NationStates Jolt Archive

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:
it is very logical in my mind, but either way, our same God created the entire universe, reguardless of how he did it. He is still the same person, always and forever.

I'm a buddhist and an atheist.
heh, i forgot that Buddhism is more of a lifestyle than a worshiping religion. Buddhists are one of the "religions" i admire the most. Aside from my own religions Chirstianity of course. (just for the record, i am a christian, but i despise a VERY large chunk of the Christian body)

it is very logical in my mind, but either way, our same God created the entire universe, reguardless of how he did it. He is still the same person, always and forever.

And I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you about your right to hold that belief. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs. The problem is, and has always been, that creationists want their religious beliefs taught as science in public school.

That is what evolutionists find objectionable, not that people of faith have a different idea about creation or the origin of life.

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.

Yeah, that type in all honesty ticks me off too. However some of them were just brought up in highly religious families, so it isn't entirely their fault.

I'm a Christian.

For the record, I am not against research. And I'm a Creationist by faith. But I'm appalled at evolution being taught in school when there is so much evidence against it, and especially if it is taught as a fact, and not as a faith which it is (Thanks Anti Pharisaism for the definition of faith).

And I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you about your right to hold that belief. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs. The problem is, and has always been, that creationists want their religious beliefs taught as science in public school.

That is what evolutionists find objectionable, not that people of faith have a different idea about creation or the origin of life.

For the record, I'm against the teaching of creation as science in public schools as well.

I'm an atheist. I tell people I believe in creationism though, but only because it's fun telling people how crazy it is. I laid down a small chunk of a creationist's viewpoint here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=375140

It's satire, but the underlying message is still the same.

heh, i forgot that Buddhism is more of a lifestyle than a worshiping religion. Buddhists are one of the "religions" i admire the most. Aside from my own religions Chirstianity of course. (just for the record, i am a christian, but i despis a VERY large chunk of the Christian body)


Not even always a lifestyle, i suppose the best way to break it down is just as a world-view. But even then its hard to come up with something that encompasses every sort of buddhism.

Mine is as follows, in a nut shell, as best I can:

Existence is illusory only inasmuch as existence is a homogenous unity.
This however has little practical effect on everyday events, as experience is experienced regardless of whether or not it has any 'actual' substance.
At times, I have found, it is possible for fleeting moments to really experience the wholeness of everything. This is very hard to explain and not something you can do through effort, nor on command (even your own command).

I suppose the best way I can express how i feel is this:
"it is,
I am,
Therefore, I am it."

To rant further, another way to express it is "non dualism"

By "dualism" is meant the seperation in our conscioussness between "thing A" and "not thing A." As I understand buddhism, the seperations of things into different objects and ideas is a false one, though again this has little to no practical relevence in daily life.

Again, just a rant, not trying to convince anyone of anything.

And I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you right to hold that belief. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs. The problem is, and has always been, that creationists want their religious beliefs taught as science in public school.

That is what evolutionists find objectionable, not that people of faith have a different idea about creation or the origin of life.
Well, I was still not aware that evolution explains how all this matter ended up inside the endless void of space. Because of that, isnt evolution usually tied with the Big Bang?

Well, I was still not aware that evolution explains how all this matter ended up inside the endless void of space. Because of that, isnt evolution usually tied with the Big Bang?


Not at all, evolution is the theory of how organisms change over time.

Thats it. Period.

Evolution has nothing to do with hypotheses about the origin of life or origin of the universe.

In evolutionary biology's eyes: god could have made little single celled organisms, a magic toaster could have, a laser alien from space could have made them - but whatever did, they change over time by natural selection and the changes are evident both in the genetic and fossil record.

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."

Well a more smarter man built another house on sturdy land, then found out a way to make electricity to have lights, then found a way to design a vehicle that could help him move around so his day wouldnt' be spent walking, then developed something else that made his crops easier to manage and so on. A scientific man designed your car. Science has created everything you probably take for granted in life. Without science you'd be living in a straw hut stocking up for the next winter and hoping you and your family wouldn't die from some new horrendous disease or plague. So throw the science out the window if you want, but you can throw out the house built by architects and engineers who use technology developed through science to make things sturdy and safer, then throw out your car, your phone, your TV, your computer, your internet, practically everything you own is the product of science in one form or another. Science evolves just as animals evolve. That is the way of life. Our intelligence continues to evolve, we discover new things, we create new technologies, all because our intelligence has evolved significantly.
As I keep having to repeat myself to you people, Evolution cannot be proven entirely on the larger scale, not until science manages to develop a way to move back in time where we can actually see the events as they happen. But on a short scale evolution is a proven fact. You can continue to blind yourself from its existence all you want, but it won't hide the fact that evolution makes more sense than anything else at this point. We have evidence to prove it happens on the short term and evidence to suggest it has been happening for a long time. Creationism relies on believing in something you can only prove if God pops down on TV one day and says "hey I exist". You know that isn't going to happen, because if there was a God, he's been on vacation for a very long time. If that happens, and God says "creationism is how it happened", then your crazy idea will be truth, but until that happens, it's nothing but a crazy, scientifically fallable idealogy. Evolution is not. It is subject to change because that is how our minds evolve. We learn. that is what your mind was designed to to. Learn. And to learn you have to go out and discover, you can't sit back and do nothing and expect to keep up with the rest of the world or even begin to understand how the world functions. We developed our complex brains for a reason.

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.

reasoned analysis of the evidence in comparison to the predictions of various hypotheses? without unnecessary distractions? on an internet forum? are you mad?

Once again, I'm not against science, I'm not against the creation of technology using science. In fact, I'm all for it. However, in terms of explaining the origin of the earth, it's not good enough. Science is good for creation of man-made things, but when it comes to explaining natural phenomena, it just doesn't do it for me.

I'm a Christian.

For the record, I am not against research. And I'm a Creationist by faith. But I'm appalled at evolution being taught in school when there is so much evidence against it, and especially if it is taught as a fact, and not as a faith which it is (Thanks Anti Pharisaism for the definition of faith).

Well I most agree with you here. I've always been taught evolution as a whole as a theory and not fact, not proven entirely true. Through my observations and research I know that evolution on a shorter scale is proven, because it is happening all the time really. So if any schools are teaching the main chunk of evolution as fact, that is incorrect. It shouldn't be.
The part I don't agree is to remove evolution from science classes because it is just a theory. If you do that then you'd have to remove practically everything from a science class. Most of our modern science is based on theory, and the only reason we can't prove it is because we can't see back far enough to know for sure. We understand how stars form, but we've never actually seen every second of it's birth so we can't really say we know for sure. So removing evolution means removing almost everything from science, because most of it is theory. Learning science, whether proven or not, is very important, even at the younger ages. If they are at least mildly exposed to it they can gain interest and maybe even move into science fields to research and improve science. We need those thinking minds. That's how we know what we know today.

Science is good for creation of man-made things, but when it comes to explaining natural phenomena, it just doesn't do it for me.

um, then you seem to have missed the entire point of the discipline

Once again, I'm not against science, I'm not against the creation of technology using science. In fact, I'm all for it. However, in terms of explaining the origin of the earth, it's not good enough. Science is good for creation of man-made things, but when it comes to explaining natural phenomena, it just doesn't do it for me.

Yea, Pope Urban VIII shared your objection to using science to explain natural phenomena when Galileo was trying to do it.

Hi, this is my first time posting here, so I hope I'm doing it right. I believe in evolution, but not in it's purest form. I can't believe that the complexity of this world and its creatures is an accident. Mimicry, for instance, is dificult to understand from an evolution-only standpoint. Mimicry, just to review, is when an animal or plant resembles something else, to it's benefit. There are caterpillars, for instance, that have a tail that precisely resembles the head of a large snake. I just don't see how this can be a product of evolution without design(er). While this attribute is clearly advantageous for the caterpillar in it's present form, what about all the little evolutionary steps along the way? What about halfway throught the evolutionary process, at which point the one-day snake's head is just a slightly swollen, misshpen lump on the caterpillar's butt? Where's the advantage there? Why would the caterpillar go through the trouble of eating more to support this enlarged appendage, when it doesn't provide any protection? Does the caterpillar itself know that if it just endures, some day future generations of it's kind will enjoy specular protection from predators due to it's efforts? If this is the case, why can't I begin purposefully evolving into a human whose genes do not predispose her children and grandchildren to diabetes, heart disease and allergies? Is the caterpillar so much more self aware than humans? Or did suddenly, an entire generation of caterpillars be suddenly born distinctly changed from their parents, aquiring the snake-head-tail in a single generation?

To me, it seems that the caterpillar/snake mimicry can only take place if some force has the snake-head idea in mind fromt he outset. Otherwise there is no reason for caterpillars to start down this evolutionary path. Unlike the long neck of the giraffe, the snake head tail just can't be broken down into logical steps back into time.

Evolution and creationism just aren't mutually exclusive, for me.

Brandy

Well I most agree with you here. I've always been taught evolution as a whole as a theory and not fact, not proven entirely true. Through my observations and research I know that evolution on a shorter scale is proven, because it is happening all the time really. So if any schools are teaching the main chunk of evolution as fact, that is incorrect. It shouldn't be.
The part I don't agree is to remove evolution from science classes because it is just a theory. If you do that then you'd have to remove practically everything from a science class. Most of our modern science is based on theory, and the only reason we can't prove it is because we can't see back far enough to know for sure. We understand how stars form, but we've never actually seen every second of it's birth so we can't really say we know for sure. So removing evolution means removing almost everything from science, because most of it is theory. Learning science, whether proven or not, is very important, even at the younger ages. If they are at least mildly exposed to it they can gain interest and maybe even move into science fields to research and improve science. We need those thinking minds. That's how we know what we know today.

I agree with you on this one :D But most importantly the distinction must be made on fact and theory, that is the key.

um, then you seem to have missed the entire point of the discipline

Usually, the purpose and the outcome can be quite different. For example, the creation of the PostIt note.

Likewise, science was supposed to explain many things, but it is instead more useful in the creation of the many man-made items we have in this world. It still falls rather short in the explanation department.

Science is according to webster, "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Now I am a Christian, but as far as I can see, the problem with including creationism in textbooks is, once you add one religion, you've got to add them all. And since science is all theory(NASA just put up a probe to test einstein's theory of general relativity), science is living breathign material that is always being changed. Unlike my Bible, which was set in stone since forever. I would not want to include a reference from my Bible in a book next to a "theory", because the word does not change. In my science textbook last year, it vaguely mentioned creationism(opposed to the whole chapter devoted to evolution), but it explained it as. [insert your God or random being here] created the entire universe instantaneously. Now, I do not know how other religions envision the origin of the universe, but i cannot imagine having to include all forms of it in one text book.

The liberals outnumber the conservatives and religious folk BY FAR on the board.


Was it really necessary to put conservatives and religious people in the same category? As a devout Atheist and Republican, I am offended. :D

No really, this thread had nothing to do with politics so it was completely unnecessary.

P.S. - Religious people don't need to prove their beliefs any more than we do.

There must be a God, and it must be a guy because I saw the prettiest ass (not a donkey) that I have ever seen last night. This woman's posterior was awe-inspiring. It looked like it was fashioned from a piece of Italian Marble. I thought to myself and chuckled that this was indeed evidence of a higher power.


I could be wrong.

There must be a God, and it must be a guy because I saw the prettiest ass (not a donkey) that I have ever seen last night. This woman's posterior was awe-inspiring. It looked like it was fashioned from a piece of Italian Marble. I thought to myself and chuckled that this was indeed evidence of a higher power.


I could be wrong.

Am I the only one that never understood why there's such a fetish aimed at two parts of women? You know what I'm talking about; the infamous T&A.

Come now people; it's all about the face :p

National Geographic has an excellent article entitled: Was Darwin Wrong? NO.

I reccomend it, as it has an excellent discussion of theory.

Now some have said evolution is merely a theory, and not a fact. As we can not observe it directly.

Not being the most well versed on the subject, I am wondering if Free Soviets would like to explain, if I have not missed him explain this already: our observations of bacteria, particularly why we need to reinvent anti-biotecs to fight them every couple of months, or years, or so; and why it is important that you take all perscribed medications when given to treat a bacterial infection.

Then, he might follow that up with influenza, and why different immunizations need to be developed every year or so.

Although this is not necessary given the topic of this thread, I believe these two case studies may illustrate why evolution is worthy of being taught in school versus creationism of the new earth variety, in which we were all creatred at once, as is.

reasoned analysis of the evidence in comparison to the predictions of various hypotheses? without unnecessary distractions? on an internet forum? are you mad?


Have you not heard? I have advanced untreated syphillis.

I'm just positively batshit.

Am I the only one that never understood why there's such a fetish aimed at two parts of women? You know what I'm talking about; the infamous T&A.

Come now people; it's all about the face :p

And while you concern yourself with the face, I say love the whole woman! Mind, body, soul. Loving a beautiful ass is wonderful, having a cute face is wonderful, small feet, skinny waist, lovely hair, etc...but isn't the point to love the woman herself?

All fetishes are simply exaggerrating one aspect of the woman over another; all are equally blind to loving the whole person in their entirety.

But still, it would be nice to see a sweet ass now and again.

And while you concern yourself with the face, I say love the whole woman! Mind, body, soul. Loving a beautiful ass is wonderful, having a cute face is wonderful, small feet, skinny waist, lovely hair, etc...but isn't the point to love the woman herself?

All fetishes are simply exaggerrating one aspect of the woman over another; all are equally blind to loving the whole person in their entirety.

But still, it would be nice to see a sweet ass now and again.

See, if I was going to rate one particular physical feature above the others, it would be the face. And I know what you're saying, I'm just sick of people ONLY carring if a girl has a big rack or a nice ass. It's rediculous.

Usually, the purpose and the outcome can be quite different. For example, the creation of the PostIt note.

Likewise, science was supposed to explain many things, but it is instead more useful in the creation of the many man-made items we have in this world. It still falls rather short in the explanation department.

Maxwell's Theory of electromagnetism, which explains how electric fields and magnetic fields interact with each other and with charged particles.
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which explains how space and time change in accelerating reference frames, inertial reference frames, and gravitational fields.
The Theory of Evolution, which explains how species of animals change over time.

All three can be used to predict past and present. Electromagnetism - if we see light with certain properties, we can infer information about the distant star that emitted it thousands of years ago.
Relativity - makes predictions about how the universe cannot be static, and thus must be expanding or contracting, and thus must have expanded from a small volume. Can be used to describe how our solar system formed.
Evolution - makes predictions about how species got to where they are now, that they descended from common ancestors.

Any pure scientist deals with explaining nature. Building stuff with that knowledge is engineering. When Maxwell described his theory, he intended to describe the world. Only later was that applied to practical applications. When Einstein wrote his paper, his goal was to describe the world. Only later did his findings find any practical application. Evolution was made to describe the world, and has had some practical applications in developing antibiotics and vaccines.

They're all theories.

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.

Ah. So you'd rather stick with a solid base of saying the earth is the center of the universe rather than saying that "the earth goes around the sun... we think it orbits in this certain way, but we're gonna have to modify it when we get more data."

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Things fall down. Animals evolve.

The theories of gravity are changed over time; Newton's equations were replaced by Einstein's theory of relativity, which we know is incomplete and will eventually need to be modified once we figure out how. This doesn't change the FACT of gravity - apples fall down, whether or not they do it by Newton's equations or Einstein's or some other ones.

The theories of evolution are changed over time; Darwin's theory that natural selection is the main driving force is in the process of being replaced by the theory that relies more on punctuated equilibrium. This is probably incomplete - the truth is probably somewhere in between the two, and will include factors such as genetic drift. This doesn't change the FACT of evolution - animals evolve, whether or not natural selection or punctuated equilibrium or something else is the right description of how they do so.

And I don't think you'll find anyone to argue with you about your right to hold that belief. Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs. The problem is, and has always been, that creationists want their religious beliefs taught as science in public school.

That is what evolutionists find objectionable, not that people of faith have a different idea about creation or the origin of life.

Actually if you had read the links I gave previously, the teachers went to great lengths to make sure a religious view was NOT presented. Some of them just wanted to point out problems with the evolutionary theory. Some wanted to use their right to introduce intellegent design as an alternative theory of origin, not to promote creation or christianity.

Not at all, evolution is the theory of how organisms change over time.

Thats it. Period.

Evolution has nothing to do with hypotheses about the origin of life or origin of the universe.

In evolutionary biology's eyes: god could have made little single celled organisms, a magic toaster could have, a laser alien from space could have made them - but whatever did, they change over time by natural selection and the changes are evident both in the genetic and fossil record.

There are actually multiple areas of evolution.
Cosmic evolution: formation of the universe
Stellar evolution: formation of solar systems
Planetary evolution: formation of the planets
Chemical evolution: formation of chemical structures of higher order
Macro-evolution: change of one Kind into another by genetic mutations
Micro-evolution: variation within a Kind adapting to local environmental factors

Of these only, macro-evolution is the biologic evolution.

There are actually multiple areas of evolution.
Cosmic evolution: formation of the universe
Stellar evolution: formation of solar systems
Planetary evolution: formation of the planets
Chemical evolution: formation of chemical structures of higher order
Macro-evolution: change of one Kind into another by genetic mutations
Micro-evolution: variation within a Kind adapting to local environmental factors

Of these only, macro-evolution is the biologic evolution.
A kind is what?

(Macro and micro evolution are both evolution. They are one and the same)

Actually if you had read the links I gave previously, the teachers went to great lengths to make sure a religious view was NOT presented. Some of them just wanted to point out problems with the evolutionary theory. Some wanted to use their right to introduce intellegent design as an alternative theory of origin, not to promote creation or christianity.

Intelligent design *is* religion-based. It is also, much like Creationism, simply not science. It is not based in the scientific method and basically states "This is all just so complicated! Evolution has to be wrong! Therefore there is a God!"

It is essentially a sneaky way to try to get Creationism into the schools, and both the so-called scientists pushing intelligent design and the true scientists opposing it know it. It is the ignorant students who don't know enough to truly understand the difference who are getting caught in the crossfire.

"Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?" - Stephen Hawkings

I felt that this was relevant, although I'm not sure why.

1) From nothing comes nothing, therefore there must be a God.

2) From dead matter comes nothing but dead matter, someone breathed life into it.

Thats the cut and dry 5 second answer.

e-mail me at KC_Rajin@hotmail.com for the 30 page answer.

Evolution is addition of new information, only changes or destruction of existing information has been observed. Like species, if one dog spawns a new species of dog, the origional had all of the information already in it, it simply was changed or some was lost. Like changing letters in a word to make a new word.

POT = TOP I didn't have to add letters to make a new word.

There is zero evidence for actual evolution of any sort.

1) From nothing comes nothing, therefore there must be a God.

2) From dead matter comes nothing but dead matter, someone breathed life into it.

Thats the cut and dry 5 second answer.

e-mail me at KC_Rajin@hotmail.com for the 30 page answer.

those are the same point re-worded

1) From nothing comes nothing, therefore there must be a God.

2) From dead matter comes nothing but dead matter, someone breathed life into it.

Thats the cut and dry 5 second answer.

Abiogenesis != Evolution.

Evolution is addition of new information, only changes or destruction of existing information has been observed.

Wrong. Evolution is mutation leading to new/improved traits that improve survival. It *can* involve new information, which has been observed by the way.

Here's an example that would go with your POT TOP thing:

Suppose you have POT. There is a transcription error that copies it, so that you have POTPOT. Now, you only need one POT, so the other can mutate with no detriment to the organism. A few generations later, maybe you have POTPOP. No problem, since you still have a working POT. Then, a few generations later, you have POTPAP. Still no problem. FInally, you end up with POTRAP. RAP does something new and interesting that helps the organism survive and reproduce more. POTRAP becomes normal.

Understand?

Well I most agree with you here. I've always been taught evolution as a whole as a theory and not fact, not proven entirely true. Through my observations and research I know that evolution on a shorter scale is proven, because it is happening all the time really. So if any schools are teaching the main chunk of evolution as fact, that is incorrect. It shouldn't be.
The part I don't agree is to remove evolution from science classes because it is just a theory. If you do that then you'd have to remove practically everything from a science class. Most of our modern science is based on theory, and the only reason we can't prove it is because we can't see back far enough to know for sure. We understand how stars form, but we've never actually seen every second of it's birth so we can't really say we know for sure. So removing evolution means removing almost everything from science, because most of it is theory. Learning science, whether proven or not, is very important, even at the younger ages. If they are at least mildly exposed to it they can gain interest and maybe even move into science fields to research and improve science. We need those thinking minds. That's how we know what we know today.

Correction, what we want is the removal of the evolutionary interpretation of the facts not the facts themselves. Science is just a tool to gain knowledge, how the facts are interpreted are based on the bias and beliefs of the scientist.

For instance, someone digs up a fish fossil. Scientifically, what is knowable?
1) That it was found a this location in this orientation with these things around it.
2) That the pattern left in the rock matches the bone structure of something we are familiar with, ie another fish. (note this does not PROVE the fossil is of a fish, just that it matches a known)
3) That it contains specific chemical structures based on samples of the fossil tested.

This is science, and the limits of science, tests based on direct observation. Everything beyond this takes on the bias of the observer.
"It has to be a fish, see the similarity?" and so on. Evolution AND creation are completely within the realm of interpretation. "These two structures are similar (fact), thus there is a correlation (interpretation)".

So if for instance you want to tell me that this muscle attaches to this bone and acts to provide this range of motion at the shoulder, great, thats scientific facts. Just don't try to tell me that due to a similarity with a monkey shoulder this means our ancestors used to swing from trees.

After the core facts, if you are going to present ANY interpretation, present ALL of them.

There are actually multiple areas of evolution.
Cosmic evolution: formation of the universe
Stellar evolution: formation of solar systems
Planetary evolution: formation of the planets
Chemical evolution: formation of chemical structures of higher order
Macro-evolution: change of one Kind into another by genetic mutations
Micro-evolution: variation within a Kind adapting to local environmental factors

Of these only, macro-evolution is the biologic evolution.

No.

Correction, what we want is the removal of the evolutionary interpretation of the facts not the facts themselves. Science is just a tool to gain knowledge, how the facts are interpreted are based on the bias and beliefs of the scientist.

Interpretation is science. What children need to learn is that scientists find things (perhaps a bone that appears to be a fish) and attempt to interpret them on many numerous counts. And here's the best part: New evidence will change the interpretation!

Creationism, on the other hand, leaves out facts in order to come to a pre-set conclusion. The conclusion is set in stone before any evidence is found and will not be changed no matter what. This simply isn't science and is thus not a proper scientific interpretation.

There is zero evidence for actual evolution of any sort.

The point of the thread is to provide evidence for creationism, not to spot the lack of it in evolution.

1) From nothing comes nothing, therefore there must be a God.

2) From dead matter comes nothing but dead matter, someone breathed life into it.

Thats the cut and dry 5 second answer.

e-mail me at KC_Rajin@hotmail.com for the 30 page answer.

Evolution is addition of new information, only changes or destruction of existing information has been observed. Like species, if one dog spawns a new species of dog, the origional had all of the information already in it, it simply was changed or some was lost. Like changing letters in a word to make a new word.

POT = TOP I didn't have to add letters to make a new word.

There is zero evidence for actual evolution of any sort.

I'm guessing you've never taken a biology course or went to college. Please sit there while I laugh at your post.

Have you not heard? I have advanced untreated syphillis.

I'm just positively batshit.

have you arrived to soon? is the world not yet ready for the news of the arrival of the übermenschlich?

Correction, what we want is the removal of the evolutionary interpretation of the facts not the facts themselves. Science is just a tool to gain knowledge, how the facts are interpreted are based on the bias and beliefs of the scientist.

For instance, someone digs up a fish fossil. Scientifically, what is knowable?
1) That it was found a this location in this orientation with these things around it.
2) That the pattern left in the rock matches the bone structure of something we are familiar with, ie another fish. (note this does not PROVE the fossil is of a fish, just that it matches a known)
3) That it contains specific chemical structures based on samples of the fossil tested.

This is science, and the limits of science, tests based on direct observation. Everything beyond this takes on the bias of the observer.
"It has to be a fish, see the similarity?" and so on. Evolution AND creation are completely within the realm of interpretation. "These two structures are similar (fact), thus there is a correlation (interpretation)".

So if for instance you want to tell me that this muscle attaches to this bone and acts to provide this range of motion at the shoulder, great, thats scientific facts. Just don't try to tell me that due to a similarity with a monkey shoulder this means our ancestors used to swing from trees.

After the core facts, if you are going to present ANY interpretation, present ALL of them.



You're forgetting or ignoring the fact that science is composed of reasonable interpretations (theories) based upon observations.

For instance, when a rock falls from a cliff, our interpretation is that gravity "pulled" it down. The same is true if we drop a fish from our hand.
By your reasoning, we would be forced to say "well, we let go of the fish, and maybe the gravity of the earth pulled it down, maybe invisible strings pulled it down, maybe a force from my hand somehow caused it to travel down, maybe it isnt actually a fish but a piece of wood that looks a whole lot like a fish, maybe wind that no one else can feel pushed it down, maybe inisible ants that can fly pulled it down. We think its gravity, but we cant just give that interpretation because it is "biased" against ALL interpretations.


The key point is that all interpretations of something are not equal.
Some are theories based upon evidence, some are hypotheses based upon suppositions and some are outright nonsense.

Correction, what we want is the removal of the evolutionary interpretation of the facts not the facts themselves. Science is just a tool to gain knowledge, how the facts are interpreted are based on the bias and beliefs of the scientist.

For instance, someone digs up a fish fossil. Scientifically, what is knowable?
1) That it was found a this location in this orientation with these things around it.
2) That the pattern left in the rock matches the bone structure of something we are familiar with, ie another fish. (note this does not PROVE the fossil is of a fish, just that it matches a known)
3) That it contains specific chemical structures based on samples of the fossil tested.

This is science, and the limits of science, tests based on direct observation. Everything beyond this takes on the bias of the observer.
"It has to be a fish, see the similarity?" and so on. Evolution AND creation are completely within the realm of interpretation. "These two structures are similar (fact), thus there is a correlation (interpretation)".

So if for instance you want to tell me that this muscle attaches to this bone and acts to provide this range of motion at the shoulder, great, thats scientific facts. Just don't try to tell me that due to a similarity with a monkey shoulder this means our ancestors used to swing from trees.

After the core facts, if you are going to present ANY interpretation, present ALL of them.
Science cannot be completely objective and survive. Without the "bias of the observer" there would be no new information introduced in order for new theories to arise.

1) From nothing comes nothing, therefore there must be a God.

<snip>



Hmm ... Alternatively:

From nothing comes nothing, therefore there can be no God.

Or universe.

Whoops! :eek:

*Ceases to exist.*

Science cannot be completely objective and survive. Without the "bias of the observer" there would be no new information introduced in order for new theories to arise.
This is a really excellent point. :cool:

Science is just a tool to gain knowledge, how the facts are interpreted are based on the bias and beliefs of the scientist.

After the core facts, if you are going to present ANY interpretation, present ALL of them.

What you are saying is self-evident. Of course there is bias. Everything is subject to human interpretation. Even the language we use is biased interpretation, composed of a series of symbols representing sounds that stand for objects and ideas. We understand each other, "through a glass darkly" some would say, using these approximations and interpretations.

That does not mean, however, that all interpretations are equal. Let us suppose that a man trips, falls, and breaks his leg shortly after walking under a ladder. There was a time when people would have said that by walking through the triangle created by the ladder, the wall, and the ground, the man violated the Holy Trinity and therefore was in league with the devil. Hence, God punished him by breaking his leg.

Now that is certainly an interpretation of those events. Would you have it taught in school?

All interpretations do not deserve equal treatment. It is the job of science to sort through competing interpretations, make corrections as new evidence comes to light, and present the most likely hypothesis.

Religion - and creationism is religion - is judged and evaluated by a different standard and belongs in a different setting.

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.


Sure you get some people who dont know about evolution at all who sound ignorant. But now SECULAR scientists are starting to condenm evolution. like how it is impossible given the length of time etc.

I have a book it has got 50 scientists with PHD'S in various fields. They know about evolution, they are specialists in the field and they know what they are talking about!!! they all believe in creation!!!

Despite whether you believe in evolution or not, EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW LIFE BEGAN OR GOT TO EARTH.

Sure you get some people who dont know about evolution at all who sound ignorant. But now SECULAR scientists are starting to condenm evolution. like how it is impossible given the length of time etc.

I have a book it has got 50 scientists with PHD'S in various fields. They know about evolution, they are specialists in the field and they know what they are talking about!!! they all believe in creation!!!
Funny, I have a book with a good 200 scientists that all have doctorates in the field of biology that says that evolution is true. They know about creationism, they are specialists in the field and they knows what theys are talking about!!!!! They all believe in evolution!!!!


Oops.

Hmm ... Alternatively:

From nothing comes nothing, therefore there can be no God.

Or universe.

Whoops! :eek:

*Ceases to exist.*

God lives across time, he created it, "1000 years to the lord is a day and 1 day is 1000 years"

Therefore God can exist for eternity because to him time is obsolete and he his not bound by it.

God lives across time, he created it, "1000 years to the lord is a day and 1 day is 1000 years"

Therefore God can exist for eternity because to him time is obsolete and he his not bound by it.



You are making the same fallacy you accuse atheists of making.

An atheist says: No force created the universe, it has no cause other than itself.

A christian says : No force created god, god has no cause other than itself.

You understand the mathematical view of that dont you?

You're acknowledging the existence of self-caused things, but then adding one extra cause to the mix.

It's like acknowleding that 2+7=9 but then saying that the equation is ONLY true if it is written "2x+7x=9x" and insisting that without the "x," the equation is no longer valid.

Ok, I believe in Creation, and I believe in God. The problem with this thread however is that even is I tried to prove that God existed it would never be entirely correct, because God cannot be proven to exist. The same way that evolution cannot be proven 100% to exist. To say that you accept evolution as true when it is not entirely proven, and accept God as non-existent when it is less proven is lunacy. Because you believe in something that is not entirely proven gives you no right to yell at someone for believing in God, who is also not proven.

I could sit and tell you guys that the Bible is my reason for believing in God, but that won't fly because you guys will say the Bible is bunk. In the end it is all a matter of faith. You have faith that Evolution is going to be entirely proven. *Which it won't* And I have faith that God will be entirely proven when he comes back. *Which of course, you won't believe*

This thread argues about things that can never be proven, and then yells at people for trying to prove things that cannot be proven. You are all running in circles with this conversation.

But then again, Im an idiot beause I believe in creation, therefore nothing I say should be taken seriously.

You have faith that Evolution is going to be entirely proven.

Actually, NO. If you had read the entire thread, as well as the bunch of others on the subject, you would have seen that we all claim that nothing will ever be "100% proven," as you put it. We simply find EVIDENCE that supports the theory. Evidence, evidence and more evidence. Evolution has this evidence, it is valid science.

Creationism does not have evidence, but wants to be treated as science anyway because it has a possible interpretation of facts.

BTW, I'm not even talking about the existence of God here. What we want in this thread is EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM, which there has been very little of. It's deteriorated into for/against evolution... anyone willing to provide more evidence for creationism? Anyone?

Creationism does not have evidence, but wants to be treated as science anyway because it has a possible interpretation of facts.

What? And evolution does not interpret fact?

*Edit* One more time, believing in something that has fact but will not be proven doesn't seem to be something you are looking for here. Because if I were to try and give evidence I would never be able to give enough. It would be a fruitless venture as before this thread was made you had your pre-conceived idea about creation, and you were only looking to bash it. To say that you wanted to actually learn about creation is bull, and all of you know that.

What? And evolution does not interpret fact?

Science is just a tool to gain knowledge, how the facts are interpreted are based on the bias and beliefs of the scientist.

After the core facts, if you are going to present ANY interpretation, present ALL of them.

What you are saying is self-evident. Of course there is bias. Everything is subject to human interpretation. Even the language we use is biased interpretation, composed of a series of symbols representing sounds that stand for objects and ideas. We understand each other, "through a glass darkly" some would say, using these approximations and interpretations.

That does not mean, however, that all interpretations are equal. Let us suppose that a man trips, falls, and breaks his leg shortly after walking under a ladder. There was a time when people would have said that by walking through the triangle created by the ladder, the wall, and the ground, the man violated the Holy Trinity and therefore was in league with the devil. Hence, God punished him by breaking his leg.

Now that is certainly an interpretation of those events. Would you have it taught in school?

All interpretations do not deserve equal treatment. It is the job of science to sort through competing interpretations, make corrections as new evidence comes to light, and present the most likely hypothesis.

Religion - and creationism is religion - is judged and evaluated by a different standard and belongs in a different setting.

What? And evolution does not interpret fact?

Of course it interprets facts. Both evolution and creationism do. My point was that merely interpreting facts does not make something a theory - it has to have evidence behind it. Which evolution does and creationism does not.

[Edit - this is referring to the theory of evolution that is the theory of common descent... not to be confused with the fact of evolution which we can observe. Too bad they both got labeled with the same name, one is a fact and one is a theory.]

You are making the same fallacy you accuse atheists of making.

An atheist says: No force created the universe, it has no cause other than itself.

A christian says : No force created god, god has no cause other than itself.

You understand the mathematical view of that dont you?

You're acknowledging the existence of self-caused things, but then adding one extra cause to the mix.

It's like acknowleding that 2+7=9 but then saying that the equation is ONLY true if it is written "2x+7x=9x" and insisting that without the "x," the equation is no longer valid.


Yeah I understand what you are saying. But thats the problem there is no emperical evidence for creation or evolution.

No but I dont think God is self caused though, you have got to think of this issue out side of time.

The creationist would say that God has always been here, that is explainable using time.

The Problem of Natural Selection as a "Tautology"
The theory of evolution predicts that by a process of mutation and natural selection, the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring. The problem is that the theory defines the fittest organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring. A tautology is a way of saying the same thing twice. On inspection, natural selection is a tautology.
This understanding strikes at the heart of the theory of evolution, challenging evolution at its roots. In effect, proponents are saying that evolution proves evolution, which is circular reasoning.
While no one doubts that natural selection (survival of the fittest) exists, there is a fundamental question as to its role in evolution. Like mutation (as discussed earlier), natural selection can only act on pre-existing structures. At best, natural selection helps explain how species survive, but it does not explain how species originate. This is now admitted by evolutionists. For example, evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted, "...natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it." This seems so obvious upon reflection, it is amazing that so many people have bought into the idea that natural selection could even theoretically produce evolution.

[quote http://www.gospelcom.net/faithfacts/ev_origins_d.html]

Yeah I understand what you are saying. But thats the problem there is no emperical evidence for creation or evolution.

No but I dont think God is self caused though, you have got to think of this issue out side of time.

The creationist would say that God has always been here, that is explainable using time.

The theory of evolution does not deal with the creation of the universe, or even the creation of the first lifeform... it deals with how living things change and evolve over time. There is PLENTY of empirical evidence for evolution.

The Problem of Natural Selection as a "Tautology"
The theory of evolution predicts that by a process of mutation and natural selection, the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring. The problem is that the theory defines the fittest organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring. A tautology is a way of saying the same thing twice. On inspection, natural selection is a tautology.
This understanding strikes at the heart of the theory of evolution, challenging evolution at its roots. In effect, proponents are saying that evolution proves evolution, which is circular reasoning.
While no one doubts that natural selection (survival of the fittest) exists, there is a fundamental question as to its role in evolution. Like mutation (as discussed earlier), natural selection can only act on pre-existing structures. At best, natural selection helps explain how species survive, but it does not explain how species originate. This is now admitted by evolutionists. For example, evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted, "...natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it." This seems so obvious upon reflection, it is amazing that so many people have bought into the idea that natural selection could even theoretically produce evolution.

Dude, at least write your own shit when your talking about this.

Actually, NO. If you had read the entire thread, as well as the bunch of others on the subject, you would have seen that we all claim that nothing will ever be "100% proven," as you put it. We simply find EVIDENCE that supports the theory. Evidence, evidence and more evidence. Evolution has this evidence, it is valid science.

Creationism does not have evidence, but wants to be treated as science anyway because it has a possible interpretation of facts.

BTW, I'm not even talking about the existence of God here. What we want in this thread is EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM, which there has been very little of. It's deteriorated into for/against evolution... anyone willing to provide more evidence for creationism? Anyone?

If things are true like gifts of the spirit, eg speaking in tounges, prophecy, descernment and a whole lot of other things the chances are that creationism is true.

Explain to me and all the other people how these things work without a biblical perspective!

The Problem of Natural Selection as a "Tautology"
The theory of evolution predicts that by a process of mutation and natural selection, the fittest organisms will produce the most offspring. The problem is that the theory defines the fittest organisms as the ones which produce the most offspring. A tautology is a way of saying the same thing twice. On inspection, natural selection is a tautology.
This understanding strikes at the heart of the theory of evolution, challenging evolution at its roots. In effect, proponents are saying that evolution proves evolution, which is circular reasoning.
While no one doubts that natural selection (survival of the fittest) exists, there is a fundamental question as to its role in evolution. Like mutation (as discussed earlier), natural selection can only act on pre-existing structures. At best, natural selection helps explain how species survive, but it does not explain how species originate. This is now admitted by evolutionists. For example, evolutionist Richard Lewontin admitted, "...natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it." This seems so obvious upon reflection, it is amazing that so many people have bought into the idea that natural selection could even theoretically produce evolution.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA500.html

Look, I can press copy and paste too!
"# "Survival of the fittest" is a poor way to think about evolution. Darwin himself never used the phrase. What Darwin said is that heritable variations lead to differential reproductive success. This is not circular or tautologous. It is a prediction which can be, and has been, experimentally verified [Weiner 1994].

# The phrase can't be a tautology if it is not trivially true. Yet there have been theories proposing that the fittest individuals perish.

* Alpheus Hyatt proposed that lineages, like individual, inevitably go through stages of youth, maturity, old age, and death. Towards the end of this cycle, the fittest individuals perish more than others [Lefalophodon n.d.; Hyatt 1866].
* The theory of orthogenesis said that certain trends, once started, kept progressing even though they become detrimental and lead to extinction. For example, it was held that Irish elks, which had enormous antlers, died out because the size increase became too much to support.
* The "fittest" individuals could be considered those which are ideally suited to a particular environment. Such ideal adaptation, however, comes at the cost of being more poorly adapted to other environments. If the environment changes, the "fittest" individuals from it will no longer be well adapted to any environment, and the less "fit" but more widely adapted organisms will survive.


# The "fittest," to Darwin, were not those which survived, but those which could be expected to survive based on their traits. For example, wild dogs selectively prey on impalas which are weaker according to bone marrow index [Pole et al. 2003]. With that definition, survival of the fittest is not a tautology. Similarly, "survival" can be defined in terms not of the individual's life span, but in terms of leaving a relatively large contribution to the next generation. Defined thus, "survival of the fittest" becomes more-or-less what Darwin said, and is not a tautology."

Yeah I understand what you are saying. But thats the problem there is no emperical evidence for creation or evolution.

No but I dont think God is self caused though, you have got to think of this issue out side of time.

The creationist would say that God has always been here, that is explainable using time.



There is a great deal of empirical evidence for evolution.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or the origin of life on earth. It is the process by which organisms change over time.

Abiogenesis and other things like that have nothing at all to do with evolution, they are not part of the same field of study, not even remotely close.

Evolution is studied by biologists, abiogenesis by biochemists and the history of the universe by physicists.

Hey near the end of Darwins life time he refuted all his theorys about evolution, and became a christian!!!

Hey near the end of Darwins life time he refuted all his theorys about evolution, and became a christian!!!
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html
Response:

1. The story of Darwin's recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin's death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin's daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin's illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views [Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994].

2. The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.

Heres something attacking creation.

The Holy Pope believes in evolution.

It is a great thing to ask questions about deep things, and this particular topic is something that has interested me for awhile and something that is almost unavoidable since my education has revolved around the sciences so much. Coming from an engineering background and now being involved in medical school, I hear constantly about evolution in our classroom even to the point of its personification. Yet, for me personally, the more I learn about the macroscopic and especially microscopic world that plays an unseen presence in our lives, the more convinced I am that there is a creator. While, many might consider the things I find fascinating a bit "nerdy" I will try to relate what I mean. When you get down to the biochemical level of life what you find (much to the distress of many a late-night cramming med student) is a seemingly endless conglomeration of enzymes, DNA, proteins, and an assortment of other complex molecules interacting on microscopic levels in precise mechanisms. And we're not talking about just linear dynamics here. For the engineers, these are controlled systems. It is not just a matter of A leading to B leading to C. It is C leading to D which upregulates E while feeding back to inhibit B while activating G which downregulates F the precursor of B....well you get the point. There is controlled feedback everywhere. Each step is precisely controlled. Each protein is specifically made starting from its DNA code, to its RNA sequence, to its amino acid sequence to its tertiary and quaternary structure that determines its function. And for just a single protein to be made requires practically countless other proteins and processes, energy, substrates, etc. Another great example that hit me like this is the coagulation cascade and especially the interconnections and electrical engineering and computer science marvel of our nervous system. Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, the more I learn about science, the more evidence I see of an intelligent designer. For me, I cannot scientifically believe a living, reproducing, sentient, biomechanical machine such as ourselves came about in any other way.
Secondly, there is the problem of creating information. Borrowing an idea from a man who has thought much more about this than myself, say I was walking along in the desert and came across a large sandstone boulder. On one side of the border I noticed etchings in it that I would say resembled heiroglyphics. It means nothing to me, yet I somehow know that this was made by someone. It is information, not random etchings. Could the wind, water, and natural elements have made it? Mathematically, yes there is a tiny probability that it could have just so happened to have taken that form; however, the odds would be very much against it. Because their is information there is an information creator. I see our DNA as just that.
Finally, a bit more of a philosophical point. Consider this, do you have a purpose? Because to have a purpose means by definition that something is SUPPOSED to be. Regardless of how one thinks the world got here, I think the underlying question that motivates most people in this debate from both sides is whether or not their is a God, a creator, one who endows purpose.
Thanks for letting me write, and I hope this begins to provide some thoughts in response to the original question. My purpose is not to force my thoughts on you, nor is it to prove beyond all proof the x-y-z (or I guess more appropriately a-b-c :) on how the world was created. I'll respect you whether you are an atheistic evolutionist, theistic evolutionist, old-earth creationist, or six day creationist even though I may disagree with your conclusion. In the end there is a historical truth to this question. Intelligent discussions are good though until we find out! Here is an interesting web site and research center that recently published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal about intelligent design:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
More feed for thought. Have a great day, now back to hematopathology!
Respectfully,
John
10:10

Evolution defys the second law of thermodynamics.

How can order originate from disorder by itself?

It has to have an input, for example does your room tidy itself when it is in a huge mess? no it doesnt you or someone else has to tidy it.

Evolution defys the second law of thermodynamics.

How can order originate from disorder by itself?

It has to have an input, for example does your room tidy itself when it is in a huge mess? no it doesnt you or someone else has to tidy it.
Input: Energy.


There you go. Take a freshman bio class, will you.

*massive attack of verbosity*

I would like to point out the problems specifically with your points supporting the claim that the Christian God, YHWH, is the one and only God. They are as follows:
-It is obvious and self-evident that any given deity in a polytheistic system has limits on their power. However, you will find upon closer inspection of polytheism that deities are always linked(familially or by having the same power source), deities are always opposing (there are never multiple gods with the same range of powers, except where one similar religion is in the process of being absorbed into another a la Wicca/neo-paganism), and a pantheon of deities always forms a complete grouping of important forces beyond the control of the society that evolved the religion. Together, a pantheon always represents a complete and all-powerful divine force, the exact same force described in the Christian Bible, Jewish Torah and Muslim Qu'aran as the one and only God. As such, deities can be viewed as simply elements of God, individual "sides" to God's infinite-sided "personality." In a sentence, deities are no more and no less than individual aspects of the Almighty Divine.
-In your arguments against Big Bang Theory, you fail to realize how solid the grounds for the theory are. Here's why: no other force could have caused the kind of universal expansion that has been occurring as far back as we can track and even theorize. No one denies that God could have spurred the creation of the universe.

One last thing: in your self-righteous blasting of humanists, you fail to realize that it was humanists that spurred the Reformation, humanists that brought about modern science, and humanists (such as Bacon, whom you quoted) that wrote the philisophical texts eventually leading to the founding of your deeply-cherished United States - whose founding fathers were humanists.

Evolution defys the second law of thermodynamics.

How can order originate from disorder by itself?

It has to have an input, for example does your room tidy itself when it is in a huge mess? no it doesnt you or someone else has to tidy it.


Wrong, massively, embarassingly wrong.

The second law of thermodyanmics deals with a CLOSEDTHERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM.

The earth is an OPEN thermodynamic system into which energy is constantly being added.

Just like a human body, energy goes in, order increases.

Energy stops going in, body decomposes.

Input: Energy.


There you go. Take a freshman bio class, will you.

I do do biology, IGCSE biology to be correct.

For me, I cannot scientifically believe a living, reproducing, sentient, biomechanical machine such as ourselves came about in any other way.

Ah. So you're saying, "I can't understand how this could have happened. Therefore, there must be a creator."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

Just like before we understood how lightning worked, humans were absolutely *sure* that the fact of fire coming from the sky was proof of the existence of a greater being. Same thing - now because you can't see how it could have originated naturally, you're sure that there must be a higher cause. "God of the gaps" - we don't understand how this happened, therefore God must have done it.

I do do biology, IGCSE biology to be correct.
A real bio class.

A real bio class.

Its more real then NCEA level 1 biology which is a load of junk made by our left wing government!!!

say I was walking along in the desert and came across a large sandstone boulder. On one side of the border I noticed etchings in it that I would say resembled heiroglyphics. It means nothing to me, yet I somehow know that this was made by someone. It is information, not random etchings. Could the wind, water, and natural elements have made it? Mathematically, yes there is a tiny probability that it could have just so happened to have taken that form; however, the odds would be very much against it. Because their is information there is an information creator.

Okay. Say I'm walking across a desert. I see a large sandstone boulder with markings.

I know that
a) Humans exist on earth.
b) Humans in the past have been known to make markings on stone.
c) I see a complicated pattern on a stone.
d) Thus, the markings were probably made by humans.

Other scenario. I look through a telescope at Mars. I see complicated systems of channels, I see a "face"-looking stone. Does that mean I conclude that there are aliens living on Mars?

Well, some people did.

They were wrong.

We are fairly confident that the channels on Mars, and the "face on Mars," and really everything on Mars is made by natural forces.

The difference between situations 1 and 2 - In #1, we know that a designer exists. Hence, when we see somethng that looked designed, we attribute it to the designer.

However, complexity by itself is not evidence of a designer. Claiming that "because there's complexity, there must be a designer" leads to erroneous conclusions such as the claim that there is a civilization of little green men on Mars.

Wrong, massively, embarassingly wrong.

The second law of thermodyanmics deals with a CLOSEDTHERMODYNAMIC SYSTEM.

The earth is an OPEN thermodynamic system into which energy is constantly being added.

Just like a human body, energy goes in, order increases.

Energy stops going in, body decomposes.

and when we look at the entire thermodynamic system in question (the sun, the earth, the surrounding bit of space, etc)... surprise surprise, the total entropy of the system is increasing!

Come on you still havnt explained how peoples spiritual gifts work when you do not explain it from a biblical perspective.

and when we look at the entire thermodynamic system in question (the sun, the earth, the surrounding bit of space, etc)... surprise surprise, the total entropy of the system is increasing!
Mmm, Gibbs Free Energy.

Oh, and they never existed. Prove to me that they exist, these gifts.

Ok...my personal opinion is:
a) in addition to the Bible, the Book of Mormon and a number of other scriptures have been revealed in modern day.
b) nothing in evolution precludes creationism. Evolution could simply be God's method of creation.
c) it seems to me that the fact that little physical evidence has been found for creationism is evidence OF creationism. If God wants us to beleive in him, he won't give us any kind of proof. Proof excludes faith, you see. Faith, in this case, being defined as belief in things which are not provable, but which are true. I know this is essentially a circular argument (if it's true, it's true) but I think it stands (or rolls, in this case) nonetheless.

I'm a very scientifically minded person, but I still beleive.

Victory to Zakatha! :sniper:

Despite whether you believe in evolution or not, EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN HOW LIFE BEGAN OR GOT TO EARTH.

Nor is it SUPPOSED to! There is a reason Darwin's book was called "The Origin Of SPECIES" not "The Origin Of LIFE."

Evolution is supposed to explain the diversity that exists in the natural world, the many different species, and the differences even among species themselves.

Example: Dogs. You have one Husky sled dog, and you have one German Shepherd. The Husky Sled Dog lives way to heck up in Alaska, where it's really cold. So, that breed within the same species developed a thicker fur coat, so that it could survive in the environment in which it found itself.

The German Shepherd, on the other hand, maybe lives in Tennessee, let's say...and does not need all that extra fur...iin fact, that could be detrimental to that dog (same SPECIES) survival in that very different environment.

So, you have two dogs, both of whom are of the Canine Species...yet have very different looks and natural attributes, each adapted over time to maximize that species' survival in the environmental conditions imposed upon it.

Evolution is about life adapting to meet the challenges to it's survival that life faces, most often imposed upon it by the environment in which it lives. Now, sometimes, these adaptations, over a long period of time, result in a completely different species evolving.

Take viruses. Because parents so often over-used anti-biotics about 20 years ago...we are now seeing new strains of virii which are immune to, or resistant to, the standard anti-biotic drugs. This is an example of life striving to survive, and adapting to the conditions imposed upon it, to maximize it's potential for survival.

There's two examples of evolution in action for you. Observable. Provable.

Now, find me anything in Creationist theory that you can point to and say, but this is real, tangible, measurable, empirical, scientific, IRREFUTABLE proof that Creationism is not just a fairy tale that was enough to satisfy uncivilized cavemen seeking answers 2,000 years ago.

Edited for clarity on last paragraph.

Ok...my personal opinion is:
a) in addition to the Bible, the Book of Mormon and a number of other scriptures have been revealed in modern day.
b) nothing in evolution precludes creationism. Evolution could simply be God's method of creation.
c) it seems to me that the fact that little physical evidence has been found for creationism is evidence OF creationism. If God wants us to beleive in him, he won't give us any kind of proof. Proof excludes faith, you see. Faith, in this case, being defined as belief in things which are not provable, but which are true. I know this is essentially a circular argument (if it's true, it's true) but I think it stands (or rolls, in this case) nonetheless.

I'm a very scientifically minded person, but I still beleive.

Victory to Zakatha! :sniper:

The book of mormon has funamental problems.

One is that the the Amercan Indians are said to have come from Israeal in the Book of Mormon, when in fact they came from Siberia, this is proven tracing mitochondrial DNA.

Another is that it has had over 4000 changes to spelling errors and doctrine. Which is a longshhot from the "most correct book on earth."

The book of mormon has funamental problems.

One is that the the Amercan Indians are said to have come from Israeal in the Book of Mormon, when in fact they came from Siberia, this is proven tracing mitochondrial DNA.

Another is that it has had over 4000 changes to spelling errors and doctrine. Which is a longshhot from the "most correct book on earth."
As opposed to the bible, which has never ever ever been corrected.

"
Take viruses. Because parents so often over-used anti-biotics about 20 years ago...we are now seeing new strains of virii which are immune to, or resistant to, the standard anti-biotic drugs. This is an example of life striving to survive, and adapting to the conditions imposed upon it, to maximize it's potential for survival."

Slight correction - Bacteria, not viruses. Antibiotics are against bacteria. Your point still stands though.

Mmm, Gibbs Free Energy.

Oh, and they never existed. Prove to me that they exist, these gifts.

These gifts are like speaking in other languages that you have not been trained in, or called speaking in toungues. My mum can speak in toungues, ive heard it. Ultimately to prove it to you you would have to go to a pentecostal type church and see for your self.

Oh, and they never existed. Prove to me that they exist, these gifts.

Or first, define what those gifts ARE. We can't talk about them if we don't know what you're asking about.

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.


How is it that the Barbarians were opposed to civilization? Please elaborate.

As opposed to the bible, which has never ever ever been corrected.

No, sure the bible has errors, (because of human error) and will never be perfect. But it does not have errors on this scale. Ill get some examples they are notoriously embarasing errors.

*heap of intelligence*

We need more of this sort of argument on the boards. Really. :rolleyes:

Spirtual gifts are given to you by the holy spirit:

Exhortation, giving leadership, mercy, prophecy, service, teaching, administration, apostle discernment, faith, healing, helps, knowledge, miracles, toungues, toungues interpretation, wisdom, evangelism and pastor are examples of them.


Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. (Romans 12:4-6a)

There are different kinds of gifts but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
(1 Cor. 12:4-5)

Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.
(1 Pet. 4:10)

What I would like to encourage everyone to consider is the possibility that EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM are compatible and not mutually exclusive.

We all recognize that the world around us is dynamic. Rains come and go. Seasons follow one another. The earth turns on it's axis once daily. Life MUST be able to adapt to all of those forces to continue to exist. And if you and I are smart enough to see that an otter or jumping spider can adapt to natural dynamic forces, then why wouldn't a 'CREATIVE FORCE' be smart enough to forsee the same thing.

For example, I built a very simple robot that is designed to go find 9 volt batteries, using size and shape as it's criteria. It plugs the 9 volt batteries into itself to continue running. It keeps running until all of the 9 volt batteries are depleted. But what about the hundreds of 1.5 volt AA batteries still sitting there fully charged. I didn't make the robot flexible enough to adapt to change.

My theory (which is balanced between logic and faith by observation) is that a CREATIVE FORCE began all that is: created matter and energy, started life here and elsewhere, and made it a functional system- which requires dynamic adaptability, including evolution. Maybe all the CF needed was a single living cell, or maybe the CF started with more variety.

Spirtual gifts are given to you by the holy spirit:

Exhortation, giving leadership, mercy, prophecy, service, teaching, administration, apostle discernment, faith, healing, helps, knowledge, miracles, toungues, toungues interpretation, wisdom, evangelism and pastor are examples of them.


Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. (Romans 12:4-6a)

There are different kinds of gifts but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
(1 Cor. 12:4-5)

Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms.
(1 Pet. 4:10)
Prove that they exist.

An example of mormons changing their scriptures

Original 1830 Text
1 Nephi 3, p. 25* And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh

*The 1830 text did not have verse divisions.


Current, Altered Text
1 Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.


1830 text

Ether 1, p. 546 … and for this cause did King Benjamin keep them …

Current text:

Ether 4:1 … and for this cause did King Mosiah keep them …

Prove that they exist.

I said to prove it to you, you would have to see it for your self. You can hear many story's and what not, but in the end seeing it is all you can do to prove it.

What I would like to encourage everyone to consider is the possibility that EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM are compatible and not mutually exclusive.

We all recognize that the world around us is dynamic. Rains come and go. Seasons follow one another. The earth turns on it's axis once daily. Life MUST be able to adapt to all of those forces to continue to exist. And if you and I are smart enough to see that an otter or jumping spider can adapt to natural dynamic forces, then why wouldn't a 'CREATIVE FORCE' be smart enough to forsee the same thing.

For example, I built a very simple robot that is designed to go find 9 volt batteries, using size and shape as it's criteria. It plugs the 9 volt batteries into itself to continue running. It keeps running until all of the 9 volt batteries are depleted. But what about the hundreds of 1.5 volt AA batteries still sitting there fully charged. I didn't make the robot flexible enough to adapt to change.

My theory (which is balanced between logic and faith by observation) is that a CREATIVE FORCE began all that is: created matter and energy, started life here and elsewhere, and made it a functional system- which requires dynamic adaptability, including evolution. Maybe all the CF needed was a single living cell, or maybe the CF started with more variety.

" a CREATIVE FORCE began all that is: created matter and energy, started life here and elsewhere, and made it a functional system- which requires dynamic adaptability, including evolution. Maybe all the CF needed was a single living cell, or maybe the CF started with more variety."

Yep! Basically, you're saying that evolution did happen, but was guided. Sure! That's quite wonderful. I don't have any problems with that worldview, it may very well be right. We can't tell whether the 'random' mutations were truly random or were guided by a creator (or maybe weren't guided, but were merely planned). That's quite reasonable... ...as long as you don't try to mandate that schools need to include it in their curriculum in a science class. Because it's not science. Evolution and (that form of) Creationism are very compatible, but they're also different. One belongs in a philosophy class or a religion class, one belongs in a science class...

What? And evolution does not interpret fact?

Evolution interprets facts and comes to a hypothesis based on those facts. New facts lead to new hypotheses/changing of old ones.

Creationism has a conclusion and tries to find facts that they just might be able to interpret in order to think they might have proved their pre-set conclusion which they will never change.

Are you really dense enough to not see the difference?

... because you can't know everything with absolute certainity, you need to have faith! Thus religion and science are equal! HUR HUR HUR ...

... there are things I can't understand or explain and since I know I can't be fooled and I'm a pretty smart guy if I say so myself, it must be God! HUR HUR HUR ...

What do you need that crowbar for?
AHHH MY FACE!


^

" a CREATIVE FORCE began all that is: created matter and energy, started life here and elsewhere, and made it a functional system- which requires dynamic adaptability, including evolution. Maybe all the CF needed was a single living cell, or maybe the CF started with more variety."

Yep! Basically, you're saying that evolution did happen, but was guided. Sure! That's quite wonderful. I don't have any problems with that worldview, it may very well be right. We can't tell whether the 'random' mutations were truly random or were guided by a creator (or maybe weren't guided, but were merely planned). That's quite reasonable... ...as long as you don't try to mandate that schools need to include it in their curriculum in a science class. Because it's not science. Evolution and (that form of) Creationism are very compatible, but they're also different. One belongs in a philosophy class or a religion class, one belongs in a science class...

Thats called theistic evolution.

I said to prove it to you, you would have to see it for your self. You can hear many story's and what not, but in the end seeing it is all you can do to prove it.
Translation:
I'm making crap up. Please don't hurt me.

What I would like to encourage everyone to consider is the possibility that EVOLUTION and CREATIONISM are compatible and not mutually exclusive.

Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive.

However, evolution and *creation* are not.

Come on you still havnt explained how peoples spiritual gifts work when you do not explain it from a biblical perspective.


Prove that they exist.

I said to prove it to you, you would have to see it for your self. You can hear many story's and what not, but in the end seeing it is all you can do to prove it.

Ok, so conversation is as follows.

NPC: "Explain divine gifts."
CSW: "Prove that they exist."
NPC: "I can't. See them for yourself."

But we can't if you DON'T SAY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I can try to see what you mean by specific examples, but it would be nice if you told us how they tied together.


Exhortation, giving leadership, mercy, prophecy, service, teaching, administration, apostle discernment, faith, healing, helps, knowledge, miracles, toungues, toungues interpretation, wisdom, evangelism and pastor are examples of them.

Knowledge? The fact that we can know things is a divine gift? Our brains are as much a product of evolution as the rest of our bodies. We can know a lot of things because it was beneficial to our ancestors to do so - knowing things allows us to easily learn to survive in different environments, giving us an advantage over other animals that were not flexible like that. That covers wisdom.

Tongues - we evolved tongues to push food down our throats, and then also evolved it to serve the secondary function of changing the sounds that come out of our throats.

Mercy - humans that showed "mercy" to other humans that were related to them passed on more of their genes, because even though it did not benefit them directly, it benefited the people around them - their relatives, who have a high probability of sharing their genes. Also, early communities of people that showed mercy to those nearby would, as a whole, be more successful than those that don't.

Service - see above.

Giving leadership - leaders are more successful, pass on their genes better. And so on.

Administration - see leadership.

Teaching - people who are able to teach have more successful offspring, for obvious reasons, because they can teach their children.

Prophecy, evangelism, pastor, exhortation - WTF are you talking about? What do you mean?

Or are you basically saying - different people are good at different things. Different people like different things.

Nature and nurture. The nature part of the explanation: the human brain evolved to be very adaptable - we are able to learn many different things. I think you can see how an adaptable brain would allow human beings to be successful, since they would be able to thrive in many different environments and adapt to them much faster than by just genetic evolution. The brain can develop in many different ways - a baby's or child's brain keeps developing after birth, for a while, and how it develops depends on its surroundings.

Here's where nurture comes in. A person is, apart from inborn tendencies, shaped by how they were raised. Their environment shapes how their mind develops and how they will think and act later on. It emphasizes some characteristics over others, and so they develop more.

Or I might be talking about something completely unrelated to what you mean. Please explain yourself...

Or maybe as CSW thinks you're just making crap up.

Ok, so conversation is as follows.

NPC: "Explain divine gifts."
CSW: "Prove that they exist."
NPC: "I can't. See them for yourself."

But we can't if you DON'T SAY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I can try to see what you mean by specific examples, but it would be nice if you told us how they tied together.



Knowledge? The fact that we can know things is a divine gift? Our brains are as much a product of evolution as the rest of our bodies. We can know a lot of things because it was beneficial to our ancestors to do so - knowing things allows us to easily learn to survive in different environments, giving us an advantage over other animals that were not flexible like that. That covers wisdom.

Tongues - we evolved tongues to push food down our throats, and then also evolved it to serve the secondary function of changing the sounds that come out of our throats.

Mercy - humans that showed "mercy" to other humans that were related to them passed on more of their genes, because even though it did not benefit them directly, it benefited the people around them - their relatives, who have a high probability of sharing their genes. Also, early communities of people that showed mercy to those nearby would, as a whole, be more successful than those that don't.

Service - see above.

Giving leadership - leaders are more successful, pass on their genes better. And so on.

Administration - see leadership.

Teaching - people who are able to teach have more successful offspring, for obvious reasons, because they can teach their children.

Prophecy, evangelism, pastor, exhortation - WTF are you talking about? What do you mean?

Or are you basically saying - different people are good at different things. Different people like different things.

Nature and nurture. The nature part of the explanation: the human brain evolved to be very adaptable - we are able to learn many different things. I think you can see how an adaptable brain would allow human beings to be successful, since they would be able to thrive in many different environments and adapt to them much faster than by just genetic evolution. The brain can develop in many different ways - a baby's or child's brain keeps developing after birth, for a while, and how it develops depends on its surroundings.

Here's where nurture comes in. A person is, apart from inborn tendencies, shaped by how they were raised. Their environment shapes how their mind develops and how they will think and act later on. It emphasizes some characteristics over others, and so they develop more.

Or I might be talking about something completely unrelated to what you mean. Please explain yourself...

Or maybe as CSW thinks you're just making crap up.


Ok the gift of knowlegde is as follows:

An example that happened was when the pastor got a word of knowledge i.e God gave him an impression of something and gave him the knowledge of it.
He said he felt that someone was having problems with his heart and he should come froward and get prayed for. No one came up. The lead singer went bright red and it turned out it was him. He had gone to the doctor previously and had was diagnosed with somthing like a ruptred valve (im cant remmember what the specific detail was) and had not tolded his wife yet.

Those are just names and yes they do mean different things.


You should know what prophecy is. God spoke with an audible voice to Bill Subritzky (he is a faith healer in NZ) when his father was in a coma, as he was walking down the hallway towards the ward in the hospital that his father was in, God tolded him he would give his father 7 more years.

Sure enough he was sitting up in his bed and out of the coma. Bill asked the doctors what they had done to heal his father, they said "we pulled all the tubes out of him and expected him to die."

Seven years later almost to the day when his father was getting a regular check up at the hospital, he passed away.

I got the names muddled up, so I corrected it.

Ok the gift of knowlegde is as follows:

An example that happened was when the pastor got a word of knowledge i.e God gave him an impression of something and gave him the knowledge of it.
He said he felt that someone was having problems with his heart and he should come froward and get prayed for. No one came up. The lead singer went bright red and it turned out it was him. He had gone to the doctor previously and had was diagnosed with somthing like a ruptred valve (im cant remmember what the specific detail was) and had not tolded his wife yet.

Those are just names and yes they do mean different things.


You should know what prophecy is. God spoke with an audible voice to Bill Subritzky's (he is a faith healer in NZ) Dad when his father (that would be Bill Subritzkys grandfather) was in a coma, as he was walking down the hallway towards the ward in the hospital that his father was in, God tolded him he would give his father 7 more years.

Sure enough he was sitting up in his bed and out of the coma. Bills father asked the doctors what they had done to heal his father, they said "we pulled all the tubes out of him and expected him to die."

Seven years later almost to the day when his father was getting a regular check up at the hospital, he passed away.


Souce? Sorry but, word of mouth doesn't count.

My source was at Promise Keepers 2004 NZ for the one about Bill Subritzky, you could look it up on the internet and try your luck in finding it.

Actually if you had read the links I gave previously, the teachers went to great lengths to make sure a religious view was NOT presented. Some of them just wanted to point out problems with the evolutionary theory. Some wanted to use their right to introduce intellegent design as an alternative theory of origin, not to promote creation or christianity.

That's not really the point. It could very well be true and all that, but the point is that you are using Creationist links to provide evidence that would be beneficial to Creationists. You're using biased sources. I need to see an unbiased or non-religion based newspaper or TV report or something, not evidence from teachers who very well may be telling the truth on a page for creationists by creationists. It's like if I were to try to convince you that Bush is evil by using evidence from only a Bush Haters website. Same concept.

1) From nothing comes nothing, therefore there must be a God.

2) From dead matter comes nothing but dead matter, someone breathed life into it.

Thats the cut and dry 5 second answer.

e-mail me at KC_Rajin@hotmail.com for the 30 page answer.

Evolution is addition of new information, only changes or destruction of existing information has been observed. Like species, if one dog spawns a new species of dog, the origional had all of the information already in it, it simply was changed or some was lost. Like changing letters in a word to make a new word.

POT = TOP I didn't have to add letters to make a new word.

There is zero evidence for actual evolution of any sort.

That was a rather ignorant deduction, but okay.

Reasonabilityness here is a link, so you know what I am talking about, you can skip all the stuff at the begining and go onto the definitions if you want.

http://www.doveministries.com/usa/pamphlets/giftsholy.PDF

That's not really the point. It could very well be true and all that, but the point is that you are using Creationist links to provide evidence that would be beneficial to Creationists. You're using biased sources. I need to see an unbiased or non-religion based newspaper or TV report or something, not evidence from teachers who very well may be telling the truth on a page for creationists by creationists. It's like if I were to try to convince you that Bush is evil by using evidence from only a Bush Haters website. Same concept.

You are right, but everyone is slightly bias. To examine something properly you need an independant analysis of it.

"
Take viruses. Because parents so often over-used anti-biotics about 20 years ago...we are now seeing new strains of virii which are immune to, or resistant to, the standard anti-biotic drugs. This is an example of life striving to survive, and adapting to the conditions imposed upon it, to maximize it's potential for survival."

Slight correction - Bacteria, not viruses. Antibiotics are against bacteria. Your point still stands though.

You are quite correct. I stand corrected. But viruses also have been shown to mutate, and for what reason?? To maximize it's potential for survival (and for them to survive, they need to spread, and to maximize the possibility of transmission from one organism to another.) So you have say, the flu virus, which has a different "strain" every year, because it has mutated in an attempt to maximize it's potential for survival. Usually, these "strains" or, the scientific terminology for this is "serotypes," usually, a flu serotype follows a pattern of extrapolation from the previous serotype (in layman's terms, this means it is very similar to the serotype that preceded it.)

However, there are times when a serotype is radically different from the one that preceeded it, and these are the times when a "pandemic" occurs, because only then is the entire population of the planet susceptible. For example, the flu right after WW One was likely a radically different serotype than the previous year...as was the so-called "British Flu" of 1983. For that matter, whence comes diseases like AIDS and SARS? Could they merely be radically altered serotypes of already existent virii, which so radically altered themselves in the attempt to maximize their survival potential, that they became wholly new diseases, with wholly new characteristics?

Seems funny that AIDS surfaced just as we put the kibosh on smallpox, doesn't it?

It's near impossible for creationists to convince the scientific world because of 1 thing: Creation requires belief in God. If their audience believes in God, then the creationists have an easy time. However, if they don't believe in God, then it's virtually impossible, for God is the center of the Creationist argument. As it is impossible to dis/prove the existence of God, so it is impossible to dis/prove creationists.

These gifts are like speaking in other languages that you have not been trained in, or called speaking in toungues. My mum can speak in toungues, ive heard it. Ultimately to prove it to you you would have to go to a pentecostal type church and see for your self.

I have been to a Pentecostal Church before, and seen people "speak in tongues." Prove to me that this "phenomena" isn't simply someone rolling around on the floor and babbling nonsensical garbage, in full control of themselves and their senses...and that they have no idea what they are saying either...and, in fact they even know that it's an act, and the whole "speaking in tongues" thing is just a bunch of poppycock.

I ask this seriously, and as a Devil's Advocate sort of question, so do not take offense.

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

*sigh*

Christians do not have to defend or "prove" their religious beliefs. That is not, and has never been, the point of these discussions.

No reasonable person I know of is challenging the right of religious people to believe whatever they want about creation. If you want to tell me the earth sits on the back of a tortoise who am I to disabuse you of that belief? The problem, and main point of these discussions, is that creationists are demanding that their religious beliefs be taught in public schools and universities as SCIENCE. However, if they want to be called a science they must accept certain protocols and standards of scientific proof, just like other theories, including evolution.

To be a science creationists have to accept their belief is a theory. They have to accept future data could come along and overturn their theory. They have to constantly subject their theory to experimentation, tests, and peer review, updating it and changing it as new facts appear.

Do you know any creationists willing to accept those constraints on their beliefs? Can you name any creationist Christians willing to downgrade their faith to a theory?

Why would people want their religion put on the same level as worldly scientific theory? As I have said many times (and have yet to have a religious Christian refute the point), trying to turn your faith into scientific fact is not only bad science, but piss poor religion.

I have been to a Pentecostal Church before, and seen people "speak in tongues." Prove to me that this "phenomena" isn't simply someone rolling around on the floor and babbling nonsensical garbage, in full control of themselves and their senses...and that they have no idea what they are saying either...and, in fact they even know that it's an act, and the whole "speaking in tongues" thing is just a bunch of poppycock.

I ask this seriously, and as a Devil's Advocate sort of question, so do not take offense.

Firstly, who says its an act?
Ive heard my Mum speak in tounges, (and she wasnt babling on the ground and out of control).
I would be dishounouring God if I were lying to you.
You can also get "interpreters" who have the gift of interpreting languages.

To be totally sure if you found someone who spoke arabic (in tounges) for example and you knew someone who was arabic, and spoke arabic fluently then you could see if they could interpret it to see if it is a load of poppycock.

Why do you assume that all Christians want their beliefs taught in public schools? At least I can admit that some of my beliefs aren't founded in science.

Firstly, who says its an act?
Ive heard my Mum speak in tounges, (and she wasnt babling on the ground and out of control).
I would be dishounouring God if I were lying to you.
You can also get "interpreters" who have the gift of interpreting languages.

To be totally sure if you found someone who spoke arabic (in tounges) for example and you knew someone who was arabic, and spoke arabic fluently then you could see if they could interpret it to see if it is a load of poppycock.

Firstly, who says it’s an act?
I’ve heard my Mum speak in tongues, (and she wasn’t babbling on the ground and out of control).
I would be dishonoring God if I were lying to you.
You can also get "interpreters" who have the gift of interpreting languages.

To be totally sure you found someone who spoke Arabic (in tongues), find someone else who speaks Arabic fluently and have him interpret to see if it is a load of poppycock.

You wanted an editor and I'm happy to oblige.

Whew, too many posts to look through, so I will just state my case without responding to anyone.

First of all, you cannot take God out of creationism. It is impossible to argue for it and not include God. Now since this topic is not arguing the existance of God, I will assume that all of you beleive in him (even though the majority of you do not).

I want to first clarify that I do agree with micro-evolution, species becoming sub-species; and not macro-evolution, species becoming seperate species entirly. The simple argument against macro-evolution is that there is no fossil evidence of a mid-evolutionary stage (don't mention Archyopteryx because I can prove it is a full-formed bird). There is also no way to account for new species rising out of others, for life forming in general, or for intellegence increasing. Mutations cannot account for additions of fins, intellegence, etc. because the are additions to the genes and a mutation is a broken or missing gene. To say that evolution is responsible for the beginning of life is to beleive in spontaneous generation, a known scientific impossiblility. Evolution has no way of explaining how there is morality, intellegence, concousness (ack, spelling!), etc. Now I doubt that many of you have actually read this, and the evolutionists who have will probably not be moved. Just try to see my logic, as I try to see yours.

Now for creationism: you know, without religion, there is no defense. But beleiving in evolution will actually have to take more faith than believing that God (I refer to the Judeo-Christian God, the one true God) created everything.

*sigh*

Christians do not have to defend or "prove" their religious beliefs. That is not, and has never been, the point of these discussions.

No reasonable person I know of is challenging the right of religious people to believe whatever they want about creation. If you want to tell me the earth sits on the back of a tortoise who am I to disabuse you of that belief? The problem, and main point of these discussions, is that creationists are demanding that their religious beliefs be taught in public schools and universities as SCIENCE. However, if they want to be called a science they must accept certain protocols and standards of scientific proof, just like other theories, including evolution.

To be a science creationists have to accept their belief is a theory. They have to accept future data could come along and overturn their theory. They have to constantly subject their theory to experimentation, tests, and peer review, updating it and changing it as new facts appear.

Do you know any creationists willing to accept those constraints on their beliefs? Can you name any creationist Christians willing to downgrade their faith to a theory?

Why would people want their religion put on the same level as worldly scientific theory? As I have said many times (and have yet to have a religious Christian refute the point), trying to turn your faith into scientific fact is not only bad science, but piss poor religion.


A Christian scientist would not have to accept their belief as a theory because they know it is truth. They have the Bible, which they believe is true. They know what it teaches, they know what it says about the Earth being created. Therefore they do not see their belief's as a theory, they are true.

Most of the people here will not understand this because they do not believe what the Christian Scientists do, they do not believe what Christians do. There can be no proof iff you do not believe in faith. Faith is the driving factor behind anything a Christian does. This being taught in school would not work, because in the end there is no proof to back up the Christian faith.

Like I said earlier, this thread is pointless, as no matter how much proof is given, no matter how much can be brought forward *if anyone wants to* it will always end at faith. God in science was not meant to be. God did not intend for people to find evidence of Him and then believe. God's "system" if you want to call it that, is set up so you must believe he exists. There will never be proof until he comes back. And by then, you don't have the chance to believe.

I know that last part will probably piss you off because you don't think it has any place in this thread. However if you really want to know why a Christian Scientist believes in Creation it will always end with that answer. Faith is required to believe, so you will never get a straight answer.

A Christian scientist would not have to accept their belief as a theory because they know it is truth. They have the Bible, which they believe is true. They know what it teaches, they know what it says about the Earth being created. Therefore they do not see their belief's as a theory, they are true.

Most of the people here will not understand this because they do not believe what the Christian Scientists do, they do not believe what Christians do. There can be no proof iff you do not believe in faith. Faith is the driving factor behind anything a Christian does. This being taught in school would not work, because in the end there is no proof to back up the Christian faith.

Like I said earlier, this thread is pointless, as no matter how much proof is given, no matter how much can be brought forward *if anyone wants to* it will always end at faith. God in science was not meant to be. God did not intend for people to find evidence of Him and then believe. God's "system" if you want to call it that, is set up so you must believe he exists. There will never be proof until he comes back. And by then, you don't have the chance to believe.

I know that last part will probably piss you off because you don't think it has any place in this thread. However if you really want to know why a Christian Scientist believes in Creation it will always end with that answer. Faith is required to believe, so you will never get a straight answer.

Very much agree, it's based on faith.

That means it is NOT SCIENCE. It might be true, nobody'll ever disprove it, but it's NOT SCIENCE. You yourself said that God in science was not meant to be. So keep God to yourself, and out of science! I don't mind the people that believe in God and creation, I DO mind the people that want that taught in schools alongside evolution as if it is valid science.

I have been to a Pentecostal Church before, and seen people "speak in tongues." Prove to me that this "phenomena" isn't simply someone rolling around on the floor and babbling nonsensical garbage, in full control of themselves and their senses...and that they have no idea what they are saying either...and, in fact they even know that it's an act, and the whole "speaking in tongues" thing is just a bunch of poppycock.

I ask this seriously, and as a Devil's Advocate sort of question, so do not take offense.

My friend suddenly spoke in tongues, and this guy next to him interpreted it for him right at that moment in time.

Correction, what we want is the removal of the evolutionary interpretation of the facts not the facts themselves. Science is just a tool to gain knowledge, how the facts are interpreted are based on the bias and beliefs of the scientist.

For instance, someone digs up a fish fossil. Scientifically, what is knowable?
1) That it was found a this location in this orientation with these things around it.
2) That the pattern left in the rock matches the bone structure of something we are familiar with, ie another fish. (note this does not PROVE the fossil is of a fish, just that it matches a known)
3) That it contains specific chemical structures based on samples of the fossil tested.

This is science, and the limits of science, tests based on direct observation. Everything beyond this takes on the bias of the observer.
"It has to be a fish, see the similarity?" and so on. Evolution AND creation are completely within the realm of interpretation. "These two structures are similar (fact), thus there is a correlation (interpretation)".

So if for instance you want to tell me that this muscle attaches to this bone and acts to provide this range of motion at the shoulder, great, thats scientific facts. Just don't try to tell me that due to a similarity with a monkey shoulder this means our ancestors used to swing from trees.

After the core facts, if you are going to present ANY interpretation, present ALL of them.

Problem with that is:
Creationism is a religious interpretation, it relies on belief in a higher being.
Evolution is a scientific interpretation, it relies on scientific knowledge, observation, and theory.

Ok, I believe in Creation, and I believe in God. The problem with this thread however is that even is I tried to prove that God existed it would never be entirely correct, because God cannot be proven to exist. The same way that evolution cannot be proven 100% to exist. To say that you accept evolution as true when it is not entirely proven, and accept God as non-existent when it is less proven is lunacy. Because you believe in something that is not entirely proven gives you no right to yell at someone for believing in God, who is also not proven.

I could sit and tell you guys that the Bible is my reason for believing in God, but that won't fly because you guys will say the Bible is bunk. In the end it is all a matter of faith. You have faith that Evolution is going to be entirely proven. *Which it won't* And I have faith that God will be entirely proven when he comes back. *Which of course, you won't believe*

This thread argues about things that can never be proven, and then yells at people for trying to prove things that cannot be proven. You are all running in circles with this conversation.

But then again, Im an idiot beause I believe in creation, therefore nothing I say should be taken seriously.

K, for like the twentieth time I will repeat myself. Evolution as a whole, from the very start of life on, the long term, cannot be entirely proven, not entirely. However, short term evolution is and always will be a fact. We see it every single day in the animal kingdom and if you paid attention at all to the evolution of the human brain over the last few thousand years you'd know we are changing to, at the same slow rate long term evolution suggests life needs to evolve. Evolution is extremely slow, takes forever for anything really noticeable to show. But we are seeing it every decade in the animal kingdom.

What? And evolution does not interpret fact?

*Edit* One more time, believing in something that has fact but will not be proven doesn't seem to be something you are looking for here. Because if I were to try and give evidence I would never be able to give enough. It would be a fruitless venture as before this thread was made you had your pre-conceived idea about creation, and you were only looking to bash it. To say that you wanted to actually learn about creation is bull, and all of you know that.

Expect it. How do you think we evolutionists feel when creationists bash our theory? If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Simple.

First, I consider myself of the scientific mind, and a staunch evolutionist. But I understand that true scientists believe that nothing is ever proven. No theory has ever been proven, none. They only survive until a better one comes along. It's seems against all human instinct to not embrace an idea that makes more sense than a previously held belief. If humans did that we'd still be without agriculture, health care, government, sexual equality, and a we'd still have, racism, segregation, slavery, and smallpox.

The funny thing is that in the end it's not a battle against evolution, but against science as a whole. People believe that Science Kills Religion. That believing in Evolution means not beliving in the magesty of God, or whatever higher power you connect with.

I am a believer in Science but everything I have ever learned in science has only made me believe more in God.

Creationism is a reaction against modern beliefs. It's just fixated on evolution because every battle must have GOOD and EVIL.

Joseph Campbell is a person everyone should read. His Book, Myths to live by, or Man and his Myths, details in the opening pages why humans cling to Myths. For the first time Modern man is forgetting myths and living in a world unbound by them. I think Creationism is a reaction against this forgetting of myths, making myths the most powerful force it can be, the foundation of our creation.

Whew, too many posts to look through, so I will just state my case without responding to anyone.

*restates points we've responded to already*

Sheesh...

The simple argument against macro-evolution is that there is no fossil evidence of a mid-evolutionary stage (don't mention Archyopteryx because I can prove it is a full-formed bird).

Here, you want transitional forms? A whole pageful of 'em.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html - A response to people like you claiming there aren't transitional forms.

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html - if you want, the transition to us being human, as demonstrated by skulls.

There is also no way to account for new species rising out of others,

Um, yes there is, mutations followed by speciation? Two portions of a population get separated geographically, evolve separately, eventually becoming separate species. Or, in a single habitat, there are multiple unfilled niches, and some of the animals specialize, over time. (Example - there is a species of bird. There are flowers with nectar deep inside them and shallow flowers. This can lead to the species eventually splitting into two, one with long beaks one with short beaks.) Mutation, genetic drift, etc - those are mechanisms by which species can arise out of others, coupled with natural selection.


for life forming in general,
Irrelevant. That's abiogenesis, not evolution. ...but yes, we can account for it, though we're far from certain about the details of our account. Some of the leading hypotheses/theories are presented here http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm .


or for intellegence increasing.
Well, we might be able to, once someone defines what "intelligence" is. As of now, it's a nice vaguely defined concept as "something humans have and animals don't that makes us smart and makes us human."


Mutations cannot account for additions of fins, intellegence, etc. because the are additions to the genes and a mutation is a broken or missing gene.

Besides mutations, there are also duplications and other forms of genetic error. 'twould be nice if you could provide some reason why you think it couldn't happen, besides "erm I don't know how it would."


To say that evolution is responsible for the beginning of life is to beleive in spontaneous generation, a known scientific impossiblility.

Irrelevant. That's abiogenesis, not evolution. ...but yes, we can account for it, though we're far from certain about the details of our account. Some of the leading hypotheses/theories are presented here http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm .


Evolution has no way of explaining how there is morality, intellegence, concousness (ack, spelling!), etc.

For the last two, there aren't clear definitions of them. How do we know what qualifies as "intelligence" or "conciousness?" We don't even know what they are, much less how they evolved.

Morality, however, can be explained; Darwin himself dealt with this issue, and what I think is a nice summary of his argument is presented here.

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/D.onM.html


Now I doubt that many of you have actually read this, and the evolutionists who have will probably not be moved. Just try to see my logic, as I try to see yours.

I've read your post, and I do see your logic, and I think that as it stems from simply not having seen all of the information.


Now for creationism: you know, without religion, there is no defense. But beleiving in evolution will actually have to take more faith than believing that God (I refer to the Judeo-Christian God, the one true God) created everything.

But evolution has evidence, and is science. Creationism is religion and thus has no place in public schools alongside evolution.

It is a great thing to ask questions about deep things, and this particular topic is something that has interested me for awhile and something that is almost unavoidable since my education has revolved around the sciences so much. Coming from an engineering background and now being involved in medical school, I hear constantly about evolution in our classroom even to the point of its personification. Yet, for me personally, the more I learn about the macroscopic and especially microscopic world that plays an unseen presence in our lives, the more convinced I am that there is a creator. While, many might consider the things I find fascinating a bit "nerdy" I will try to relate what I mean. When you get down to the biochemical level of life what you find (much to the distress of many a late-night cramming med student) is a seemingly endless conglomeration of enzymes, DNA, proteins, and an assortment of other complex molecules interacting on microscopic levels in precise mechanisms. And we're not talking about just linear dynamics here. For the engineers, these are controlled systems. It is not just a matter of A leading to B leading to C. It is C leading to D which upregulates E while feeding back to inhibit B while activating G which downregulates F the precursor of B....well you get the point. There is controlled feedback everywhere. Each step is precisely controlled. Each protein is specifically made starting from its DNA code, to its RNA sequence, to its amino acid sequence to its tertiary and quaternary structure that determines its function. And for just a single protein to be made requires practically countless other proteins and processes, energy, substrates, etc. Another great example that hit me like this is the coagulation cascade and especially the interconnections and electrical engineering and computer science marvel of our nervous system. Surprisingly, or maybe not so surprisingly, the more I learn about science, the more evidence I see of an intelligent designer. For me, I cannot scientifically believe a living, reproducing, sentient, biomechanical machine such as ourselves came about in any other way.
Secondly, there is the problem of creating information. Borrowing an idea from a man who has thought much more about this than myself, say I was walking along in the desert and came across a large sandstone boulder. On one side of the border I noticed etchings in it that I would say resembled heiroglyphics. It means nothing to me, yet I somehow know that this was made by someone. It is information, not random etchings. Could the wind, water, and natural elements have made it? Mathematically, yes there is a tiny probability that it could have just so happened to have taken that form; however, the odds would be very much against it. Because their is information there is an information creator. I see our DNA as just that.
Finally, a bit more of a philosophical point. Consider this, do you have a purpose? Because to have a purpose means by definition that something is SUPPOSED to be. Regardless of how one thinks the world got here, I think the underlying question that motivates most people in this debate from both sides is whether or not their is a God, a creator, one who endows purpose.
Thanks for letting me write, and I hope this begins to provide some thoughts in response to the original question. My purpose is not to force my thoughts on you, nor is it to prove beyond all proof the x-y-z (or I guess more appropriately a-b-c :) on how the world was created. I'll respect you whether you are an atheistic evolutionist, theistic evolutionist, old-earth creationist, or six day creationist even though I may disagree with your conclusion. In the end there is a historical truth to this question. Intelligent discussions are good though until we find out! Here is an interesting web site and research center that recently published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal about intelligent design:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
More feed for thought. Have a great day, now back to hematopathology!
Respectfully,
John
10:10

Thank you for using a source not so horrendously biased as I keep seeing. I actually popped in, looked in the about section, the place actually studies evolution too, cool. Thanks.

As opposed to the bible, which has never ever ever been corrected.

Wrong. Bible has been changed, edited, whatever so many times you'd be surprised. It's been translated from several languages before ever reaching the English language. The Bible you read today is not the Bible the original guys wrote. Not by a long shot.

You should know what prophecy is. God spoke with an audible voice to Bill Subritzky (he is a faith healer in NZ) when his father was in a coma, as he was walking down the hallway towards the ward in the hospital that his father was in, God tolded him he would give his father 7 more years.


Correct me if I am mistaken, is it Catholic or Christian religion that says you'd die from hearing the voice of God? I think Catholic, just want clarification.

You are right, but everyone is slightly bias. To examine something properly you need an independant analysis of it.

No, what you need is a source that cares about neither side. Sort of like the referee in a baseball game or something.

My friend suddenly spoke in tongues, and this guy next to him interpreted it for him right at that moment in time.

You know, as much as I think it is bogus, it would be an interesting thing to see.

Thank you for using a source not so horrendously biased as I keep seeing. I actually popped in, looked in the about section, the place actually studies evolution too, cool. Thanks.

Yes, that's the kind of website I like. They develop intelligent design as a true scientific theory, or so it seems from the description - and they oppose Neo-Darwinism in quite a rational way. For every theory, there will be those that don't believe it and want to prove their own version - and that's what makes science advance! Studies and counter-studies. Fair enough. I just wish we laypeople didn't end up debating this - the scientists should be the ones deciding, not us...

Correct me if I am mistaken, is it Catholic or Christian religion that says you'd die from hearing the voice of God? I think Catholic, just want clarification.

Catholics are Christians, they are one of the original sects. (Sorry, raised in a Catholic family, and though no longer a religious individual, it still peeves me that people draw an irriational difference between Christianity and Catholicism)

All Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholics.
Catholics do not believe that those who hear the voice of God will die.
Catholics are not biblical literists
Nor do Catholics deny the big bang or evolution.

The Vatican II is available for review at http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html

The following website:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
Is very informative as well.

Oh, and BTW, I did read that section about "gifts." It was interesting. An atheist (or someone from a different religion) would say it's probably BS; everything said aloud can be taken metaphorically (prophecies, interpretations of "speaking in tongues," knowledge/wisdom), so even if said gift did not exist, people who believed that it did would see it.

For example, in your example about someone who had "heart problems," if nobody in the circle had direct heart problems, there would be at least somebody who had emotional problems - and that would also be interpreted as "heart problems." It's a case where a prophecy that is right-on-the-mark is remembered and and touted as evidence, and a prophecy that is wrong is simply interpreted differently, in a way that IS right. And just by chance, once in a while such prophecies will be dead-on. Ultimately, hearsay is not valid evidence.

[I remember at one point reading an article that described that if you know X people in your life, and think of each one of them an average of 10 times per year, and the death rate for people is such-and-such, then there'll be such and such a number of people each year that will claim to have had a "premonition" of the death of somebody else, just by statistics. I think it was the Skeptic column in Discover (or is that SciAm) at some point.]

You'd have to prove the existence "gifts" first before using them as evidence against evolution, so we can't just dismiss them. A clinical trial would serve the job well. Or, rather, several, and preferably published in a peer-reviewed journal and defended against criticism.

Yes, that's the kind of website I like. They develop intelligent design as a true scientific theory, or so it seems from the description - and they oppose Neo-Darwinism in quite a rational way. For every theory, there will be those that don't believe it and want to prove their own version - and that's what makes science advance! Studies and counter-studies. Fair enough. I just wish we laypeople didn't end up debating this - the scientists should be the ones deciding, not us...

What also is great about that site, if you go to the "About" page, it doesn't anywhere state that it is trying to disprove evolution, actually quite the opposite. It says it teaches the faults and strengths of evolution, which is a great way to teach it.

I'm new here, but not new to this argument. Look at this link I found some time ago.

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/

I'm new here, but not new to this argument. Look at this link I found some time ago.

http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/

Woo! Nice link! Thanks! *bookmarks*

It's near impossible for creationists to convince the scientific world because of 1 thing: Creation requires belief in God. If their audience believes in God, then the creationists have an easy time. However, if they don't believe in God, then it's virtually impossible, for God is the center of the Creationist argument. As it is impossible to dis/prove the existence of God, so it is impossible to dis/prove creationists.

This is a stupid statement.

Many, many, many scientists believe in God. In fact, the percentages are nearly as high as the general population.

The center of the Creationist argument is not God, it is that every single word of the over-translated and compiled Bible is absolutely and literally true in every way. This can and has been disproven.

There is also no way to account for new species rising out of others, for life forming in general, or for intellegence increasing. Mutations cannot account for additions of fins, intellegence, etc. because the are additions to the genes and a mutation is a broken or missing gene.

You haven't studied your biology very well. I gave a very good example earlier in the thread, so I'll be brief. Mutations can involve the copying an entire gene into the genome *twice*. Now, since you have two copies, one of them can mutate quite a bit without harm to the organism. Over time, it can code for an entirely new protein. This isn't a hard concept.

Now, if you aren't going to *learn* the biology, don't try to argue from the standpoint as if you know it.

To say that evolution is responsible for the beginning of life is to beleive in spontaneous generation, a known scientific impossiblility.

Abiogenesis is a different theory from evolution altogether. It depends on evolutionary theory, but is not part of evolution itself.

Evolution has no way of explaining how there is morality, intellegence, concousness (ack, spelling!), etc. Now I doubt that many of you have actually read this, and the evolutionists who have will probably not be moved. Just try to see my logic, as I try to see yours.

You have to have logic and know the facts before you can ask for someone to see your logic.

Now for creationism: you know, without religion, there is no defense. But beleiving in evolution will actually have to take more faith than believing that God (I refer to the Judeo-Christian God, the one true God) created everything.

Again, creation is not the same thing as Creationism. I personally believe that God created everything. When we study the origins of species, we are looking for the mechanism and rules that God imposed in order to do this. Creationism takes quite a bit of faith, considering the overwhelming evidence against it.

Yes, that's the kind of website I like. They develop intelligent design as a true scientific theory, or so it seems from the description - and they oppose Neo-Darwinism in quite a rational way. For every theory, there will be those that don't believe it and want to prove their own version - and that's what makes science advance! Studies and counter-studies. Fair enough. I just wish we laypeople didn't end up debating this - the scientists should be the ones deciding, not us...

If you see intelligent design (aka "we can't figure this out so obviously there is no explanation other than it was plopped down that way directly by the hand of God") as a "true scientific theory," you are sadly mistaken about science and what it involves.

http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

A Christian scientist would not have to accept their belief as a theory because they know it is truth. They have the Bible, which they believe is true. They know what it teaches, they know what it says about the Earth being created. Therefore they do not see their belief's as a theory, they are true.

Most of the people here will not understand this because they do not believe what the Christian Scientists do, they do not believe what Christians do. There can be no proof iff you do not believe in faith. Faith is the driving factor behind anything a Christian does. This being taught in school would not work, because in the end there is no proof to back up the Christian faith.

Like I said earlier, this thread is pointless, as no matter how much proof is given, no matter how much can be brought forward *if anyone wants to* it will always end at faith. God in science was not meant to be. God did not intend for people to find evidence of Him and then believe. God's "system" if you want to call it that, is set up so you must believe he exists. There will never be proof until he comes back. And by then, you don't have the chance to believe.

I know that last part will probably piss you off because you don't think it has any place in this thread. However if you really want to know why a Christian Scientist believes in Creation it will always end with that answer. Faith is required to believe, so you will never get a straight answer.

Goodness no! It is the only point I have been making across the three or four threads on this topic. I think creation "science" is absolutely pointless from both a scientific and religious point of view. I agree with you completely that attempting to prove "God's plan" shows phenomenal lack of faith.

http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

That's a fucking JOKE, right?

yea and the punchline is eternal damnation buddy

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 prove ,because there are fossils. By the way ,i find it interesting,that creationists became agressive,when they should prove their Theory and run out of arguments.Then they say ,you are possessed by Satan or such a stuff

http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

http://www.kkk.bz/

yea and the punchline is eternal damnation buddy


"It is heretic which makes the fire, not she who burns in it."

William Shakespeare, The Winter's Tale

Keep your concerns for your damnation to yourself.

yea and the punchline is eternal damnation buddy

HehehehehehehehAHHAHAAHAHA! I get it! This guy's fucking hilarious!

Seriously though. Hehehehe. Seriously though. What did you REALLY mean to post?

'Cause that guy's been proven to be wrong so many times that...he...hehehehe...it IS funny!

Wrong. Bible has been changed, edited, whatever so many times you'd be surprised. It's been translated from several languages before ever reaching the English language. The Bible you read today is not the Bible the original guys wrote. Not by a long shot.

He was using sarcasm, you twat.

Correct me if I am mistaken, is it Catholic or Christian religion that says you'd die from hearing the voice of God? I think Catholic, just want clarification.

Neither Catholics, or Christians (even though that word is grossly overused and generalized) believe that hearing Gods voice will kill you. Christians believe that seeing God will kill you.

Here's a page in which some of you might be interested

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/qa.asp
and especially http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

before you come back here and gaffaw and such, just keep in mind that these were written by Christians to help other Christians defend their beliefs. Which I suppose is exactly the topic of discussion (or at least was) in this thread.

ok what does a bunch of crazy americans have (kkk) to do with ANYTHING
and why the hell are you quoting me shakespeare (fag btw)
hopefully the rapture will happen soon
oh
and they found noahs ark too, explain that one

and why the hell are you quoting me shakespeare (fag btw)
Fag? Which is short for faggot, I presume? How was Shakespeare, arguably one of the greatest literature geniuses ever, a bundle of sticks?

And if you can't see how that was relevant, you need a brain scan.

oh and they found noahs ark too, explain that one

Source it.

excuse me??
im a christian, seeing god wont kill me
where did u learn that?

If you see intelligent design (aka "we can't figure this out so obviously there is no explanation other than it was plopped down that way directly by the hand of God") as a "true scientific theory," you are sadly mistaken about science and what it involves.

That website seemed to develop it as such - on the surface, they seemed to be doing sound science. I don't know the details. But you discarding a hypothesis just because you don't like how it sounds isn't valid either. Having other scientists look critically at evolution is a good thing - after all, Einstein's greatest contribution to Quantum Mechanics was picking apart all of the holes and forcing them to be patched up. There is nothing wrong with trying to find flaws, as long as it is done in a scientific manner.

...ok, actually, nevermind... I'm looking at that site, and searching it's article database, I find not scientific articles, but instead handwaving... nevermind, I thought we had a gem - scientific proponents of ID with a nice theory...

Except they do the same thing - they find complex systems, and say that "EVOLUTIONIST, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS!!!" [actually, this one article goes further - they say that "yes, you can come up with an explanation of this phenomenon... but you can't PROVE it."]

Nevermind. The same argument I presented earlier - comparing the rock with markings in the desert to the canal on mars - applies to that article...

Damn.

Well, at least they do a more scientific job than most other places... pretty good job, I wish all critics were like this.

Neither Catholics, or Christians (even though that word is grossly overused and generalized) believe that hearing Gods voice will kill you. Christians believe that seeing God will kill you.

Genesis 33:20 (When Moses asked to see God's glory). " But He said, 'You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.'" [NKJV]

However there are many instances in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, of people seeing visions of God, and even more of people hearing God's voice.

excuse me??
im a christian, seeing god wont kill me
where did u learn that?

God shows himself to Paul on the way to Damascus and he is blinded. It was my mistake for saying you die. Thats if you touch the ark of the Covenant.

My mistake, I apologize.

*Edit: oh well*

Here's a page in which some of you might be interested

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/qa.asp
and especially http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

before you come back here and gaffaw and such, just keep in mind that these were written by Christians to help other Christians defend their beliefs. Which I suppose is exactly the topic of discussion (or at least was) in this thread.

Oh dear lord what BS.

I click on your first link. I click on "creation - where's the proof?"

What do I get? I get a website NOT giving any evidence for creationism; I get a website saying "all evidence they give you can be interpreted the other way too."

Basically, they dismiss offhand all evidence, because we don't start with the assumption that God exists.

Basically, they start with the assumption that the bible is 100% right, and then say that "Thus, all evidence to the contrary is wrong, or can be interpreted differently."

This isn't science. This is religion. Go ahead and believe whatever the heck you want, but keep it out of science.

What assumption scientists start with is that "if some theory explains the evidence and makes correct predictions, then it is probably right." If you disagree with this assumption, then yes, I can't convince you. After all, it can all be an illusion. But that's the basic assumption of science - and if you disagree with it, you can keep your argument out of science.

As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’

However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.

What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.


Translation - "I tried teaching my kids the facts for creationism, but they were all wrong. So I taught them to start with a conclusion and just reinterpret all opposing facts."

Grr. That kind of thinking DOES infuriate me when it is used to justify something like teaching creationism in schools. Go ahead and brainwash your kids if you want, but don't try to force your views (which are NOT science) into a science classroom.

Basically, they dismiss offhand all evidence, because we don't start with the assumption that God exists.

What evidence is dismissed? The only thing that is questioned is your interpretation of said evidence.


Basically, they start with the assumption that the bible is 100% right, and then say that "Thus, all evidence to the contrary is wrong, or can be interpreted differently."

Of course all evidence can be interpreted differently. Especially when the interpretation is based on something as ingrained in the subject as whether or not God exists.


This isn't science. This is religion. Go ahead and believe whatever the heck you want, but keep it out of science.

To be brutally honest, I fail to see how abiogenisis and the Big Bang and other such topics have any place in science either. Nor did I claim that that link was written from a scientific point of veiw. Many of the other links on that page are, however.



What assumption scientists start with is that "if some theory explains the evidence and makes correct predictions, then it is probably right." If you disagree with this assumption, then yes, I can't convince you. After all, it can all be an illusion. But that's the basic assumption of science - and if you disagree with it, you can keep your argument out of science.
What predictions of evolutions' have come to pass? From what I've seen, and your definition, Evolution should not be classified as a 'theory' at all.

At any rate, I must go to bed now. *grumbles at his Econ lecture*
feel free to send me a telegram if you want.

Editted for tags.. yes I'm a newb on these boards

Grr. That kind of thinking DOES infuriate me when it is used to justify something like teaching creationism in schools. Go ahead and brainwash your kids if you want, but don't try to force your views (which are NOT science) into a science classroom.

I assure you there are quite a few people infuriated with the way children are 'brainwashed' with evolutionism in today's schools.

And once again, I feel inclined to say that in my opinion, evolution is no more scientific that creationism. Evolution wears the tag of science much more easily however, since it is not based on any type of religion, or ostensibly, the supernatural.

What predictions of evolutions' have come to pass? From what I've seen, and your definition, Evolution should not be classified as a 'theory' at all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is your evidence.

W
To be brutally honest, I fail to see how abiogenisis and the Big Bang and other such topics have any place in science either.


What is important isn't so much the subject matter, it's the method. Anything that can be approached using the scientific method has a place in science. If it was possible to apply the scientific method to determine the existence of God or the truth of the Bible, would be perfectly fine to include it in science. Except it's not possible - God and the Bible defy scientific reasoning, because they are by definition above the material world. God at least. The bible, being infallible, is simply reinterpreted every time that evidence is found to disprove a portion of it - it's right by definition. Which is fine in relition, go ahead! Just not in science.

Big Bang, on the other hand, is a veritable theory - it was invented to explain the motion of galaxies, but also turned out to apply/make predictions about the Cosmic Background Radiation, among other things.

Abiogenesis - again, it's the method. We hypothesize that if life originated a certain way, then creating such and such conditions in the lab would generate the biological molecules necessary for life.

If this method were applied to religion, then scientific religion would be quite fine in science classes. Except religion cannot, by definition, follow that method - it starts with the conclusion and molds all evidence to fit it. Not science, that.

I assure you there are quite a few people infuriated with the way children are 'brainwashed' with evolutionism in today's schools.

And once again, I feel inclined to say that in my opinion, evolution is no more scientific that creationism. Evolution wears the tag of science much more easily however, since it is not based on any type of religion, or ostensibly, the supernatural.

Go ahead and teach creationism in religious classes, because that's what religion entails.
We'll go and teach evolution in the science classes, because that's what science entails.

Everyone happy?

...evolution is as much a science as anything in biology and paleontology - depending on what you're talking about, it's either pure biology or a mix of biology and paleontology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA210.html - predictions of evolution. As well as the 29-evidences one.

What evidence is dismissed? The only thing that is questioned is your interpretation of said evidence.


Of course all evidence can be interpreted differently. Especially when the interpretation is based on something as ingrained in the subject as whether or not God exists.


Well, the page basically says:
"Creationism is right. All evidence to the contrary is misinterpreted."

Basically, it's telling the readers that ALL evidence can be molded to fit creationism.

Which is true. God is all-powerful - he can do anything, can make evolution seem to be true when it's really not. Or maybe he created the world ten seconds ago, complete with our memories. Or maybe an invisible pink unicorn did, just to laugh at us.

But that's not science. Science deals with changing theories, changing hypotheses... TESTABLE theories and hypotheses. Our understanding of the world is changing. The theory of evolution is changing, being refined. By now everybody is conclusively sure that evolution did happen - the question is how, what are the most important mechanisms, punctuated equilibrium or natural selection or genetic drift?

Hmm... wasn't this a thread about what predictions Creationism makes?

Anyone want to add some more to the ones that have been mentioned previously?

Genesis 33:20 (When Moses asked to see God's glory). " But He said, 'You cannot see My face; for no man shall see Me, and live.'" [NKJV]

However there are many instances in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, of people seeing visions of God, and even more of people hearing God's voice.


David Berkowitz heard demons speaking to him through his neighbor's dogs, but that only made him want to kill people.

I randomly chose a 'proof' and read through it. It was 4.2, DNA coding redundancy. Basically the claim is that we all (mammals) have a common ancestor because of how closely related our chromosone c is, given the possible different combinations.

From an evolutionist's standpoint: all mammals have similar chromosone c, therefore Common descent is true.

From a creationist's standpoint: all mammals have similar genetic makeup, which is to be expected if they have the same Creator.

Also, in order for something to be within the realm of science, it must be -testable-. The big bang is not. And as far as I know, no scientist has yet simulated spontaneous generation.

I randomly chose a 'proof' and read through it. It was 4.2, DNA coding redundancy. Basically the claim is that we all (mammals) have a common ancestor because of how closely related our chromosone c is, given the possible different combinations.

From an evolutionist's standpoint: all mammals have similar chromosone c, therefore Common descent is true.

From a creationist's standpoint: all mammals have similar genetic makeup, which is to be expected if they have the same Creator.
*curious* Why is that "to be expected"?

So if evolution is a fact, why does it have to be changed every few years to accomidate new findings.
That's the nature of a fact: "any of the circumstances of a case that exist or are alleged to exist in reality : a thing whose actual occurrence or existence is to be determined by the evidence presented at trial". A fact is something we accept as being true until it can be demonstrated to be false.

I randomly chose a 'proof' and read through it. It was 4.2, DNA coding redundancy. Basically the claim is that we all (mammals) have a common ancestor because of how closely related our chromosone c is, given the possible different combinations.

From an evolutionist's standpoint: all mammals have similar chromosone c, therefore Common descent is true.

From a creationist's standpoint: all mammals have similar genetic makeup, which is to be expected if they have the same Creator.

From an evolutionist's standpoint: all mammals have similar cytochrome c, with more closely related species having fewer differences . Therefore, common descent is most likely true.

If you assume the creator made all animals, there is no reason to suppose that something like the DNA for a critical, important protein would have different sequences in different species, especially since it fulfills the same function. And there is no reason for the differences to be arranged in a hierarchy, with similar species having fewer differences.


Also, in order for something to be within the realm of science, it must be -testable-. The big bang is not. And as far as I know, no scientist has yet simulated spontaneous generation.

The Big Bang itself is not testable, but its PREDICTIONS are. I point you to the cosmic background radiation. (Just like General Relativity itself is not testable - we can't "measure the curvature of space." But its PREDICTIONS are - we can see how light is deflected by the sun, for example.)

Well, at least they do a more scientific job than most other places... pretty good job, I wish all critics were like this.

Actually, I think people who claim to be science and can actually convince the uneducated masses that they are part of science (although they are actually far from it) are much more dangerous than the obvious kooks.

Catholics are Christians, they are one of the original sects. (Sorry, raised in a Catholic family, and though no longer a religious individual, it still peeves me that people draw an irriational difference between Christianity and Catholicism)

All Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholics.
Catholics do not believe that those who hear the voice of God will die.
Catholics are not biblical literists
Nor do Catholics deny the big bang or evolution.

The Vatican II is available for review at http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/v1.html

Your wrong about one thing there, catholicism is not a sect - it is a denomination of the christian churches, a true example of a sect (or cult) are the "jehovah's witnessess." The catholics do have some odd teachings like how when you have mass the wine turns into christs blood - but its not a sect.

To be brutally honest, I fail to see how abiogenisis and the Big Bang and other such topics have any place in science either.



Abiogensis is not studied in depth in school because it is not so much a theory as the most reasonable hypothesis.
There is not a shred of evidence that anything has ever been designed or created supernaturally, so it is unreasonable to assume that supernatural processes are at work in any situation.

We have enough evidence to reasonably conclude that the universe did begin with an outward expansion from singularity, ie "big bang." Cosmic background radiation and other observations are evidence for this, and as a basic and well evidenced theory it is requisite for an honest science education.

*sigh*

Christians do not have to defend or "prove" their religious beliefs. That is not, and has never been, the point of these discussions.

No reasonable person I know of is challenging the right of religious people to believe whatever they want about creation. If you want to tell me the earth sits on the back of a tortoise who am I to disabuse you of that belief? The problem, and main point of these discussions, is that creationists are demanding that their religious beliefs be taught in public schools and universities as SCIENCE. However, if they want to be called a science they must accept certain protocols and standards of scientific proof, just like other theories, including evolution.

To be a science creationists have to accept their belief is a theory. They have to accept future data could come along and overturn their theory. They have to constantly subject their theory to experimentation, tests, and peer review, updating it and changing it as new facts appear.

Do you know any creationists willing to accept those constraints on their beliefs? Can you name any creationist Christians willing to downgrade their faith to a theory?

Why would people want their religion put on the same level as worldly scientific theory? As I have said many times (and have yet to have a religious Christian refute the point), trying to turn your faith into scientific fact is not only bad science, but piss poor religion.

Ahhh, you don't get it, do you?? See, they want their faith taught as FACT...as SCIENTIFIC FACT...without the burden of proving a damn thing.
Because, of course, they CAN'T prove a damn thing, and they know it.

At least, they cannot prove it in a non-biased, empirical scientific manner. They just want the ability to cram their faith into little kids' heads as FACT without anything to back it up.

Personally, I have no problem with Creationism or religion being taught in our schools..AS AN ELECTIVE...and AS A THEORY!!

I have a problem when they want to FORCE all children to learn about, specifically THEIR faith...and have it treated as SCIENTIFIC FACT, with none of the burdens of scientific empirical evidence.

See, these people can teach their stupid religion all they want...IN THEIR CHURCH OR IN THEIR HOME!! Damned if I want MY tax dollars going to preach a bunch of hatred, bigotry and prejudice to little kids. Heaven knows they pick up enough of that already...some kids can be so mean...

Firstly, who says its an act?
Ive heard my Mum speak in tounges, (and she wasnt babling on the ground and out of control).
I would be dishounouring God if I were lying to you.
You can also get "interpreters" who have the gift of interpreting languages.

To be totally sure if you found someone who spoke arabic (in tounges) for example and you knew someone who was arabic, and spoke arabic fluently then you could see if they could interpret it to see if it is a load of poppycock.

I can see you are taking offense at my question. So be it. I say it's an act, it's B.S., and it's poppycock. I don't know your Mum from Eve, to be honest...and your word that she isn't acting isn't good enough to convince me. Nobody that I know and trust - who are the only ones who could convince me otherwise...has ever spoken in tongues. I have witnessed others do it before, and I had all I could do to keep myself from laughing out loud.

Now, you probably think I'm attacking your Mum. I'm not. Why would I? I don't know her. But, you are asking me to accept, at face value, the notion that someone could speak in a language they never learned, and that they could also understand what they are even saying...and with no proof, or texts, you are asking me to accept that as evidence of this "phenomena."

Sorry, it does not convince me. when someone can come out with a textbook of these "languages" so I can compare what they are saying with the real McCoy...then maybe I'd believe.

Till then, I see it as nothing more than rolling around on the floor, speaking nonsense, and a very good act...nothing more.

Again...and I stress this...this is not an attack on your Mum, though you probably see it as such. If so, all I can say to that is...i'm sorry you feel that way. but put yourself in my shoes...as a non-believer in such a phenomena, would you take the word of a complete stranger as any sort of proof whatsoever? With nothing whatsoever to back up the veracity of the claims made, by someone you do not know?

Science: if the facts do not fit the theory and conclusion then the theory and conclusion must be changed to fit the facts.

Creationism/Pseudo Science: if the facts do not fit the theory and conclusion then the facts must be wrong and must be changed.

Whew, too many posts to look through, so I will just state my case without responding to anyone.

First of all, you cannot take God out of creationism. It is impossible to argue for it and not include God. Now since this topic is not arguing the existance of God, I will assume that all of you beleive in him (even though the majority of you do not).

I want to first clarify that I do agree with micro-evolution, species becoming sub-species; and not macro-evolution, species becoming seperate species entirly. The simple argument against macro-evolution is that there is no fossil evidence of a mid-evolutionary stage (don't mention Archyopteryx because I can prove it is a full-formed bird). There is also no way to account for new species rising out of others, for life forming in general, or for intellegence increasing. Mutations cannot account for additions of fins, intellegence, etc. because the are additions to the genes and a mutation is a broken or missing gene. To say that evolution is responsible for the beginning of life is to beleive in spontaneous generation, a known scientific impossiblility. Evolution has no way of explaining how there is morality, intellegence, concousness (ack, spelling!), etc. Now I doubt that many of you have actually read this, and the evolutionists who have will probably not be moved. Just try to see my logic, as I try to see yours.

Now for creationism: you know, without religion, there is no defense. But beleiving in evolution will actually have to take more faith than believing that God (I refer to the Judeo-Christian God, the one true God) created everything.

Well, to my way of thought, the notion that God created everything...with no scientific evidence to back it up, and no effort to even FIND any scientific evidence of this...and to just accept that at face value is just plain lazy and not very intelligent, either. It purports to explain something by not explaining it.

A Christian scientist would not have to accept their belief as a theory because they know it is truth. They have the Bible, which they believe is true. They know what it teaches, they know what it says about the Earth being created. Therefore they do not see their belief's as a theory, they are true.

Most of the people here will not understand this because they do not believe what the Christian Scientists do, they do not believe what Christians do. There can be no proof iff you do not believe in faith. Faith is the driving factor behind anything a Christian does. This being taught in school would not work, because in the end there is no proof to back up the Christian faith.

Like I said earlier, this thread is pointless, as no matter how much proof is given, no matter how much can be brought forward *if anyone wants to* it will always end at faith. God in science was not meant to be. God did not intend for people to find evidence of Him and then believe. God's "system" if you want to call it that, is set up so you must believe he exists. There will never be proof until he comes back. And by then, you don't have the chance to believe.

I know that last part will probably piss you off because you don't think it has any place in this thread. However if you really want to know why a Christian Scientist believes in Creation it will always end with that answer. Faith is required to believe, so you will never get a straight answer.

Which is precisely why it should not be taught as SCIENTIFIC FACT in public schools!
What did Jesus say to Doubting Thomas? "You believe because you have seen. blessed are those who have not seen, yet still believe."

Therein lies the problem. We can't see, observe, know, we cannot have empirical scientific proof. Without that, it has no place being taught in our schools...unless you want to have it as an elective, not required course...and then, only if it is taught as a faith, and not as science.

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:

ROFLMA

This article could be titled the "Creationists Spin."

Both science and Christianity are supposed to be about truth, yet this page about creationism (which is a fusion of creation and science) uses so many misleading tactics. Why should anyone believe any of it.

Here is just one example (chosen specifically because it is the one that angers me the most).

The formation of molecules or atoms into geometric patterns such as snowflakes or crystals reflects movement towards equilibrium—a lower energy level, and a more stable arrangement of the molecules or atoms into simple, uniform, repeating structures with minimal complexity, and no function. These are not examples of matter forming itself into more organized or more complex structures or systems (as postulated in evolutionist theory), even though they may certainly reflect “order” in the form of simple patterns.

Steiger fails to recognize the profound difference between these examples of low-energy molecular crystals and the high-energy growth process of living organisms (seeds sprouting into flowering plants and eggs developing into chicks). His equating these two very different phenomena reveals a serious misunderstanding of thermodynamics (as well as molecular biology) on his part, and he perpetuates this error in the balance of both his essays, as we shall see.

[...]Nobel Prize winner Ilya Prigogine also has no problem defining the difference:

“The point is that in a non-isolated [open] system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low-entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystals as well as for the phenomena of phase transitions. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures.”
[I. Prigogine, G. Nicolis and A. Babloyants, Physics Today 25(11):23 (1972)] (the bolded part is my emphasis)

The article you linked to claims to use the quotes of actual scientist in context. Total bullshit.

The statement by Ilya Prigogene acknowledged that the simple "open system" model that the article was arguing against was not enough to explain the ordering of the universe into complex forms. However, anyone who knows about Prigogine and his works knows that he was not arguing that the the formation of complex systems (such as life) by evolution was impossible. Far from denying that the second law of thermodynamics prevents the universe from ordering itself into complex forms, the work of Prigogine EXPANDS the open system to model to show how energy, matter, and life continuosly gain complexity and evolve in the direction of time and how this is not in defiance of the second law of thermodynamics. He won his nobel prize in 1977 largely becaue of his theory of dissipative structures - a key theory in explaining how matter and energy can spontaneously order themselves into complex structures (and thus a theory which supports evolution).

Using a quote of Prigogine's in an attempt to "prove" that the second law of thermodynamics prevents the emergence of complex stuctures is hypocrisy of the worst sort.

I can see you are taking offense at my question. So be it. I say it's an act, it's B.S., and it's poppycock. I don't know your Mum from Eve, to be honest...and your word that she isn't acting isn't good enough to convince me. Nobody that I know and trust - who are the only ones who could convince me otherwise...has ever spoken in tongues. I have witnessed others do it before, and I had all I could do to keep myself from laughing out loud.

Now, you probably think I'm attacking your Mum. I'm not. Why would I? I don't know her. But, you are asking me to accept, at face value, the notion that someone could speak in a language they never learned, and that they could also understand what they are even saying...and with no proof, or texts, you are asking me to accept that as evidence of this "phenomena."

Sorry, it does not convince me. when someone can come out with a textbook of these "languages" so I can compare what they are saying with the real McCoy...then maybe I'd believe.

Till then, I see it as nothing more than rolling around on the floor, speaking nonsense, and a very good act...nothing more.

Again...and I stress this...this is not an attack on your Mum, though you probably see it as such. If so, all I can say to that is...i'm sorry you feel that way. but put yourself in my shoes...as a non-believer in such a phenomena, would you take the word of a complete stranger as any sort of proof whatsoever? With nothing whatsoever to back up the veracity of the claims made, by someone you do not know?


I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss it as an "act."

There are a great many different religious groups around the world that hold ceremonies where individuals are driven into 'trances' or other such 'states of mind' where they often babble noises and cavort around.

It isnt necessarily the person pretending to do it, it is more a physiological phenomenon of the brain.

I'm not neurologist or whatever sort of psychologist studies that sort of thing, so i cant be any more specific on how precisely it is done, but it is rather common.

It is especially common among primitive religions.

My friend suddenly spoke in tongues, and this guy next to him interpreted it for him right at that moment in time.

And that is supposed to convince me? I don't know your friend, you, or the other guy. I didn't witness it. There is no textbook I can use, myself, to verify this. I have seen hypnotists hypnotize people into speaking "Moon language" on stage before, too. Doesn't prove squat. It's an act.

My friend suddenly spoke in tongues, and this guy next to him interpreted it for him right at that moment in time.


Some people claim that they have seen space ships land and aliens come out and do things.

Some people even claim that these space aliens have abducted them.

Many of these claims are substantiated by the claims of other people who believe strongly that aliens exist and abduct people.

He was using sarcasm, you twat.

Well obviously I didn't catch the sarcasm. No need for name calling.


Neither Catholics, or Christians (even though that word is grossly overused and generalized) believe that hearing Gods voice will kill you. Christians believe that seeing God will kill you.

Ah, okay, well that clears things up.

Your wrong about one thing there, catholicism is not a sect - it is a denomination of the christian churches, a true example of a sect (or cult) are the "jehovah's witnessess." The catholics do have some odd teachings like how when you have mass the wine turns into christs blood - but its not a sect.

Correct, denomination is the better term.

But wait, let me see...

sect: religious denomination: a denomination of a larger religious group.

hmm...

cult: religion: a system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided or unorthodox.

Am I wrong?

To be brutally honest, I fail to see how abiogenisis and the Big Bang and other such topics have any place in science either. Nor did I claim that that link was written from a scientific point of veiw. Many of the other links on that page are, however.


Big Bang is science, a theory, but still science, therefore it belongs in a science class.

REligion was mde by select individuals for personal emporement example:Moses,Jesus,Muhammed,any of the early Popes, heads of orthodox churches, Joseph Smith. Everyone who created a religion created it for themselves. Also it helps those who do not have faith int he future of the earth have faith in their future that ehy will go to a magical place where there are no problems.

Correct me if I am mistaken, is it Catholic or Christian religion that says you'd die from hearing the voice of God? I think Catholic, just want clarification.

Catholic. Specifically. I know because I was raised Catholic.

Also, ever see the movie "Dogma?" I laughed my ass off at that movie. It was, of course, a parody on Catholicism. I still remember Alan Rickman,playing Metatron, saying, of God's voice, "Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims that God has sopken to them, they're speaking to me. Or they were speaking to themselves." "Human beings have neither the aural, nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in, and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out."

God I love that movie!

Catholic. Specifically. I know because I was raised Catholic.

Also, ever see the movie "Dogma?" I laughed my ass off at that movie. It was, of course, a parody on Catholicism. I still remember Alan Rickman,playing Metatron, saying, of God's voice, "Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims that God has sopken to them, they're speaking to me. Or they were speaking to themselves." "Human beings have neither the aural, nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in, and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out."

God I love that movie!

That's sort of why I asked, I remembered that from the movie and just didn't want to believe it if it wasn't true.

Well, to my way of thought, the notion that God created everything...with no scientific evidence to back it up, and no effort to even FIND any scientific evidence of this...and to just accept that at face value is just plain lazy and not very intelligent, either. It purports to explain something by not explaining it.

On the other hand, if creationists do believe that God was behind the big bang, and evolution, then anyone studying the universe is attempting to determine whether creationism is true or not.

If in the beginning the universe was deviod of matter, then some unknown event or intervening force that introduced matter had to occur. As, matter can niether be created or destroyed. So, either there is a god, or we believe in a big bang that is lacking as a full fledged theory as it violates the laws of physics, or both fail, and a third explanation is necessary.

On the other hand, if creationists do believe that God was behind the big bang, and evolution, then anyone studying the universe is attempting to determine whether creationism is true or not.

If in the beginning the universe was deviod of matter, then some unknown event or intervening force that introduced matter had to occur. As, matter can niether be created or destroyed. So, either there is a god, or we believe in a big bang that is lacking as a full fledged theory as it violates the laws of physics, or both fail, and a third explanation is necessary.



There is no "prior to" the big bang because the dimension of time is tied up in the dimension of space and when singularity existed (of all energy, mind you, since matter = energy) then all events were contained in the same point of time, and self-causation was inevitable, and indeed, occured.

Also, if you were unaware, causality breaks down on a quantum level.

Catholic. Specifically. I know because I was raised Catholic.

Also, ever see the movie "Dogma?" I laughed my ass off at that movie. It was, of course, a parody on Catholicism. I still remember Alan Rickman,playing Metatron, saying, of God's voice, "Any documented occasion when some yahoo claims that God has sopken to them, they're speaking to me. Or they were speaking to themselves." "Human beings have neither the aural, nor the psychological capacity to withstand the awesome power of God's true voice. Were you to hear it, your mind would cave in, and your heart would explode within your chest. We went through five Adams before we figured that one out."

God I love that movie!

That is not a true Catholic belief.

There is no "prior to" the big bang because the dimension of time is tied up in the dimension of space and when singularity existed (of all energy, mind you, since matter = energy) then all events were contained in the same point of time, and self-causation was inevitable, and indeed, occured.

Also, if you were unaware, causality breaks down on a quantum level.


Aware that causality breaks down at quantum level. Time is irrelevant. Your equation is lacking.

To believe in self causation being inevitable is indeed faith. To rely on our existence as proof is circular reasoning. Just as creationism.

Keep in mind the study on which the big bang relies. It invokes the same reasoning as creationism. But for a big bang we are unaware of any other source of such background noise.

Aware that causality breaks down at quantum level. Time is irrelevant. Your equation is lacking.

To believe in self causation being inevitable is indeed faith. To rely on our existence as proof is circular reasoning. Just as creationism.

Keep in mind the study on which the big bang relies. It invokes the same reasoning as creationism. But for a big bang we are unaware of any other source of such background noise.


Hypothesis made as part of the big bang theory have been recently observed.

Cosmic background radiation is one of them, there are many.

A visist to the physics department of your university would no doubt yield some more up to date and relevent information than i can provide.

Main argument is still but for a big bang we are unaware of any other sources that could lead to the observations.

So long as it cannot be explained how the singularity came into being, and how energy, a wavelength, became mass, then religions can not be denied their belief that a supreme being played a role in the creation of the universe. Some die herds will still believe God played a role regardless.

Worked in the physics department while at University, at a cyclotrone and nuclear laboratory nonetheless.

That is not a true Catholic belief.
Well, I sure remember getting taught something like that in Sunday School.

Then again, if you think about it, didn't God speak to Moses from a burning bush?

Burning bush...ah, damn, don't go there, it is bringing up some very nice mental images for me....

matter can niether be created or destroyed...

Well, there goes the Creationist theory right out the window! If matter cannot be created, then how would God have done it?

In a simple world yeah. But the whole God is the creator of all things makes it a bit more difficult than that.

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"?

Be fair. Neither can be proven. But there is much more logic (not for this site).

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.


Unfortunately, as far as I can see all said above is far away from the topic of this thread. Topic was NOT to sum up what lacks in explanation exists in the theories of evolution and also Big Bang (even if the arguments against big bang theory hint to the fact that the author does not have reasonable insight in modern physics -many reasons are based on the implicit assumption that time existed before the big bang) but the topic of the thread was to give prove that creationism is a more valuable theory to explain how life developed on this planet/universe. Unfortunately nothing was stated about that in the very very long topic of the author.

To the guy who said that he doubts chemical or electrical processes can create life...sex man. Sex. Or, to put it less humourously, life is nothing BUT chemical and electrical processes. The existence of a soul, or a spirit or whatever is a) unproven, and b) theoretically unprovable, unless it exists as some sort of verifiable matter, energy, etc., so that cannot (yet) scientifically play into the discussion. The point I'm trying to make, is that as far as we know, life is nothing more than chemical and electrical processes. Any arguments (I could think of a few...reactions...?) would be greatly appreciated. :D

To the guy who said that he doubts chemical or electrical processes can create life...sex man. Sex. Or, to put it less humourously, life is nothing BUT chemical and electrical processes. The existence of a soul, or a spirit or whatever is a) unproven, and b) theoretically unprovable, unless it exists as some sort of verifiable matter, energy, etc., so that cannot (yet) scientifically play into the discussion. The point I'm trying to make, is that as far as we know, life is nothing more than chemical and electrical processes. Any arguments (I could think of a few...reactions...?) would be greatly appreciated. :D
I think what he may have been getting at is when does a chemical reaction or set of reactions beocme life? Or his may not believe that life can spontaniously be created simply by haviong electrical activity in the presence of chemicals (I know that's simplistic but that is the basis of evolution is it not).
Not that I'm convinced either way but get annoyed at the whole if it's not scientific it's not valid theory.
As with Homeopathy (Spelling) bunk according to many, dilutions too low to have any effect, placebo they say, but there are vets who use some remidies with success.
So just becuase science can't explain some thing does not make it untrue, it just shows the inadequate science we currently work with.

Not that I'm convinced either way but get annoyed at the whole if it's not scientific it's not valid theory.
As with Homeopathy (Spelling) bunk according to many, dilutions too low to have any effect, placebo they say, but there are vets who use some remidies with success.
So just becuase science can't explain some thing does not make it untrue, it just shows the inadequate science we currently work with.

But if it's not scientific, it should not be taught in science classes.

There are lots of things that might be true. That doesn't mean we should teach them all in schools. Just because science can't explain something does not make it untrue - but nor does the inability of science to describe something give everyone free reign to call it true.

I'll repeat. If it's not scientific, it should not be taught in science classes. What's so hard to understand about that?

But if it's not scientific, it should not be taught in science classes. What's so difficult to understand about that?
Lol give them a break … they want equal representation with out equal standards

Lol give them a break … they want equal representation with out equal standards

Yup, and then by giving them that little slice of the cake, all the other groups need to get a slice too...I don't know what is so hard to understand either really. If it isn't science, why should it be in a science class? Anyone want to explain that one? Why? lol...

Bumped for new people.

Some people say evolution is bunk because life is too horribly complex too exist by chance. There are trillions of trillions of stars in the universe. Most of them have planets. Is it so hard to believe that in ten billion years (i think) just one of them could have had that certain chemical proccess? And who's to say that our life is the only life the universe is capable of creating. We live in an incomprehensably huge universe, and pretty much anything that can happen probably already has. I bet you at least one of those trillions of trillions of trillions of planets is one giant casino formed by a highly unlikey combination of thermodynamic activity and erosion. Given the size of the universe, is it really so impossible?

I would hate to have to say it but I believe evolution more than creationism. but i believe evolution is the work of a higher being.

look at it as a painter painting a panting. he starts from nothing, but slowly builds his visions over time, he does not just snap his fingers and gets exactly what he wants. he trys new techniques, and if it is something he does not like, simply discontinues it or perhaps modifies it to fit his vision.

either my last statement is true


or mankind is an alien fourth grade science project gone horribly horribly wrong

My views on the origin of stuff:

In the beginning God created the universe. Some say that the universe could have created itself, and hold advanced degrees in the most impossible of physics to prove it. I say to them, reality must have come from somewhere so God must exist. As to where God came from, he's omnipotent. He can do stuff like exist without ever being created. God set the universe in motion and life is part of the proccess.

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.
Actually, anyone who believes that evolution can answer the questions as to the origin of life is the one who doesn't understand science. I do believe in Microevolution, as that has been proven. However to say that evolution answers all the questions would be quite ignorant. Evolution requires something before it for anything to happen, and seeing as a common law of physics is that matter cannot be created by anything material, something outside of the material world would have had to cause it, i.e. a divine creator. Science does no more than support a divine creator. The Big Bang Theory, the so called origin of the universe, relies on the "fact" that there was still matter before it. I do believe in Microevolution, but we have never seen a creature evolve outside of it's basic species. Yes, bacteria can become more immune to antibodies, and there are slight changes within species, but we have never actually seen evolution ever happen over our studies.

My views on the origin of stuff:

In the beginning God created the universe. Some say that the universe could have created itself, and hold advanced degrees in the most impossible of physics to prove it. I say to them, reality must have come from somewhere so God must exist. As to where God came from, he's omnipotent. He can do stuff like exist without ever being created. God set the universe in motion and life is part of the proccess.
So your argument boils down to “We don’t know yet so god MUST exist”
Lol just because we can not currently explain a phenomenon (or the average person e.g. you and me) cant understand it does not mean it is not real

Or something out there does not exist

Not saying this proves god does not exist rather a lack of understanding does not prove anything beyond the fact that we don’t understand it

Actually, anyone who believes that evolution can answer the questions as to the origin of life is the one who doesn't understand science.

Agree completely. Evolution explains how living things evolve, not how the first one was created. That's aboigenesis, and and is not a part of evolution.


I do believe in Microevolution, as that has been proven. However to say that evolution answers all the questions would be quite ignorant. Evolution requires something before it for anything to happen, and seeing as a common law of physics is that matter cannot be created by anything material,

True, so far. Evolution doesn't claim to answer all of the questions. It only claims to answer the question of how the diverse species we see arose from the first living thing.


something outside of the material world would have had to cause it, i.e. a divine creator. Science does no more than support a divine creator. The Big Bang Theory, the so called origin of the universe, relies on the "fact" that there was still matter before it.

Whoa there! Where'd you get the idea that "something outside the material world" implies "a divine creator" ?

Some possible consequences of the equations of String Theory give a nice explanation of how our universe can appear.
Some variants on quantum mechanical theory allow for the possibility of our universe appearing.

Are they proven? Hell no.
But neither is "a divine creator."

Until we find evidence one way or the other, we can leave it as "we don't know."


I do believe in Microevolution, but we have never seen a creature evolve outside of it's basic species. Yes, bacteria can become more immune to antibodies, and there are slight changes within species, but we have never actually seen evolution ever happen over our studies.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html gives a nice long list of times where we have seen new species arise.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html more there.

The slow rate of change that we observe, plus occasional speciation events, are enough to account for the variety we see today - three and a half billion years is a long time.

Besides, we have plenty of indirect evidence for evolution.

Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

We have the fossil record, which shows that
a) the makeup of species on the earth changed over time
b) certain "transitions" between species; not particularly many, since fossilization is rare, but some. The transition from apes to humans, for example, is well-documented.

For more, read http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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

I personally believe that neither evolution or Creationism can be proven or disproven scientifically. However, that's just me.

I personally believe that neither evolution or Creationism can be proven or disproven scientifically. However, that's just me.

No, that's not just you, unfortunately many others are equally misguided.

Evolution, as a scientific theory, makes plenty of predictions which are FALSIFIABLE. There are plenty of potential finds that would disprove evolution. There are plenty of things which serve as evidence for evolution.

Of course it can't be "proven" in the mathematical sense of the term - but it CAN be "proven" in the scientific sense of the term.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ has a nice concise summary of various evidences for evolution.

Evolution, as a scientific theory, makes plenty of predictions which are FALSIFIABLE. There are plenty of potential finds that would disprove evolution. There are plenty of things which serve as evidence for evolution.
Well, to be fair, evolution will probably never be disproven. It will probably be added to, but it is such a fundamental part of all biology that it is hard to concieve it could be scientifically proven wrong. Though it's not like evolutionary theory won't develop, it already has quite a bit. Take Darwinism and neo-Darwinism for instance. "Survival of the fittest" to "survival of the fittest genome".