieval monks. Goes both ways after all.
Creationism is logical?

Sorry?

Another sequence from that page:
"The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID.

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?
"

However, there's a slight difference between this and Creationism Intelligent Design...
1, 2) We know that a potential designer could have existed - human beings. We want to find out whether a certain thing is a product of that designer or not. (Or, in case 2, maybe to determine when this designer appeared - if we "know" that a certain pattern is created by humans, than that pattern is evidence of humans.)
3) Similar deal - we know who the "intelligent designer" would be.
4) We try to find an intelligent designer - by saying "ok, this is what we think a designer would do. Lets look for that pattern and if we find it, then that's evidence of a designer."

Creationist ID: "We see the world. It follows certain patterns of complexity. Hence, there must be a designer." The difference between this and 1, 2, 3 - in those cases, we know a designer exists, (or in 3, a potential designer). In 4, we're doing an experiment to test the hypothesis that a designer (aliens) exist... whereas creationists cannot propose any such test.

And so on.

i always liked just how bad the analogy involved in the id argument is. id people like to make a lot of noise for the analogy between us being able to determine that certain things we see in nature are the products of intelligent design, and that the world itself looks designed. however, if the entire world looks so designed, how can we tell if individual parts of it are designed by humans or not? after all, in order to tell that a certain rock has been designed to look a certain way, we need to believe that all the other rocks weren't. we need to be able to tell the difference between designed objects and undesigned objects - which means that that difference must actually exist. if nothing in the world is undesigned, than how could you possibly infer anything at all about the designer of any particular thing?

and on another front, the analogy that started it all runs roughly like this:

watches are complex.
watches have a watch-maker.
the universe is complex.
therefore there is a universe-maker.

however, it is also true that watchmakers have grandfathers. therefore, so must universe-makers, if this analogy is to be believed. a similar point could be shown like this:

leaves are complex structures.
leaves grow on trees.
bills of money are also complex structures.
therefore money grows on trees.

also, watch-makers make watches, but not boats or houses - they are made by boat-makers and house-makers. the universe is also full of a large number of complex things like planets and rock formations and a particular tree. this means that there should be seperate planet-makers and rock formation-makers and tree-makers, etc. goodbye monotheism, hello animism or polytheism.

in pretty much every way you can think of, this argument fails. logically, factually, as an argument at all in favor of christianity even if it were a good one, etc. i'm surprised anyone even attempts to hold it anymore.

Also, evolution, while still "called" a theory, is presented as a fact. I is presented to children as if it was completely true, with no indication that there might be another logical explanation for how we might have gotten here.
The theory of evolution *is* accepted as completely true, as are all theories that are workable in science. It would be difficult to work with them otherwise.

Evolution is essentially a fact.

Here are some of the articles supporting my statement about discrimination against teaching creation in the classroom.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-279.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0918news.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp

Here are some of the articles supporting my statement about discrimination against teaching creation in the classroom.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-279.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0918news.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp
Because it isn't science.

It's for your own good! (shouts extreme Christian) Yeah sorry about that, my state (Oregon) voted to ban gay/lesbian marriages, i'm ashamed actually. However you do yourself no credit with an attack on all Christians. I am Christian, and anyone who has been on a religious forum with me, know i have no problem with gays or lesbos. I have to admit it tho, transexuals kinda creep me out. Don't assualt all Christians buddy, many but not all. I can't do anything to show you what i am saying is true, but remember this, not all Christians voted to ban gay marriages. I certainly wouldn't have (i'm 13 so that's irrelevant) I don't love you in the "let's go out" sort of wway, but i don't hate you.

Maybe you don't hate me. but, by your own admission, I "creep you out!" Because, guess what? I AM one of those transsexuals you mentioned. And maybe, just maybe...if you got to know me as a person, and not as the label "transsexual," maybe you would begin to see that I am no threat to you, and maybe then I would not "creep you out" so much, huh? but you have to be open, too.

As to the "it's for your own good!" comment...well, you know what? Here is what I say to that...

I am 33 years old now, and I do not recall asking you or anyone else to look out for "my own good!" I'm perfectly capable of doing that for myself, thank you very much!

I do not recall asking these so-called "Christians" to be my mommy and daddy, and decide FOR me what is best for me. I did not ask them to stick their nose into MY business, and to "save" me! In fact, if I have a prayer at all, it is, "Lord, save me from those who ostensibly are trying to 'save' me!!"

Gay marriage was banned in Cali too, and what is so funny about that is my Mom is an extremely religious Christian, and she's gay. She blasts gospel and christian rock all the time and she went to church for forever, she even spent months going church to church trying to find one that would accept her sexual orientation. I'm just sort of agreeing with you here on that not all Christians are bad. Problem is that those that aren't bad are not being heard. We have a group in my little town that go around with these huge billboards attached to their cars that have things like "sodomy is the work of satan" and other such horrible attacks. They sit outside churchs. The church I go to on a once in a while basis actually apologized to everyone in a sermon for that group, they even tried to investigate to find out who they were, what their purpose was, and to see if they would stop coming around the church. They didn't get ahold of anyone, but they told members that they did not share the views and that it didn't matter what your sexual orientation was or whether it was evil, faith in God would hold true. It's a neat church, they neither advocate nor condemn gay marriage and gay relations.
So not all Christians are bad, it just so happens that the most loudmouthed anti-gay's are the ones being heard, like on the TV and what not. And unfortunately for us in America, we don't get a dose of the good in our news much. It's almost always tragedy or something bad happening or whatever, hardly anything good.

If this is so, then why don't Christians like you raise YOUR voices to be heard? Why do you let intolerant loudmouthed jerks hijack your religion, and give it a bad name?

While I can't speak for all christians, I can speak for myself as one. First, let me give some definitions as I see them.

Tolerance means loving someone as a worthwhile person REGARDLESS of the views they hold. Sadly, there are those working to change this definition to holding all views equal regardless of how destructive they are to themselves or others.

Love (agape) is holding someone up as a worthwhile person, and selflessly doing for them what is in that persons best interest. This includes punishments, both physical and social as long as the intent is towards the reformation and redemption of that person. (i.e. tough love)

Now personally, I have a number of friends who are are in the GLBT category and I consider them to be good and worthwhile people. However, I do not approve of their chosen lifestyle. So basicly, while I love and tolerate the person, any "hate" is directed at the lifestyle NOT the person IN the lifestyle.
GLBT is ultimatly harmful to those involved and as such working against it is a form of tough love.

Marriage is a religious institution NOT a federal/state institution. The federal/state institution is called a civil union. Typically both are performed similtaniously in a hetero marriage ceremony. Basicly, we heteros are trying to preserve the religious institution of marriage and keep it distinct from the state by having the state limit itself in regards to this issue. (/snip).

First, read the above. I DO NOT RECALL ASKING YOU TO BE MY MOMMY OR DADDY, AND DECIDE WHAT IS BEST FOR ME!
Dammit, i'm 33 years old, and I can decide for MYSELF!
And it is NOT your place to "punish" those who don't conform to your narrow "norm" by imposing societal/economic sanctions on those who don't.

God nor Jesus ever condoned or taught that humans ought to punish other humans in this way.

And your argument about civil unions being different from marriage doesn't hold water, because THE ELEVEN STATES THAT VOTED AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE VOTED AGAINSY GAY CIVIL UNIONS, TOO, DAMN IT!!

So, you ARE trying to withhold from one group of citizens, rights and privileges you take for franted. And, like it or not, the REASON you are doing this is to "punish" us. We did not ask you to be our Mommy and Daddy, and decide FOR us, what is best for us. Butt out of our private lives, and maybe you will find a whole lot less hatred spewed back at the Christian faith!

Gay marriage was banned in Cali too, and what is so funny about that is my Mom is an extremely religious Christian, and she's gay. She blasts gospel and christian rock all the time and she went to church for forever, she even spent months going church to church trying to find one that would accept her sexual orientation. I'm just sort of agreeing with you here on that not all Christians are bad. Problem is that those that aren't bad are not being heard. We have a group in my little town that go around with these huge billboards attached to their cars that have things like "sodomy is the work of satan" and other such horrible attacks. They sit outside churchs. The church I go to on a once in a while basis actually apologized to everyone in a sermon for that group, they even tried to investigate to find out who they were, what their purpose was, and to see if they would stop coming around the church. They didn't get ahold of anyone, but they told members that they did not share the views and that it didn't matter what your sexual orientation was or whether it was evil, faith in God would hold true. It's a neat church, they neither advocate nor condemn gay marriage and gay relations.
So not all Christians are bad, it just so happens that the most loudmouthed anti-gay's are the ones being heard, like on the TV and what not. And unfortunately for us in America, we don't get a dose of the good in our news much. It's almost always tragedy or something bad happening or whatever, hardly anything good.

What town is this?

Depending on my mood, I might pay a visit and find said cars. I'm not friendly to cars at times :)

You do realize that your all wrong about this issue, don't you?
[I mean to suggest that this so called almighty "God" of yours created the world in just 7 days is total insanity. It took 9 and 1/2 days to create the world out of mud and fur and place it on the great and powerful Energy Turtle's back and set him adrift in the dune sea. Think about it! All the evidence points to a giant turtle: the shape of the sky is round and dome like, when we see pictures of the world from space we see a big round dome shape, all the canyons and rivers and valleys are just the crevices in his shell. It's a giant turtle! I can't see how anyone could possibly ignore the overwhelming evidence of this. Evolution is wrong and so is your crazy bible-book, we all know (or at least we all should know) that the big giant Sun-Man made the world and everything else must be wrong.]

See, if we had to teach and treat one creation story as though it were fact, then we would have to treat them all that way. You might think there is evidence for creationism but if you take a truly objective look at creationism you see just how silly it can be. I will admit that we cannot totally explain the origin of the universe itself and that even the big bang theory has some real questions yet to be verified, but the formation of the planet earth and the development of life on this planet is something we can study and learn about and it does support evolution. Evoultion is only a theory right now because we probably haven't collected every last bit of evidence there is. Evolution is still a theory because is only best fits the evidence collected so far, we might some day find new evidence that contradicts some part of the theory of evoultion as we know it today and should that day come the theory will be changed to fit the facts collected. Only when all evidence is taken into account does a theory become a law in science.

Also, evolution, while still "called" a theory, is presented as a fact. I is presented to children as if it was completely true, with no indication that there might be another logical explanation for how we might have gotten here.

Here is a quote for you, "If you say something loud enough and long enough, they will believe it." Care to guess who that is atributed to? Adolf Hitler, who used evolution as a primary basis for starting the world wars and the attempted extermination of the Jews.

Virtually all I see in the popular media is evolution this, evolution that. No support is given, it is simply assumed to be true. If all a child hears growing up is one point of view, they will believe it and believe it so firmly that it can take a significant effort to change even a small part of that ingrained belief.

"Give me a child until he is six and he is ours for the rest of his life." Attributed to the medieval monks. Goes both ways after all.

Evolution has always been presented in the classes I've taken at both middle school, highschool, and college levels as a theory. It is seen as true because there is a plethora of evidence to support it. That and evolution is taking place every single day, if you pay attention to the animal kingdom you will see it taking place among them. Hell you could easily see evolution on the Animal Planet without them saying it. There was a good bit of it on the Jeff Corwin show the other day involving a nuclear power plant in Florida and how animals adapted to its use of a nearby canal as a coolant.
I don't recall Hitler using Evolution as some sort of marker for his insane trip into power. If there is real evidence, I'd like to know. In all my ventures into WW2 history that has never come up. Hitler's reasons for starting the second war was due to the Versailles Treaty, all those war reparations. And to use the words of a genocidal madman against evolution is pretty naive. Enough horrible things can be said about the Bible.

What town is this?

Depending on my mood, I might pay a visit and find said cars. I'm not friendly to cars at times :)

Placerville. I haven't seen them in a month or so, but that's cause I'm at work in the day time, but I'm sure they are floating around.

Well I'm for Evolution, but what the hell I'll give it a whirl and try to defend Creationism with the best argument that Creationists can come up with, and that is that both theories rely on faith (evolution because it isn't a proven theory, pretty close to it, but not proven). It just so happens that there is more evidence to suggest Evolution is real and absolutely no evidence to prove the other. Funny...

Evolution isn't a theory. It's fact supported by theory.

I know that there was a World War II. There are theories as to what caused it, but besides that, it's all presumption.

There are people who think WWII was made up. That isn't an act of "faith", that's a denial of facts and an arguement devoid of logic and proof.

If this is so, then why don't Christians like you raise YOUR voices to be heard? Why do you let intolerant loudmouthed jerks hijack your religion, and give it a bad name?

I do what I can. I've written letters to senators, representatives, even was part of a petition that was sent to the President. I'm doing what I can with as little power as I have.

You do realize that your all wrong about this issue, don't you?
[I mean to suggest that this so called almighty "God" of yours created the world in just 7 days is total insanity. It took 9 and 1/2 days to create the world out of mud and fur and place it on the great and powerful Energy Turtle's back and set him adrift in the dune sea. Think about it! All the evidence points to a giant turtle: the shape of the sky is round and dome like, when we see pictures of the world from space we see a big round dome shape, all the canyons and rivers and valleys are just the crevices in his shell. It's a giant turtle! I can't see how anyone could possibly ignore the overwhelming evidence of this. Evolution is wrong and so is your crazy bible-book, we all know (or at least we all should know) that the big giant Sun-Man made the world and everything else must be wrong.]

See, if we had to teach and treat one creation story as though it were fact, then we would have to treat them all that way. You might think there is evidence for creationism but if you take a truly objective look at creationism you see just how silly it can be. I will admit that we cannot totally explain the origin of the universe itself and that even the big bang theory has some real questions yet to be verified, but the formation of the planet earth and the development of life on this planet is something we can study and learn about and it does support evolution. Evoultion is only a theory right now because we probably haven't collected every last bit of evidence there is. Evolution is still a theory because is only best fits the evidence collected so far, we might some day find new evidence that contradicts some part of the theory of evoultion as we know it today and should that day come the theory will be changed to fit the facts collected. Only when all evidence is taken into account does a theory become a law in science.

Ya, Judeo-monotheistic mythology has been found to be pretty lacking on exciting creation stories.

See, if we had to teach and treat one creation story as though it were fact, then we would have to treat them all that way. You might think there is evidence for creationism but if you take a truly objective look at creationism you see just how silly it can be. I will admit that we cannot totally explain the origin of the universe itself and that even the big bang theory has some real questions yet to be verified, but the formation of the planet earth and the development of life on this planet is something we can study and learn about and it does support evolution. Evoultion is only a theory right now because we probably haven't collected every last bit of evidence there is. Evolution is still a theory because is only best fits the evidence collected so far, we might some day find new evidence that contradicts some part of the theory of evoultion as we know it today and should that day come the theory will be changed to fit the facts collected. Only when all evidence is taken into account does a theory become a law in science.

Exactly. Evolution is constantly changing as new evidence appears. New discoveries are made all the time that either fit right in to the theory as it is or help improve upon it, or even change it. A lot of things have changed in the last 20 years really, more so in the last decade or so with all genome and DNA work. It's fascinating.

Here are some of the articles supporting my statement about discrimination against teaching creation in the classroom.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-279.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0918news.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp

Give me non-Creationist websites. If someone like CNN or MSNBC or another major news magazine or something not related to the Creationist belief, I might have an easier time listening to it.

Evolution isn't a theory. It's fact supported by theory.

I know that there was a World War II. There are theories as to what caused it, but besides that, it's all presumption.

There are people who think WWII was made up. That isn't an act of "faith", that's a denial of facts and an arguement devoid of logic and proof.

Well, there's theories as to what exactly triggered Hitler to just go for it, but it all boils down to the war reparations Germany was paying and his dislike for the Jews. He didn't originally hate the Jews, but he eventually started to because he believed they were destroying the political structure, using it to their advantage. Generally though, the Versaille Treaty is the trigger that started it.

Since when has evolution been a theory of the origin of the universe? It doesnt seem to explain to me how any of the matter that makes up everything got here. Science cannot prove to me as of now the origin of the universe, isnt there some kind of law (the preservation of matter), that states that matter can neither be created or destroyed? Judging by that, we dont even exists. Most evolutionists I have ever talked to are extremely conservative presbyterians who try and validate the bible by using science. Yes, evolution is logical, but why would the creator of the universe bother using it if he could just snap his finger and it be there? I think that you would have to agree that there is some higher power governing us, and from there, you can decide whether or not he is on a personal level with us, or if he just threw it all out there and let it go.

Exactly. Evolution is constantly changing as new evidence appears. New discoveries are made all the time that either fit right in to the theory as it is or help improve upon it, or even change it. A lot of things have changed in the last 20 years really, more so in the last decade or so with all genome and DNA work. It's fascinating.

So if evolution is a fact, why does it have to be changed every few years to accomidate new findings.

I would rather have a solid base like creation, where all true scientific facts (not opinions about the facts) fit and no constant modification is needed.

Give me non-Creationist websites. If someone like CNN or MSNBC or another major news magazine or something not related to the Creationist belief, I might have an easier time listening to it.

Be realistic, the people who are going to do news on a subject like this are the ones whos rights have been violated by it. Main stream media either doesn't care or is biased the other way.

Plus in those articles are links to non-creationist sources such as the laws referenced.

Enough for being defensive, prove your point. How is creationism a viable theory, and why should it be taught in the classroom?


Besides this, what evidence is there for biblical creation without the bible, and how can you teach creationism without mentioning a "god"?

I beg to differ. God is everything, although I may not believe in religion, I do believe in God. Who is mankind to create? We don not create, we simply pro-create. Creation is from nature, not by force or will. Man is not God, nature is God because it simply decides when it will create another living thing.

Be realistic, the people who are going to do news on a subject like this are the ones whos rights have been violated by it. Main stream media either doesn't care or is biased the other way.

Plus in those articles are links to non-creationist sources such as the laws referenced.
Lets put it this way- Show us findings in published, respectable journals that support your beliefs. Scientists aren't waging a war against evidence, and if you have it, I'd like to see it. All that I've seen so far is some weak arguments as to why evolution couldn't have happened (such as the wrong second law of thermodynamics argument).

So if evolution is a fact, why does it have to be changed every few years to accomidate new findings.

I would rather have a solid base like creation, where all true scientific facts (not opinions about the facts) fit and no constant modification is needed.

The base of evolution is fact, everything around it isn't, if you understand what I mean.

I'm sorry, creationism has no facts supporting it, unless you call the bible 'fact'.

Here is a brief summary of 'scientific' evidence for Creation. Do enjoy and please refrain from laughing too hard...


1. The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today. Yet, "since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a portion of the geologic column the claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance.1" "[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." This supposed column is actually saturated with "polystrate fossils" (fossils extending from one geologic layer to another) that tie all the layers to one time-frame. "[T]o the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

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.

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world. M.E. Clark and Henry Voss have demonstrated the scientific validity of such a Flood providing the sedimentary layering we see on every continent. Secular scholars report very rapid sedimentation and periods of great carbonate deposition in earth's sedimentary layers.. It is now possible to prove the historical reality of the Biblical Flood.

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. The universe does not have space to hold so many bodies.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds! To record the existence of this element in such short time span, the granite must be in crystalline state instantaneously. This runs counter to evolutionary estimates of 300 million years for granite to form.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock – point to the fact that all the supposed geologic periods actually occurred at the same time in the recent past.

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium. At present rates our atmosphere would accumulate current helium-4 amounts in less than 10,000 years.

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data. The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space. This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe. It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells. This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.

That was courtesy of http://www.creationevidence.org/

2% a year? The population did'nt grow nearly that fast until the 19th century( Europe and North America) and 20th century( Africa and Asia) Before this time population growth was very slow. Way less then 1% a year

the list of testable creationist hypotheses thus far:

the flood
Well, for the great flood we would expect a uniform layer of sediment all across the world from when everything kicked up in the flood waters settled. (New Granada)

we would expect to find fossils of any animals or plants that died in the flood to be in a jumbled mess within the above mentioned uniform layer. and since all plants and animals that ever existed were alive at the time, we would expect to find a sampling of all of them in that jumbled mess. (free soviets)

the flood would have left multiple distinct layers, arranged with the most dense material on the bottom and the least dense on the top. plant and animal fossils would be similarly distributed by density in those layers. (free soviets' rephrasing of lomia's hypothesis)

age of the earth
As for a young earth, we'd expect not to find any radioactive material that had been decaying for more than 6000 or so years. (New Granada)

we should be able to find naturally occuring radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives that aren't continually being reformed. for example, calcium-41, iron-60, aluminum-26, etc. (free soviets)

if we find an unbroken line of annual growth rings from trees in a given area, the most we should be able to count is in the 6,000 and a bit range. (free soviets)

if we count annual layers in an ice core, the most we should get is in the 6,000 and a bit range. (free soviets)

more generally, all dating methods should give us dates of no more than 6,000+ years ago.

ancient life
we would expect not to find any fossils of life forms which arent described in human historical writings. (New Granada)

since all life has existed since the beginning, the deepest and earliest layers of sediment that contain fossils should contain fossils of all forms of life we know of. (free soviets)

since all life has existed from the beginning, there should be no visible order in the fossil record from 'primitive' to modern forms. (free soviets)

no fossils should exist that demonstrate traits halfway between distinct 'kinds', like whales and land mammals, birds and reptiles, apes and humans, reptiles and mammals, etc. we should only find fossil that are clearly wth one group or the other. (free soviets)

linguistics, archaeology, history
there should be evidence of a single unified world language up until approximately 2200 bce, with many different languages appearing quickly thereafter. (free soviets)

the written records after the flood should record the biblical flood story exactly, as noah was still living until about 2000 bce, and his son shem until 1850 bce (we don't have dates for noah's two other sons, but i'd assume they would be similar). (free soviets)

genetics
We shouldn't be able to find any new genetic traits in cells (such as anti-biotic resistance, etc) (CSW)

We should be able to show that no information is ever added to cells by mutation. (CSW)

while dna similarities between similar looking life forms may be due to the same dna sequences being used over and over by the creator to do the same sort of things, we should expect that non-coding dna will differ greatly and in no particular pattern. (free soviets)

--------------------

did i miss any that were already made?
anyone want to add any more?
actual creationists are more than welcome to add some too.

remember, this is only the list of testable hypotheses. we'll talk about how well they hold up later. so feel free to toss stuff out there.

Can we get to disproving those yet FS?

We shouldn't be able to find any new genetic traits in cells (such as anti-biotic resistance, etc)

We should be able to show that no information is ever added to cells by mutation.

Can we get to disproving those yet FS?

i'd like to get a few more on there and get a creationist or two to contribute some. that way nobody is going to be able to say we weren't being more than fair.

come on creationists, what are all these scientific hypotheses that your idea has made that - if held up - would make it worthy of being in a science class? what does the literal truth of genesis imply that we should see in the world?

I would like to know if there are any creationists out there who are NOT Christians putting forth the biblical interpretation of creation. And for those who are Christian (which I believe includes virtually all creationists), why do you have so little faith in your religion that you feel compelled to look for scientific evidence to support it? Does not Corinthian's say, “… 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.” Your religion calls on you to understand by faith, not by theories or evidence or factual proofs.

Why do you need creationism if you are truly a Christian?

As a religion creationism is bad science; as science it is bad religion.

Here are some of the articles supporting my statement about discrimination against teaching creation in the classroom.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-279.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0918news.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4350news7-26-2000.asp

The same is true of trying to teach kids in school that Muhammad is god's last prophet.

Also its like trying to teach kids that Jesus is the son of god, or that they need to turn away from the evils of angra mainyu and embrace the goodness of ahura mazda through the prophet zoroaster.

Free Soviets.

No source of information on this, as it was a document I came across by chance, looked over, and moved on.

According to this mystical document (mystical in that I con not find the dang thing), the great flood was a raising of the red, caspian, or mediteranean sea (I believe red) due to unorthodox (no pun intended) weather conditions. This raising of the sea, which this document presented geological evidence of, would have covered the known world of record keepers at the time. Not implying this is evidence of creationism in general, nor is it intended to foster biblical credence. But, it is thought that this would be the historical event referenced in the Bible and other spiritual stories (Epic of Gilgamesh I believe... it is how the immortals he meets were granted immortality, they built a boat to the exact same specifications as Noah, odly enough).

Just curious if you have come across any similar explanations for why such a story exists in more than one culture.

Free Soviets.

No source of information on this, as it was a document I came across by chance, looked over, and moved on.

According to this mystical document (mystical in that I con not find the dang thing), the great flood was a raising of the red, caspian, or mediteranean sea (I believe red) due to unorthodox (no pun intended) weather conditions. This raising of the sea, which this document presented geological evidence of, would have covered the known world of record keepers at the time. Not implying this is evidence of creationism in general, nor is it intended to foster biblical credence. But, it is thought that this would be the historical event referenced in the Bible and other spiritual stories (Epic of Gilgamesh I believe... it is how the immortals he meets were granted immortality, they built a boat to the exact same specifications as Noah, odly enough).

Just curious if you have come across any similar explanations for why such a story exists in more than one culture.

Lets just say that the Jew's weren't the most original culture around when it came to creation myths.

So if evolution is a fact, why does it have to be changed every few years to accomidate new findings.

I would rather have a solid base like creation, where all true scientific facts (not opinions about the facts) fit and no constant modification is needed.

Creation changes just as much as evolution does, if not more. Religion is worse of them all, there are how many different editions of the Bible? How many times has it been translated incorrectly? How many times have they changed it in an attempt to make it more modern? You realize when you pick up a religious text it is nowhere near what was originally written right? The problem with Creationism is the scientific evidence/facts makes little to no sense because it contradicts law after law of proven scientific facts, things we have actually observed. Take that website in the first few pages of this thread that has a link to evidence saying dinosaurs walked with humans, ha, laughable at best.
That and I never said Evolution was fact and anyone who is saying it is mistaken. It is not fact, it is theory and will probably remain so for as long as mankind exists. It can't be fully proven, not the whole of it, however we do see pieces of evolution take place all the time in the animal kingdom. We can prove evolution on the short term, but at this point we can't prove it long term, however it is far more solid than any other theory out there because it relies on actual documented science, not belief in something you can't even prove exists.

Be realistic, the people who are going to do news on a subject like this are the ones whos rights have been violated by it. Main stream media either doesn't care or is biased the other way.

Plus in those articles are links to non-creationist sources such as the laws referenced.

Don't give me an excuse. Your creationist websites are most likely biased too. Give me a link to something non-creationist based, maybe a newspaper someplace did a story on it. If it is as big a deal as you boast, it will be somewhere besides those websites.

Here are some of the articles supporting my statement about discrimination against teaching creation in the classroom.

I'm not sure what this proves. There should be discrimination against teaching creationism in the classroom. There is discrimination against teaching any religion in the classroom, and rightfully so.

Well, then I'm afraid you'll have to take out evolution from the textbooks too...because the "Theory" of Evolution cannot be proven the same way Creationism cannot be proven...but for one thing, you can disprove evolution, but you can only disbelieve creationism.

So, all you evolutionists out there, don't you think it's time to reexamine this "Theory"? Don't you realise that you are just mindlessly holding on to this "Theory"? Isn't this faith? Hasn't Evolutionism become...a religion?

Well, then I'm afraid you'll have to take out evolution from the textbooks too...because the "Theory" of Evolution cannot be proven the same way Creationism cannot be proven...but for one thing, you can disprove evolution, but you can only disbelieve creationism.

So, all you evolutionists out there, don't you think it's time to reexamine this "Theory"? Don't you realise that you are just mindlessly holding on to this "Theory"? Isn't this faith? Hasn't Evolutionism become...a religion?

Evolution meets the rigorous standards of scientific evaluation. Everything in science is technically a theory which stands until further evidence comes along to refute it. That has not happened with evolution.

However, should that evidence appear, then science will adjust accordingly. That is the difference between evolution (which is a science, whether you like its answers or not) and creationism (which is not a science, but rather a religion). Creationists will not accept their idea as a theory (as evolutionists do), susceptible to change and modification based upon future evidence or observable fact.

I was not aware that evolution was a theory of the origin of the universe...

Evolution meets the rigorous standards of scientific evaluation. Everything in science is technically a theory which stands until further evidence comes along to refute it. That has not happened with evolution.

However, should that evidence appear, then science will adjust accordingly. That is the difference between evolution (which is a science, whether you like its answers or not) and creationism (which is not a science, but rather a religion). Creationists will not accept their idea as a theory (as evolutionists do), susceptible to change and modification based upon future evidence or observable fact.

So you are saying we should be teaching this "Theory" (which, of course, you have confirmed as having no basis on fact but only conforms to the "standards" which, of course, will be adjusted accordingly) as a fact in schools even when there IS evidence to refute it?

Also, you have correctly pointed out that science changes accordingly to new evidence. The implications of this is very simple: We know nothing for a fact. Suddenly, tomorrow we have a new discovery, and all the science we have learnt goes out the window. So, isn't all of science a faith? Not only a faith, but a changing faith. One that has no foundation in anything except evidence, which is constantly changing as well. The Bible says it best: "The foolish man builds his house upon the sand."

So you are saying we should be teaching this "Theory" (which, of course, you have confirmed as having no basis on fact but only conforms to the "standards" which, of course, will be adjusted accordingly) as a fact in schools even when there IS evidence to refute it?

Also, you have correctly pointed out that science changes accordingly to new evidence. The implications of this is very simple: We know nothing for a fact. Suddenly, tomorrow we have a new discovery, and all the science we have learnt goes out the window. So, isn't all of science a faith? Not only a faith, but a changing faith. One that has no foundation in anything except evidence, which is constantly changing as well. The Bible says it best: "The foolish man builds his house upon the sand."
Look at it this way- Try building your house on faith, with no science. Better yet, give up all things given to you by science. That includes your computer and your internet, your car and your food.

Go live in a cave if you want to believe that science is wrong. Guess who will live longer, me with my science or you with your faith.

So you are saying we should be teaching this "Theory" (which, of course, you have confirmed as having no basis on fact but only conforms to the "standards" which, of course, will be adjusted accordingly) as a fact in schools even when there IS evidence to refute it?

Also, you have correctly pointed out that science changes accordingly to new evidence. The implications of this is very simple: We know nothing for a fact. Suddenly, tomorrow we have a new discovery, and all the science we have learnt goes out the window. So, isn't all of science a faith? Not only a faith, but a changing faith. One that has no foundation in anything except evidence, which is constantly changing as well. The Bible says it best: "The foolish man builds his house upon the sand."

I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of the scientific method. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating and testing theories, applying new knowledge and methods, as well as improved technologies used for observation and experimentation.

However, if you feel that the world of science is built upon sand you might want to discard the all products of that sand castle, including all technology developed since the Middle Ages.

So you are saying we should be teaching this "Theory" (which, of course, you have confirmed as having no basis on fact but only conforms to the "standards" which, of course, will be adjusted accordingly) as a fact in schools even when there IS evidence to refute it?

Also, you have correctly pointed out that science changes accordingly to new evidence. The implications of this is very simple: We know nothing for a fact. Suddenly, tomorrow we have a new discovery, and all the science we have learnt goes out the window. So, isn't all of science a faith? Not only a faith, but a changing faith. One that has no foundation in anything except evidence, which is constantly changing as well. The Bible says it best: "The foolish man builds his house upon the sand."


And you REALLY REALLY think that creationism is the answer? You are telling me that you believed that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs? You are telling me that dinosaurs died because of the "Great Flood"? You are telling me that the universe and Earth are only 6000 years old?

You're all missing the point, evolution does not give an explanation of the origin of the universe. Creationism on the other does have an answer, "everything was created by a higher power". Reguardless of what that higher power is, it's there. Science has no explanation (as of yet) as to the origin of the universe. IE it is fruitless to argue Creationism vs. Evolution, because they are two separate theories that most evolutionist i have ever met actually pair together.

So you are saying we should be teaching this "Theory" (which, of course, you have confirmed as having no basis on fact but only conforms to the "standards" which, of course, will be adjusted accordingly) as a fact in schools even when there IS evidence to refute it?

Also, you have correctly pointed out that science changes accordingly to new evidence. The implications of this is very simple: We know nothing for a fact. Suddenly, tomorrow we have a new discovery, and all the science we have learnt goes out the window. So, isn't all of science a faith? Not only a faith, but a changing faith. One that has no foundation in anything except evidence, which is constantly changing as well. The Bible says it best: "The foolish man builds his house upon the sand."

Uhhh... yeah, Everything in science is a theory. Until evidence came along, people thought the world was flat! Science adjusted. Science is based on laws which are true here, and everywhere else that we have found, but that does not mean they are true elseware. It means there is a 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance, but until we get it to 100%, we won't know for certain. There you go. Creationism is aseveral thousand year old piece of text, which has been edited by HUMANS yes HUMANS, NOT GOD inspired HUMANS either, HUMANS editing for THEIR OWN PERSONAL gain. :)I likee capitals.:)

And you REALLY REALLY think that creationism is the answer? You are telling me that you believed that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs? You are telling me that dinosaurs died because of the "Great Flood"? You are telling me that the universe and Earth are only 6000 years old?

If so, Noah didn't do a very good job huh? ;) ;) ;)

Do not misunderstand me. I'm not saying that science is wrong. I'm just saying the science is not correct enough. Science, and technology in particular, are vital for the future. But using our current knowledge of science and trying to use it to explain the origin of the earth is not reliable enough for me. And as far as evolution is concerned, that theory is flawed, big time.

To answer Actual Thinkers, I'm a Creationist by faith, but I'm against Evolution by science.

And you REALLY REALLY think that creationism is the answer? You are telling me that you believed that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs? You are telling me that dinosaurs died because of the "Great Flood"? You are telling me that the universe and Earth are only 6000 years old?


The word sir, is "barbaric."

The creationists and other fundementalists are today's barbarians.
They are the visigoths and the vandals of today, seeking to loot the benefits of civilization and wrench it back in time to uncivilization.

The modern day vandals want to tear down science and civilization. What they may not understand is that once they have torn civilization down, they will no longer garner its luxuries.

We civilized people must learn from history and learn that the threat to civilization from barbarism is very real and, if unopposed, can have very destructive consequences.

To answer Actual Thinkers, I'm a Creationist by faith, but I'm against Evolution by science.

ah, then perhaps you would wish to add some testable hypotheses derived from the creation story to the list?

the list of testable creationist hypotheses thus far:

the flood
Well, for the great flood we would expect a uniform layer of sediment all across the world from when everything kicked up in the flood waters settled. (New Granada)

we would expect to find fossils of any animals or plants that died in the flood to be in a jumbled mess within the above mentioned uniform layer. and since all plants and animals that ever existed were alive at the time, we would expect to find a sampling of all of them in that jumbled mess. (free soviets)

the flood would have left multiple distinct layers, arranged with the most dense material on the bottom and the least dense on the top. plant and animal fossils would be similarly distributed by density in those layers. (free soviets' rephrasing of lomia's hypothesis)

age of the earth
As for a young earth, we'd expect not to find any radioactive material that had been decaying for more than 6000 or so years. (New Granada)

we should be able to find naturally occuring radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives that aren't continually being reformed. for example, calcium-41, iron-60, aluminum-26, etc. (free soviets)

if we find an unbroken line of annual growth rings from trees in a given area, the most we should be able to count is in the 6,000 and a bit range. (free soviets)

if we count annual layers in an ice core, the most we should get is in the 6,000 and a bit range. (free soviets)

more generally, all dating methods should give us dates of no more than 6,000+ years ago.

ancient life
we would expect not to find any fossils of life forms which arent described in human historical writings. (New Granada)

since all life has existed since the beginning, the deepest and earliest layers of sediment that contain fossils should contain fossils of all forms of life we know of. (free soviets)

since all life has existed from the beginning, there should be no visible order in the fossil record from 'primitive' to modern forms. (free soviets)

no fossils should exist that demonstrate traits halfway between distinct 'kinds', like whales and land mammals, birds and reptiles, apes and humans, reptiles and mammals, etc. we should only find fossil that are clearly wth one group or the other. (free soviets)

linguistics, archaeology, history
there should be evidence of a single unified world language up until approximately 2200 bce, with many different languages appearing quickly thereafter. (free soviets)

the written records after the flood should record the biblical flood story exactly, as noah was still living until about 2000 bce, and his son shem until 1850 bce (we don't have dates for noah's two other sons, but i'd assume they would be similar). (free soviets)

genetics
We shouldn't be able to find any new genetic traits in cells (such as anti-biotic resistance, etc) (CSW)

We should be able to show that no information is ever added to cells by mutation. (CSW)

while dna similarities between similar looking life forms may be due to the same dna sequences being used over and over by the creator to do the same sort of things, we should expect that non-coding dna will differ greatly and in no particular pattern. (free soviets)

--------------------

did i miss any that were already made?
anyone want to add any more?
actual creationists are more than welcome to add some too.

remember, this is only the list of testable hypotheses. we'll talk about how well they hold up later. so feel free to toss stuff out there.

The word sir, is "barbaric."

The creationists and other fundementalists are today's barbarians.
They are the visigoths and the vandals of today, seeking to loot the benefits of civilization and wrench it back in time to uncivilization.

The modern day vandals want to tear down science and civilization. What they may not understand is that once they have torn civilization down, they will no longer garner its luxuries.

We civilized people must learn from history and learn that the threat to civilization from barbarism is very real and, if unopposed, can have very destructive consequences.

That's a bit harsh isn't it? Not all Creationists i've met are crazy, actually i am part creationist. (God created it, just not like it is now) Many Christian scientists believe this. Evoloution never says what created us, it merely states that our ancestors were not all humans.

the list of testable creationist hypotheses thus far:

the flood
Well, for the great flood we would expect a uniform layer of sediment all across the world from when everything kicked up in the flood waters settled. (New Granada)

we would expect to find fossils of any animals or plants that died in the flood to be in a jumbled mess within the above mentioned uniform layer. and since all plants and animals that ever existed were alive at the time, we would expect to find a sampling of all of them in that jumbled mess. (free soviets)

the flood would have left multiple distinct layers, arranged with the most dense material on the bottom and the least dense on the top. plant and animal fossils would be similarly distributed by density in those layers. (free soviets' rephrasing of lomia's hypothesis)

age of the earth
As for a young earth, we'd expect not to find any radioactive material that had been decaying for more than 6000 or so years. (New Granada)

we should be able to find naturally occuring radioactive isotopes with relatively short half-lives that aren't continually being reformed. for example, calcium-41, iron-60, aluminum-26, etc. (free soviets)

if we find an unbroken line of annual growth rings from trees in a given area, the most we should be able to count is in the 6,000 and a bit range. (free soviets)

if we count annual layers in an ice core, the most we should get is in the 6,000 and a bit range. (free soviets)

more generally, all dating methods should give us dates of no more than 6,000+ years ago.

ancient life
we would expect not to find any fossils of life forms which arent described in human historical writings. (New Granada)

since all life has existed since the beginning, the deepest and earliest layers of sediment that contain fossils should contain fossils of all forms of life we know of. (free soviets)

since all life has existed from the beginning, there should be no visible order in the fossil record from 'primitive' to modern forms. (free soviets)

no fossils should exist that demonstrate traits halfway between distinct 'kinds', like whales and land mammals, birds and reptiles, apes and humans, reptiles and mammals, etc. we should only find fossil that are clearly wth one group or the other. (free soviets)

linguistics, archaeology, history
there should be evidence of a single unified world language up until approximately 2200 bce, with many different languages appearing quickly thereafter. (free soviets)

the written records after the flood should record the biblical flood story exactly, as noah was still living until about 2000 bce, and his son shem until 1850 bce (we don't have dates for noah's two other sons, but i'd assume they would be similar). (free soviets)

genetics
We shouldn't be able to find any new genetic traits in cells (such as anti-biotic resistance, etc) (CSW)

We should be able to show that no information is ever added to cells by mutation. (CSW)

while dna similarities between similar looking life forms may be due to the same dna sequences being used over and over by the creator to do the same sort of things, we should expect that non-coding dna will differ greatly and in no particular pattern. (free soviets)

--------------------

did i miss any that were already made?
anyone want to add any more?
actual creationists are more than welcome to add some too.

remember, this is only the list of testable hypotheses. we'll talk about how well they hold up later. so feel free to toss stuff out there.


I think that this could well be the basis for a wonderful debate thread, but testable hypotheses for the scientific "old earth" theory and theory of evolution should be indexed accordingly, with a moderator on hand to delete any posts which do not directly offer evidence for a listed hypothesis.

Look at it this way- Try building your house on faith, with no science. Better yet, give up all things given to you by science. That includes your computer and your internet, your car and your food.

Go live in a cave if you want to believe that science is wrong. Guess who will live longer, me with my science or you with your faith.

No offence, but most dwelling units have been built on faith. Then the study of 'Static' objects came along, and we can know explain why those buildings worked, and how to build better ones.

You act as though faith is rooted soley in religion. It is not. Every time you act without perfect information, you are acting on faith.

That's a bit harsh isn't it? Not all Creationists i've met are crazy, actually i am part creationist. (God created it, just not like it is now) Many Christian scientists believe this. Evoloution never says what created us, it merely states that our ancestors were not all humans.
Well if that were the case, why would the creator of the universe bother to take that much time in doing something? just a thought.

Question how many people here are Christians? If you aren't please state what religion, or lack thereof (agnostic or atheist) you support.

That's a bit harsh isn't it? Not all Creationists i've met are crazy, actually i am part creationist. (God created it, just not like it is now) Many Christian scientists believe this. Evoloution never says what created us, it merely states that our ancestors were not all humans.



Then you arent the sort of creationist to which I was referring.

I'm talking about the kind that deny evolutionary biology and the age of the earth and make fullscale war on the teaching of science in schools and public money being used for research.

I'm talking specifically about fundementalists, be they christian (in the US), muslim (in the middle east) or jewish (in israel).

Normal healthy religiosity is just fine with me.

Question how many people here are Christians? If you aren't please state what religion, or lack thereof (agnostic or atheist) you support.


I'm a buddhist and an atheist.

Well if that were the case, why would the creator of the universe bother to take that much time in doing something? just a thought.

Maybe that's how he gets his entertainment. Watching things change and mold to his liking. You have a point, one which i have not yet come up with a satisfactory answer to. Although i have though long and hard about it. :confused: