NationStates Jolt Archive

So many times on NS General I have seen creationists claim that Literal Biblical Creation has piles of proof, and yet no-one has ever bothered to point this out to me. Well, here's your chance.

Some rules:

Please, please, please do not turn this into a metaphysical debate about the nature of "proof". Lets try and talk about this in terms of evidence, and the term "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Secondly, lets not keep this to an Evolution vs Creation debate. Big Bang theory doesn't tend to get much of a mention onf NS General, which is a great shame.

Thirdly, this is NOT a God vs Science debate. Belief in both God and Evolution/Big Bang theories is not contradictory. I myself am a fervent Christian and believe in Evolution and the Big Bang, as has the Catholic Church since the end of the Second Vatican Council in 1966.

So Creationists, please come into this discussion with an open mind.

I know you don't want a discussion of what constitutes "proof." However, remember that "proof" can be found for anything, so long as you are willing to ignore all other factors:



Suppose I saw a young chicken following a dog around wrote a book that said that dogs give birth to chickens. The following would be an example of the approaches:

1) Scientist - There is evidence that chickens sometimes follow dogs, but they also sometimes follow other chickens. Sometimes they even follow humans. Let's design an experiment and watch both.... Dogs have never actually been observed giving birth to chickens. However, other chickens have laid eggs that become chickens, so it seems that chickens lead to chickens. But I wonder why the chicken was following the dog.... Let's design an experiment... Oh, look! Chickens follow whatever they see move first, we can make chickens follow dogs, people, and robots. Interesting.

2) Creationist - Dogs give birth to chickens! The proof is right here! The chicken is following the dog!! That chickenist is wrong because in that one experiment, one of the eggs didn't hatch.

3) Intelligent Designist - Dogs give birth to chickens, but the process is so complicated that only an intelligent creator could have possibly come up with it.

La-di-da

Do you give birth to chickens too?:p;):D

Do you give birth to chickens too?:p;):D

On occasion. Cows too. =)

That was the most intelligent thing I have read in this forum all day.

Keep up the good work, Dem!

But it really does just come down to the nature of proof.

The scientist's approach: I have a theory. I find some evidence that contradicts my theory. I try to think of a theory that is consistent with this evidence.

The creationist's approach: I have a theory. It is so vague that it is impossible to contradict, whether it's true or not. I try to poke holes in the scientist's theory, despite the fact that it actually helps him.


Now, I don't object to people believing in God or a creator. I object to people trying to address the question with science.

I wonder if he had said "Please, please, please do turn this into a metaphysical debate about the nature of "proof" if anyone would have mentioned it? Hehe.

I wonder if he had said "Please, please, please do turn this into a metaphysical debate about the nature of "proof" if anyone would have mentioned it? Hehe.

...probably ...

I'll throw out something to play with before the real creationists show up.

If God creates life, then life should exist. Life exists, which is consistent with the scenario of God creating life

I'll throw out something to play with before the real creationists show up.

If God creates life, then life should exist. Life exists, which is consistent with the scenario of God creating life
Yes, everything is consistent with "God made it that way." That was the point of my over-simplification of the creationist's argument.

On the flip side, everything is consistent with "God doesn't exist, but nobody knows how the universe actually works."

As far as I know, there is not a bit of evidence for creationism, any more than there is a bit of evidence for any other creation stories from ancient Greece or from American Indian lore. Evolution is based in something, and even if it is a theory, it's based in more than a group of people just wondering how the hell the world was created.

I believe there's a decent chance that a higher being exists, but if so, that higher being is not exactly twoo hands-on with Earth. And I have a hard time with any system of beliefs whose main backing is people saying, "I don't need proof; I have faith."

Please, please, please do not turn this into a metaphysical debate about the nature of "proof". Lets try and talk about this in terms of evidence, and the term "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Thirdly, this is NOT a God vs Science debate. Belief in both God and Evolution/Big Bang theories is not contradictory.
So Creationists, please come into this discussion with an open mind.

Beyond reasonable doubt: When a reasonable person is without doubt. Any person who is totally convinced of anything based on evidence presented by an imperfect system without any doubt should not be considered reasonable.

I agree, science and religion don't have to conflict, but why use the methods of one to rule out the other?

Once I read a creationists "point" that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodinamics... I know I saw the answer to that "point" somewhere, I think it has to do something with quantum physics and with the fact that the 2nd law applies only on a huge scale (the universe for example) and not the evolutionary process, but i'm not sure... Does anyone know why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodinamics? Thank you.

Once I read a creationists "point" that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodinamics... I know I saw the answer to that "point" somewhere, I think it has to do something with quantum physics and with the fact that the 2nd law applies only on a huge scale (the universe for example) and not the evolutionary process, but i'm not sure... Does anyone know why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodinamics? Thank you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

I merely object to the fact that people will dedicate their lives to a theory, religious or not, without learning about the scientific and political history of that specific theory. Mainly Christianity.

Once I read a creationists "point" that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodinamics... I know I saw the answer to that "point" somewhere, I think it has to do something with quantum physics and with the fact that the 2nd law applies only on a huge scale (the universe for example) and not the evolutionary process, but i'm not sure... Does anyone know why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodinamics? Thank you.
Well I dont know much about thermodynamics, but I dont see how the 2nd contradicts evolution of lifeforms...

Evolution is based in something, and even if it is a theory, it's based in more than a group of people just wondering how the hell the world was created.

Excuse me, did I miss something here? Evoloution is based on.... what?

I believe there's a decent chance that a higher being exists, but if so, that higher being is not exactly twoo hands-on with Earth.

Just out of curiousity, what makes you say that?

I'd say more, but I should've gone to bed a few hours ago...

after a series of instances, I feel like a drive by :gundge:

thankfully, I do see how it contradicts and I can not possible see why you would believe God would use evolution as a tool for the bible's 6 day creation stuff

Read JP Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow". It deals with scientific theories that are widely believed to be true without sufficient proof by ordinary scientific standards ("science myths"). Evolution is featured prominently.

http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200407/0743488288_toc.htm

a sample...

Life's Upside-Down Tree: The First Failed Prediction

The theory predicted not merely that transitional forms would be found, but implied that the complete record would consist mainly of transitionals; what we think of as fixed species would turn out to be just arbitrary—way stations in a process of continual change. Hence, what we should find is a treelike branching structure following the lines of descent from a comparatively few ancient ancestors of the major groups, radiating outward from a well-represented trunk and limb formation laid down through the bulk of geological time as new orders and classes appear, to a profusion of twigs showing the diversity reached in the most recent times. In fact, this describes exactly the depictions of the "Tree of Life" elaborately developed and embellished in Victorian treatises on the wondrous new theory and familiar to museum visitors and anyone conversant with textbooks in use up to quite recent times.

But such depictions figure less prominently in the books that are produced today—or more commonly are omitted altogether. The reason is that the story actually told by the fossils in the rocks is the complete opposite. The Victorians' inspiration must have stemmed mainly from enthusiasm and conviction once they knew what the answer had to be. Species, and all the successively higher groups composed of species—genus, family, order, class, phylum—appear abruptly, fully differentiated and specialized, in sudden epochs of innovation just as the catastrophists had always said, without any intermediates leading up to them or linking them together. The most remarkable thing about them is their stability thereafter—they remain looking pretty much the same all the way down to the present day, or else they become extinct. Furthermore, the patterns seen after the appearance of a new population are not of divergence from a few ancestral types, but once again the opposite of what such a theory predicted. Diversity was most pronounced early on, becoming less, not greater with time as selection operated in the way previously maintained, weeding out the less suited. So compared to what we would expect to find, the tree is nonexistent where it should be in the greatest evidence, and what does exist is upside down.

Darwin and his supporters were well aware of this problem from the ample records compiled by their predecessors. In fact, the most formidable opponents of the theory were not clergymen but fossil experts. Even Lyell had difficulty in accepting his own ideas of gradualism applied to biology, familiar as he was with the hitherto undisputed catastrophist interpretation. But ideological fervor carried the day, and the generally agreed answer was that the fossil record as revealed at the time was incomplete. Now that the fossil collectors knew what to look for, nobody had any doubt that the required confirming evidence would quickly follow in plenitude. In other words, the view being promoted even then was a defense against the evidence that existed, driven by prior conviction that the real facts had to be other than what they seemed.

Well, the jury is now in, and the short answer is that the picture after a century and a half of assiduous searching is, if anything, worse now than it was then. Various ad hoc reasons and speculations have been put forward as to why, of course. These include the theory that most of the history of life consists of long periods of stasis during which change was too slow to be discernible, separated by bursts of change that happened too quickly to have left anything in the way of traces ("punctuated equilibrium"); that the soft parts that weren't preserved did the evolving while the hard parts stayed the same ("mosaic evolution"); that fossilization is too rare an occurrence to leave a reliable record; and a host of others. But the fact remains that if evolution means the gradual transformation of one kind of organism into another, the outstanding feature of the fossil record is its absence of evidence for evolution. Elaborate gymnastics to explain away failed predictions are almost always a sign of a theory in trouble. Luther Sunderland describes this as a carefully guarded "trade secret" of evolutionary theorists and refers to it as "Darwin's Enigma" in his book of the same name, which reports interviews conducted during the course of a year with officials of five natural history museums containing some of the largest fossil collections in the world.10

The plea of incompleteness of the fossil record is no longer tenable. Exhaustive exploration of the strata of all continents and across the ocean bottoms has uncovered formations containing hundreds of billions of fossils. The world's museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 species. Their adequacy as a record may be judged from estimates of the percentage of known, living forms that are also found as fossils. They suggest that the story that gets preserved is much more complete than many people think. Of the 43 living orders of terrestrial vertebrates, 42, or over 97 percent are found as fossils. Of the 329 families of terrestrial vertebrates the figure is 79 percent, and when birds (which tend to fossilize poorly) are excluded, 87 percent.11 What the record shows is clustered variations around the same basic designs over and over again, already complex and specialized, with no lines of improvement before or links in between. Forms once thought to have been descended from others turn out have been already in existence at the time of the ancestors that supposedly gave rise to them. On average, a species persists fundamentally unchanged for over a million years before disappearing—which again happens largely in periodic mass extinctions rather than by the gradual replacement of the ancestral stock in the way that gradualism requires. This makes nonsense of the proposition we're given that the bat and the whale evolved from a common mammalian ancestor in a little over 10 million years, which would allow at the most ten to fifteen "chronospecies" (a segment of the fossil record judged to have changed so little as to have remained a single species) aligned end to end to effect the transitions.12

...

Moth Myths. The Crowning Proof?

A consequence of such illogic is that simple facts which practically define themselves become celebrated as profound revelations of great explanatory power. Take as an example the case of the British peppered moth, cited in virtually all the textbooks as a perfect demonstration of "industrial melanism" and praised excitedly as living proof of evolution in action before our eyes. In summary, the standard version of the story describes a species of moth found in the British Midlands that were predominantly light-colored in earlier times but underwent a population shift in which a dark strain became dominant when the industrial revolution arrived and tree trunks in the moths' habitat were darkened by smoke and air pollution. Then, when cleaner air resulted from the changes and legislation in modern times and the trees lightened again, the moth population reverted to its previous balance. The explanation given is that the moths depend on their coloring as camouflage to protect them from predatory birds. When the tree barks were light, the lighter-colored variety of moths was favored, with darker barks the darker moths did better, and the changing conditions were faithfully mirrored in the population statistics. Indeed, all exactly in keeping with the expectations of "evolution" as now understood.

The reality, however, is apparently more complicated. Research has shown that in at least some localities the darkening of the moths precedes that of the tree barks, suggesting that some common factor—maybe a chemical change in the air—affects both of them. Further, it turns out that the moths don't normally rest on the trunks in daylight in the way textbook pictures show, and in conditions not artificially contrived for experiments, birds in daylight are not a major influence. The pictures were faked by gluing dead moths to tree trunks. 22

But even if the facts were as presented, what would it all add up to, really? Light moths do better against a light background, whereas dark moths do better against a dark background. This is the Earth-shattering outcome after a century and a half of intensive work by some of the best-known names in science developing a theory that changed the world? Both light strains and dark strains of moth were already present from the beginning. Nothing changed or mutated; nothing genetically new came into existence. If we're told that of a hundred soldiers sent into a jungle wearing jungle camouflage garb along with a hundred in arctic whites, more of the former were still around a week later, are we supposed to conclude that one kind "evolved" into another, or that anything happened that wouldn't have been obvious to common sense?

If that's what we're told "evolution" in the now-accepted use of the word means, then so be it. But now we'll need a different word to explain how moths came into existence in the first place. Yet along with such examples as Archaeopteryx and the horse series, the peppered moth is offered as proof that sets the theory on such incontestable grounds that to question it is evidence of being dim-witted or malicious. While other sciences have progressed from sailing clippers to spaceships, Morse telegraph to satellite nets, steam engines to nuclear reactors, these constitute the best evidence that can be mustered after a hundred and fifty years.

Read JP Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow". It deals with scientific theories that are widely believed to be true without sufficient proof by ordinary scientific standards ("science myths"). Evolution is featured prominently.

http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200407/0743488288_toc.htm

a sample...
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Go there. Read. Try again.

For that matter, here's a brilliant rebuttal. Evolution being false does not make creationism true. If you could prove that evolution is false, then it would be a great contribution to science. However, this thread is about evidence FOR creationism. Do you have any?

mmm, wow that is great and all but I have faith or "scientific proof" that people like Bottle will tear that article down in a second.

Belief in both God and Evolution/Big Bang theories is not contradictory.

Agreed, and the failure of others, on both sides of the issue, to realize this is what infuriates me the most in evolution/creationism topics. So I'll add:

1. Literal, Bible, Creationists, on what, other than a literal interp of the bible, do you rely to say the world is less than 7,000 years old?

2. Aetheistic Evolution/Big Bangists, on what do you rely to explain the existence of the "ball of gas/matter/energy" that was the starting point for the "big bang?"

Evolution clearly occurs and can't be reasonably said not to, witness the birth of anti-biotic resistant "super bugs" as a singular and simple example. How is this, and other examples, to be explained?

and

The ball of gas/matter/energy that formed the "stuff" the big bang came from couldn't have appeared from nothing - matter and energy can only change in form, from one to the other, not suddenly come into existence from nothingness. So where did this "ball" come from?

Evoloutionists, what do you base your theories on, other than your interpretations of the facts? There is no fact to support either one, both evoloutionists and creationists use the same facts to support their beliefs, it's just how we interpret them.

I'm really going to bed this time... really... ;)

Evoloutionists, what do you base your theories on, other than your interpretations of the facts? There is no fact to support either one, both evoloutionists and creationists use the same facts to support their beliefs, it's just how we interpret them.

I'm really going to bed this time... really... ;)
:eek:
You're named after a race in EV: Nova!!
Cool.

Wow, I am geeky, aren't I?

No, not really, it's one of the best games ever. ;) Along with Maelstrom, and all those other great games from ASW. :D

Once I read a creationists "point" that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodinamics... I know I saw the answer to that "point" somewhere, I think it has to do something with quantum physics and with the fact that the 2nd law applies only on a huge scale (the universe for example) and not the evolutionary process, but i'm not sure... Does anyone know why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodinamics? Thank you.

In short: no, quantum physics are not required, just the 2nd law of thermodynamics itself. This law states that the entropy of an isolated system increases over time. note the 'isolated system' condition. The earth receives tons of energy from the sun, so the second law says nothing about about the earth.

2. Aetheistic Evolution/Big Bangists, on what do you rely to explain the existence of the "ball of gas/matter/energy" that was the starting point for the "big bang?"
We don't know, and we don't have a problem admitting that. We're not going to start claiming that it comes from something that is completely unverifiable, though.

We don't really know that the universe follows the laws that we've stated. It appears to now, but it didn't have to billions of years ago. Who's to say that the mass didn't always exist?

If you ask me, the fact that the universe even exists is beyond comprehension. It's crazy. What is it doing here? Was it really necessary? And then the fact that it can support something like Earth is even more ridiculous. I don't know why anybody even cares.

Evoloutionists, what do you base your theories on, other than your interpretations of the facts? There is no fact to support either one, both evoloutionists and creationists use the same facts to support their beliefs, it's just how we interpret them.

I'm really going to bed this time... really... ;)
What scientists call support is an experiment that attempts to disprove a theorem and fails. There are lots and lots of these experiments for evolution. There are none for creationism because it is impossible to devise an experiment that could disprove creationism. That's why it isn't a scientific theory. Nobody who understands the scientific method can claim that the evidence supports creationism.

No, not really, it's one of the best games ever. ;) Along with Maelstrom, and all those other great games from ASW. :D
Yeah, Ambrosia rocks so much!
Err, for fear of hijacking the thread, I'll shut up now.

Hmm, I just realized why half the other girls I talk to stare at me oddly after I try to start a conversation! I'm the world's greatest lesbian transgender geek!

Beat that, all you stupid trend-following people whom I meet! :P

Wow, remind me never again to post at 4:10 in the morning.

Read JP Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow". It deals with scientific theories that are widely believed to be true without sufficient proof by ordinary scientific standards ("science myths"). Evolution is featured prominently.

http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200407/0743488288_toc.htm

haha, that's just laughable. just take a look at the bit on the evolution of birds.
sure seems to be hung up on the disagreement over where archaeopteryx fits in the scheme of the bird dinosaur transition. almost as if they didn't want you to think about all the other transitional dino-bird fossils we've got (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm).



ah, there's the problem. chapter 4: "The Case for Taking Velikovsky Seriously"

haha, oh dear lord. look out ma, venus just magically appeared out of jupiter and caused the earth to stop rotating!

I really hate when one of the two things happen in forums:
1. Someone posts a misleading 'headline' or
2. People who are not addressed in the headline, take over and make the headline misleading by posting something irrelevant.

See, the headline here is 'Creationists, where is your argument?' So I come from the isolation of my NationStates country to read creationists' comments on why do they see creationism right (since they probably have something they think is fact, although you said that only scientific fact should be used -- that's like asking me to describe a man's anatomy with the words that describe a woman's anatomy: "here is the male-version of breasts..." See my point?) and what do I find? A bunch of other people answering a question that wasn't directed at them and not even that, they are NOT answering the question at all. They are not giving 'proof' for creationism, they are slandering and ridiculing it, therefore possibly frightening away anyone who would have something interesting to contribute to the conversation... By interesting I mean their view of this thing.
But now that I rethink, there probably won't be any such interesting answers because you ruled out the 'opinion'-part in the question, therefore leaving only evolutionists room to answer, because they think their method of finding proof is the only one. See, for me, the fact that the world is so wonderful and amazing is proof enough for creationism. I hate the idea of it all being formed by random selection of whatever genetic mutation seemed to make it best out in the world. But that to you is not proof. This is just to point out that truth, fact, proof are all relative, there is no 'ultimate truth' BUT, since you ruled this discussion out in the starting post, there really is no way for creationists to have their say.

So in short, this thread was a bad one both because of misleading headline and because people took over it and didn't stick to the topic. You should change the heading to something like 'discussion about creationism (btw, creationists - don't bother joining in)'

We don't know, and we don't have a problem admitting that. We're not going to start claiming that it comes from something that is completely unverifiable, though.

We don't really know that the universe follows the laws that we've stated. It appears to now, but it didn't have to billions of years ago. Who's to say that the mass didn't always exist?

If you ask me, the fact that the universe even exists is beyond comprehension. It's crazy. What is it doing here? Was it really necessary? And then the fact that it can support something like Earth is even more ridiculous. I don't know why anybody even cares.

As far as I recall, it was from a matter / antimatter reaction that favored matter by one part in a billion. That is the start of the Big Bang.
The rest is just coincidence that physics is perfectly set to allow for life.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

We don't know, and we don't have a problem admitting that. We're not going to start claiming that it comes from something that is completely unverifiable, though.

We don't really know that the universe follows the laws that we've stated. It appears to now, but it didn't have to billions of years ago. Who's to say that the mass didn't always exist?

If you ask me, the fact that the universe even exists is beyond comprehension. It's crazy. What is it doing here? Was it really necessary? And then the fact that it can support something like Earth is even more ridiculous. I don't know why anybody even cares.

exactly my point on the evolutionist side. Where are the creationists though?

I've always found that entertaining science can be amusing at times, though too often I get bored with it. The same is true with contemplating creationism, as well. I have a strong faith, based on personal experiances of my own that no one has ever been able to explain with science, and I have only found answers in things of the supernatural. There is no proof of creationism, because there is nothing to prove, you either believe or you don't, its either faith or fact. The Jewish people are always showing this fact.

The bible often speaks that others will come with wisdom of man, and lead away the people of G-d. So why should any christian argue his point with the knowledge of man, I don't know. What does it matter? Is the faith of the arguer so weak, that he relies on trying to prove himself over others, is that not pride? Does not the bible speak that pride will lead one away, so in a sence, to fight science with science so that you don't lose faith, and yet you lead yourself from faith each time, is that not a path of foolishness?

People over think things, what does it matter if you prove one man wrong with science, 3 will replace him in their diligence to prove you wrong, and based on a view point of probability, you will fall, or be proved wrong. Why do it then?

I am not a foolish man, I think I'm rather wise, but no scientist. I will not waste my time trying to change a person's mind, because if I were to change a mind, someone else can always change it again.

Evolution being false does not make creationism true. If you could prove that evolution is false, then it would be a great contribution to science. However, this thread is about evidence FOR creationism. Do you have any?

If evolution is false, then we would have to look for an alternate theory. Do you have any?

I tend to like the deist (not theist) view of a world which was design by a creator ("great architect") who does not, however, interfere in its everyday running. The sudden appearance of thousands of species ("Cambrian Explosion") is just the kind of thing that would be filed somewhere in that design under "developmental plan for terrestrial planets, biosphere, stage CE-2".


god, n.
1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.


When people talk about creationism, they tend to use the definition of God-with-a-capital-G (meaning 1a). I usually think of the more limited meaning (2) since a lot of the assumtions of the first meaning are so completely arbitrary (e.g. assuming that such an entity exists, why only one? why does it have to be perfect? or omniscient? or omnipotent, as opposed to merely capable of creation?). Also the "supernatural powers" part of that can mean either "beyond the natural world" or "*apparently* beyond the natural" and that is also an arbitrary distinction. If a powerful being created life on Earth by technological means beyond our understanding, would that not be creationism as well?

If evolution is false, then we would have to look for an alternate theory. Do you have any?
I'm not a biologist. I'm a mathematician. I can tell you what constitutes evidence, but I can't actually give it to you. That said, evolution being false would not constitute evidence for creationism.

If a powerful being created life on Earth by technological means beyond our understanding, would that not be creationism as well?
I believe that falls under Intelligent Design.

haha, that's just laughable. just take a look at the bit on the evolution of birds.
sure seems to be hung up on the disagreement over where archaeopteryx fits in the scheme of the bird dinosaur transition. almost as if they didn't want you to think about all the other transitional dino-bird fossils we've got (http://www.origins.tv/darwin/dinobirds.htm).

You will note that the supposed tree of descent of the dinobirds contains two *supposed* intermediaries, the rest are branches. The inconvenient fact that all of these species existed contemporaneously in the fossil record and/or in some cases in the wrong order, is buried in the footnotes. E.g. Compsognathus and Ceratosaurus, supposed dinosaur precursors, appear in the Jurassic while Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx, supposed intermediates, appear *earlier*, in the Cretaceous, and all at the *same time* as Confuciusornis which is essentially a fully-developed bird.

ah, there's the problem. chapter 4: "The Case for Taking Velikovsky Seriously"

haha, oh dear lord. look out ma, venus just magically appeared out of jupiter and caused the earth to stop rotating!

Maybe you should just read the chapter first. Whether or not he had a point, Velikovsky was not given a fair hearing. The fact that his opponents deliberately falsified key Sumerian tablets of astronomical records does not exactly help their case.

The question in the title of the thread is unfair, because there are no arguments for Creationism. I don't mean that in a negative way, but as a kind of definition of the difference between Creationism and any other explanation for life on Earth, be it Evolution or any other method.

Creationism is a matter of faith. By its nature it does not require proof or argument. The only argument a Creationist can make is to try to tear down competing arguments. Evolutionists should welcome this, as science is based on quite the opposite of faith. A scientist starts from a position of ignorance or doubt and makes hypothesis, devises experiments and makes conclusions and then looks for evidence that supports or contradicts the conclusions.

While Hogan's article is interesting, it is hardly an argument against Evolution, more a history of the differences of opinion of how Evolution works, with some poor science mixed in. The Peppered Moth story was taught when I was in school, but then we were using a text book that was written in the 50's. The story was discredited a long time ago, and its just an example of science working. For a more modern version of natural selection in action you can look to Australia (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm).

As such, the Creation vs Evolution argument gets fairly repetitive. It would be far more interesting to argue 2 Creation stories against each other, or 2 Evolutionary theories.

So many times on NS General I have seen creationists claim that Literal Biblical Creation has piles of proof, and yet no-one has ever bothered to point this out to me. Well, here's your chance.
The proof is in the pudding; it's the only argument Creationists need. Creation is, therefore it is logical to assume a creator. Hence this debate always boils down to the presence or absence of a god. That the presence or absence of the Biblical creator cannot yet be tested for does not rule him out the possibility that it happened like that, however small, and it's the most reasonable possibility in some people's minds. Why not let them have it for themselves, and you stick with what you believe? Why must there be one "The Truth" that we all must adhere to?

That's why it isn't a scientific theory. Nobody who understands the scientific method can claim that the evidence supports creationism.

Correction/Addition: No one who understands the scientific method or isn't ignoring fundamental principles for the sake of furthering a specific agenda unrelated to objective observable evidence (that is evidence that everyone can see for themselves, duplicate experiments, and come out w/ the exact same result).

I'm a christian, and a creationist. I believe that God created life, but how long ago, in what form, etc, I'm not sure of. Evolution really does not make any sense to me at all. Could someone please tell me, if we came from apes, why are there still apes? However, I do believe in natural selection. I think that God, when he created us, gave life the ability to change, to adapt. I do NOT believe he gave us the ability to evolve into a different species. I refuse to believe that reptiles , just because of their surroundings, decided to evolve into birds. It doesn't work that way. Genetic information cannot be added, just at random, to any species. There has to be something behind it, making it do so. Designing it. Take the watch on my wrist for example. Someone must have designed it and built it. It can't have just come about. A single cell is a million times more complicated than a watch. Darwin himself said that if a human cell was anything more than a simple jelly, his theory would be false.

But that's just my take. I could be wrong, but even if evolution is proved, then I still believe in God.

I'm a christian, and a creationist. I believe that God created life, but how long ago, in what form, etc, I'm not sure of. Evolution really does not make any sense to me at all. Could someone please tell me, if we came from apes, why are there still apes?

1. Evolution does not say man descended from apes. People that try to discredit evolution claim that it does and hope you are too lazy to check.
2. Why should a group of creatures evolving have an impact on another group 350 km away ?
3. you can read. Why are there still persons who can't ?

To the main topic: there can not be any proof, unless the creator(s) shows him/her/it/themselves. Creationism is an aspect of religion. You take it on faith - it can not be proven or disproven since the rules do not need to apply.

1. Evolution does not say man descended from apes. People that try to discredit evolution claim that it does and hope you are too lazy to check.
2. Why should a group of creatures evolving have an impact on another group 350 km away ?
3. you can read. Why are there still persons who can't ?

To the main topic: there can not be any proof, unless the creator(s) shows him/her/it/themselves. Creationism is an aspect of religion. You take it on faith - it can not be proven or disproven since the rules do not need to apply.

1. "Ape-like" ancestors. Close enough.
2. What the hell are you talking about?
3. Because learning is a skill. Others have not yet developed that skill. Evolution is supposed to occur naturally.

I'm not saying that evolution is completely false, and I'm not ruling it out, I just don't really have reason to believe in it. Darwin didn't even think his theory was true. Honestly, I think they were just looking for a reason not to believe in a higher diety, but that's just my opinion. Hell, for all I know, evolution could be entirely true, but I'll still believe in God, and I have my own personal reasons.

Topics like this fail to take into account that caring about evidence and logic is mutually exclusive with being a creationist.

Topics like this fail to take into account that caring about evidence and logic is mutually exclusive with being a creationist.

Topics like this fail to take into account that caring about evidence and logic is mutually exclusive with being a evolutionist.

But it really does just come down to the nature of proof.

The scientist's approach: I have a theory. I find some evidence that contradicts my theory. I try to think of a theory that is consistent with this evidence.

The creationist's approach: I have a theory. It is so vague that it is impossible to contradict, whether it's true or not. I try to poke holes in the scientist's theory, despite the fact that it actually helps him.


Now, I don't object to people believing in God or a creator. I object to people trying to address the question with science.
Creationism is anything but vague. All creationist texts (Bible, Koran, ect.) are highly specific in their words. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. In fact, science works to enhance faith.
www.creationists.org

Well, let's take the scientific steps down the ladder of reason to get to the bottom of this.

1. Let's assume that some creative force (not necessarily the God or even _a_ god) _does_ exist, and use this as a hypothesis.

2. Let's assume that this creative force is what begat the universe and, with it, the Earth. Whether it is millions of years old or just some 7000+, is irrelevant for this point. It's all in the perspective - a Galactic Year for the Milky Way (our native galaxy, if someone doesn't know) is some 255 million Earth years, and even that is years as they are now; they might have been longer once upon a time.

3. Now, what evidence do we have to support this creative force hypothesis? Often a vague theory in science is approached by trying to find cases where it _doesn't_ work. With something like this, that is nigh-impossible, because everything can be explained away by having been 'arranged' by this creative force, but if we ignore the religiously based claims of this creative force being continuously present, and just look at the other evidence, we will find that
A) nowhere that we know of, does it say "Made By [insert name here]", but also
B) we cannot say for certain that it doesn't say just that somewhere or some way that we haven't just looked at yet.

4. It is doubtful that a force capable of creating a universe, would be able to communicate on _any_ level with beings so restricted and finite as us humans, so we can probably discount any religion on Earth with that, without saying that such a force does not, in fact, exist.

5. It is a proven fact that human belief (the so-called placebo-effect) can truly work miracles on said humans believing into things or even just into themselves. Thus we can probably account that as-of-yet unknown psychic capability to be behind those religious experiences and miracles (you can even make yourself bleed at will, if you concentrate hard enough, as shown by some fakires) that aren't explained away as drinking binges and hits on the head.

6. I think I lost my original thread, but if I get my divine inspiration sparked up again, I'll add more. ;)

And, BTW, I'm a non-believer who belongs to a church, myself. :D

1. Evolution does not say man descended from apes. People that try to discredit evolution claim that it does and hope you are too lazy to check.
2. Why should a group of creatures evolving have an impact on another group 350 km away ?
3. you can read. Why are there still persons who can't ?
1. "Ape-like" ancestors. Close enough.
2. What the hell are you talking about?
3. Because learning is a skill. Others have not yet developed that skill. Evolution is supposed to occur naturally.
1. Man and apes descended from a common ancestor. This is why there are still apes.
2. Because a common ancestor evolved into man in one group doesn't mean that it must happen the same way to another group (who evolved into apes) living in another area.
3. "Development" is the key. Some developments are learned and some are mutation.

Yes, everything is consistent with "God made it that way." That was the point of my over-simplification of the creationist's argument.

On the flip side, everything is consistent with "God doesn't exist, but nobody knows how the universe actually works."
I Just have a hard time believing that this whole universe came into existence by pure and complete chance !That's all Folks :D

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html
thank you so much

I'm sick of these debate threads. There is nothing to debate! Either you believe in it, or you don't. It's called faith. Either you have it or you don't.

I have it, I don't care what anyone else says, I believe there is a God and that His Son is Jesus Christ. Try to disprove it...there is no way to disprove it.

I'm sick of these debate threads. There is nothing to debate! Either you believe in it, or you don't. It's called faith. Either you have it or you don't.

I have it, I don't care what anyone else says, I believe there is a God and that His Son is Jesus Christ. Try to disprove it...there is no way to disprove it.

There is no way to prove it, either.

Someone once told you a story, and you just started to believe it... by the same token, some people believe in fairies.

Do you believe in Fairies?

Would you, if there was evidence?

Tell me this, evolutionists.

How do you think we got here? Do you think just out of nowhere the universe all of a sudden exploded and expanded? How do you think the matter that made it explode got there?

How is it that males and females have parts that just happen to go together and create life? Coincidence?

How do you explain Jesus Christ being crucified, put in a tomb, then escaping from the tomb if He's supposedly dead?

Do you think a book with almost 2,000 pages written by almost every type of person in the world was just made up?

Where do you think we got the sensations of love?

Why is it whenever you're worshipping God you get a feeling you can't explain that is the greatest feeling in the world? Or would you know what that feeling is like?

Tell me this, evolutionists.

How do you think we got here? Do you think just out of nowhere the universe all of a sudden exploded and expanded? How do you think the matter that made it explode got there?
This is irrelevant to evolution.
How is it that males and females have parts that just happen to go together and create life? Coincidence?
If you want to reduce it that much, then technically, yes.
How do you explain Jesus Christ being crucified, put in a tomb, then escaping from the tomb if He's supposedly dead?
Well, first we'd have to know it was true before that became a troubling issue.
Do you think a book with almost 2,000 pages written by almost every type of person in the world was just made up?
That is a possibility
Where do you think we got the sensations of love?
Serotonin and its ilk in the brain, produced because of some fluke or other.
Why is it whenever you're worshipping God you get a feeling you can't explain that is the greatest feeling in the world? Or would you know what that feeling is like?
I would not. I always got the same feeling you get as when you're talking to somebody in another room, but they've left. Then again, that's just my experience.

Tell me this, evolutionists.

OK. But you won't like it.

How do you think we got here? Do you think just out of nowhere the universe all of a sudden exploded and expanded? How do you think the matter that made it explode got there?

How did God get there? God's not an answer, he's another question. And as a baseless question, he's just a meaningless attempt to answer the first question without admitting you don't know. I would like to find out. Religion doesn't want to, as that would make it useless. OK?

How is it that males and females have parts that just happen to go together and create life? Coincidence?

Sexual reproduction. It developed slowly but surely in order to exchange genes. Originally reproduction was entirely asexual, but that's not very good. Sexual reproduction is the very basis of evolution, as it's the best way to mix genes quickly. Ergo, these bits support our argument. God doesn't like sex, remember?

How do you explain Jesus Christ being crucified, put in a tomb, then escaping from the tomb if He's supposedly dead?

Stories. No facts. How do you explain SEVEN male hetrosexual dwarves, all living in a house out in the middle of no-where, taking in some freebooting princess? How do you explain that they all had some form of social difficulties?

Do you think a book with almost 2,000 pages written by almost every type of person in the world was just made up?

Yes. It's written by lots of different people. And it shows, it really does. It contradicts. It makes little sense in parts. It's not well written, it's poorly thought through, and it's factually hopelessly inaccurate.

Where do you think we got the sensations of love?

Hormones and pheromones. Helps the reproductive cycles.

Why is it whenever you're worshipping God you get a feeling you can't explain that is the greatest feeling in the world? Or would you know what that feeling is like?

No idea. LSD?

Once I read a creationists "point" that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodinamics... I know I saw the answer to that "point" somewhere, I think it has to do something with quantum physics and with the fact that the 2nd law applies only on a huge scale (the universe for example) and not the evolutionary process, but i'm not sure... Does anyone know why evolution does not contradict the 2nd law of thermodinamics? Thank you.


You don't need quantum physics to discount this argument. The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that all natural systems in a closed state will degenerate over time into a less and less ordered state. I.E. things decay if left to themselves OR entropy in the system will increase over time.

This is completely true. If you seal off a cave full of living creatures and never allow any energy into it, they will all die and rot and eventually there will be nothing left. However, since the sun is always adding a constant stream of energy onto the earth (and has a much greater entropy than any system on the earth), there is energy available for natural systems to counteract decay. This is why we must eat in order to live, to gain energy to overcome decay.

No matter how complex life gets on earth, the amount of energy the sun is introducing to the system is enough to counteract the entropy inherent in the system. (And the sun is increasing entropy into the 'universal' system, therefore not counteracting the second law, since overall entropy continues to increase in spite of the increasing complexity of life on earth.)

evolution= 1 with proof and 1 without proof. Microevolution and Macroevolution. these are the two kinds, microevolution (which is fact) and macroevolution (which is not) microevolution for example is when you take 2 different species of dog. breed them and you might get a new speices of dog. Macroevolution ( known as darwinism ) says that if you breed an animal long enough you will get a different kind (reptiles, amphibians, mammals, ect). like dogs eventually becoming reptiles. this type has no evidence whatsoever. people say it is true because they use MICRO evolution to prove MACRO evolution. the problem is that dogs will breed dogs, they wont eventually become birds or anything else.

the thing i don't understand is that the creationist theory must be a belief as there is no evidence. yet there is evidence for evolution.
so what is there that creationists object to? what is it that makes the theory of evolution wrong and that of creationism right, to them?

this may have come up but im not gonna read through all those posts... ;)

Since somthing undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed; we have only two choices: the universe, or something that caused the universe. it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, but it does not seem to be actually possible. All the scientific and philisophical evidence and radioactive decay, kalam, says that the universe cannot be eternal. we are left with one option. something outside the universe is eternal. 2 possibilities for anything that exists: 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by somehting else.
First CAuse: it is self existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial( since it created time, space and matter, it must be outside time space and matter.) without limits
it is powerful, intelligent
personal-in order to chose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe. ( an impersonal force has no ability to make choices)
These characteristics sound like a God. Einstien even said "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind"
Second- if this is true you have to explain the somehting from nothing argument. If there is no God why is there something rather than nothing? there are two answers. either no one created something out of nothing, or else someone created something out of nothing. Which is more reasonable?

:eek:
You're named after a race in EV: Nova!!
Cool.

Wow, I am geeky, aren't I?

And i'm named after a planet...ohh so theres more players out there!

What always gets me is people asking where the universe came from if God didn't make it? Where did the matter for the Big Bang come from? Science can't account for that!
You know what? You are right! Modern science can't account for the creation of matter and energy from nothing, according to modern scientific universal laws. However, the universe did not have to obey current universal laws before its creation! So perhaps there was a whole different set of laws for whatever existed before the universe that allowed for the creation of matter and energy. At this point we don't know, and perhaps we will never know, what was before the universe.
Creationists. You keep saying that faith is all the proof you need. Good for you. However, us more logical people would rather know what was at the bottom of the cliff before we jumped, you know what I mean? I don't want to down anybody's faith, but I am the type of guy who wants to see some physical, mental, or emotional proof for myself before I can believe in any god(s). If he exists, give me the rapture. If he exists, communicate with me somehow. That is my difficulty with religion. All the proof is in the faith, and the faith is supposed to be there with no proof. If people can have that kind of faith, more power to you. But I want proof.

I know you don't want a discussion of what constitutes "proof." However, remember that "proof" can be found for anything, so long as you are willing to ignore all other factors:



Suppose I saw a young chicken following a dog around wrote a book that said that dogs give birth to chickens. The following would be an example of the approaches:

1) Scientist - There is evidence that chickens sometimes follow dogs, but they also sometimes follow other chickens. Sometimes they even follow humans. Let's design an experiment and watch both.... Dogs have never actually been observed giving birth to chickens. However, other chickens have laid eggs that become chickens, so it seems that chickens lead to chickens. But I wonder why the chicken was following the dog.... Let's design an experiment... Oh, look! Chickens follow whatever they see move first, we can make chickens follow dogs, people, and robots. Interesting.

2) Creationist - Dogs give birth to chickens! The proof is right here! The chicken is following the dog!! That chickenist is wrong because in that one experiment, one of the eggs didn't hatch.

3) Intelligent Designist - Dogs give birth to chickens, but the process is so complicated that only an intelligent creator could have possibly come up with it.


Seems to be a fairly accurate analogy :p

Evoloutionists, what do you base your theories on, other than your interpretations of the facts? There is no fact to support either one, both evoloutionists and creationists use the same facts to support their beliefs, it's just how we interpret them.

I'm really going to bed this time... really... ;)

This is, first of all, entirely untrue. Creationists only use the data which they can skew to their purposes. For any theory to be considered the leading theory, *all* evidence must point in that direction.

There is also the simple fact that you can find proof for *anything* if you start with a foregone conclusion. See my post on the first page.

But now that I rethink, there probably won't be any such interesting answers because you ruled out the 'opinion'-part in the question, therefore leaving only evolutionists room to answer, because they think their method of finding proof is the only one. See, for me, the fact that the world is so wonderful and amazing is proof enough for creationism. I hate the idea of it all being formed by random selection of whatever genetic mutation seemed to make it best out in the world. But that to you is not proof. This is just to point out that truth, fact, proof are all relative, there is no 'ultimate truth' BUT, since you ruled this discussion out in the starting post, there really is no way for creationists to have their say.

So in short, this thread was a bad one both because of misleading headline and because people took over it and didn't stick to the topic. You should change the heading to something like 'discussion about creationism (btw, creationists - don't bother joining in)'

Creationism =! creation.

I'm a christian, and a creationist. I believe that God created life, but how long ago, in what form, etc, I'm not sure of.

Your second sentence completely contradicts the first. A Creationist, by definition, believes that the set of OT Biblical accounts of creation, etc. are absolutely and in every way literally true. (No one has yet explained to me where there are two separate creation accounts, but that is besides the point). Thus, anyone who is a Creationist believes that they no exactly how, when, and where God created life.

Creationism is anything but vague. All creationist texts (Bible, Koran, ect.) are highly specific in their words. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. In fact, science works to enhance faith.
www.creationists.org

Of course, the Bible contains two separate, contradicting creation accounts written by two different authors to demonstrate two very different points.

I would call that vague. Which are we to believe is literal? Or are we to believe that both are literal, but one took place before the other, or in another dimension?

I'm sick of these debate threads. There is nothing to debate! Either you believe in it, or you don't. It's called faith. Either you have it or you don't.

I have it, I don't care what anyone else says, I believe there is a God and that His Son is Jesus Christ. Try to disprove it...there is no way to disprove it.

Belief in God and Christ does not have anything to do with this conversation, as you can believe very strongly in both without any worry about Creationism.

Tell me this, evolutionists.

How do you think we got here? Do you think just out of nowhere the universe all of a sudden exploded and expanded? How do you think the matter that made it explode got there?

Personally, I believe that God created the Universe and set it in motion with the knowledge that evolution would occur.

Of course, how the universe appeared is completely irrelevant to evolution.

How is it that males and females have parts that just happen to go together and create life? Coincidence?

If you had even a 1st grade understanding of the theory of evolution, you wouldn't ask this question.

How do you explain Jesus Christ being crucified, put in a tomb, then escaping from the tomb if He's supposedly dead?

(a) The same way you do.
(b) Completely irrelevant to evolution.

Do you think a book with almost 2,000 pages written by almost every type of person in the world was just made up?

Not in the least. Misguided at times, perhaps, as any human beings are.

And, again, irrelevant to evolution

Where do you think we got the sensations of love?

From love.

Why is it whenever you're worshipping God you get a feeling you can't explain that is the greatest feeling in the world? Or would you know what that feeling is like?

Because you are worshipping God and God is present.

Of course, this is, again, irrelevant to evolution.

Do not confuse scientist with atheist my dear. The two are not necessarily (and in fact rarely are) the same.

Creationists, my suggestion to you is to stop trying to logically debate God or disprove evolution or prove Creationism.

Just stick with this mantra. "I have faith." Period! Don't use that to launch some hokey word arguments, all to the effect of say, "I have faith, so you are WRONG." Please. That's gotta be the most annoying thing, a self righteous pissed off fundamentalist who is trying to use his belief as a weapon to smite the unbelievers. Don't be that guy.

In fact, curse the thread starter for inviting that guy to this party! I'm leaving and I'm taking the beer with me!

Personally, I believe that God created the Universe and set it in motion with the knowledge that evolution would occur.

Of course, how the universe appeared is completely irrelevant to evolution.



If you had even a 1st grade understanding of the theory of evolution, you wouldn't ask this question.



(a) The same way you do.
(b) Completely irrelevant to evolution.



Not in the least. Misguided at times, perhaps, as any human beings are.

And, again, irrelevant to evolution



From love.



Because you are worshipping God and God is present.

Of course, this is, again, irrelevant to evolution.

Do not confuse scientist with atheist my dear. The two are not necessarily (and in fact rarely are) the same.


Yup you are living proof of scientificaly minded but non athiest :)

Creationism is anything but vague. All creationist texts (Bible, Koran, ect.) are highly specific in their words. Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. In fact, science works to enhance faith.
www.creationists.org
Yes, individual religions are very specific in their unverifiable details. However, they provide no details about mechanisms, nothing that can be tested and shown to be false.

Science and theism are mutually exclusive when you follow the rules of formal logic. Of course, "if you assume x, then x will show itself to be true" does not follow the rules of formal logic. I didn't really need to tell you that, did I?

Science and theism are mutually exclusive when you follow the rules of formal logic. Of course, "if you assume x, then x will show itself to be true" does not follow the rules of formal logic. I didn't really need to tell you that, did I?

This is patently untrue.

The belief or non-belief in God is, by definition, an axiomatic statement. It is the basis from which logical discussion of God comes. If you take the axiom that there is no God, then you will argue from that viewpoint. If you take the axiom that there is, you will argue from that viewpoint.

Evolution really does not make any sense to me at all. Could someone please tell me, if we came from apes, why are there still apes? I refuse to believe that reptiles , just because of their surroundings, decided to evolve into birds. It doesn't work that way. Genetic information cannot be added, just at random, to any species. There has to be something behind it, making it do so. Designing it. But that's just my take. I could be wrong, but even if evolution is proved, then I still believe in God.

As to your ape question the reason we have both man and ape is that while primate and human DNA is almost the same the reason for the diffrences is that of "selective breeding" or "survival of the fittist" Orignally primates and humans where one species when the branch that was to be human was isolated from the rest of the primate/human protospecies it was forced to cope with a limited gene pool which resulted in the evolution of the primary human attributes.

As to your reptile/bird question the reptiles that evolved into birds where reptiles that had a light skeleton to begin with that to avoid predator learned to increase speed and managed to eventually gain the ability to fly.

In theory if you travelled back to when the first muliticellular creature evolved you would find the DNA code that could be mutated into any creature on earth.

Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive. "God" could have/ could be the force that initiallised and stablised the Big Bang then stablised the rules of the universe. Hence what we call "God" could simply be the full codex of the rules of the universe.

Don't get me wrong, I know I might just get slammed with half-illiterate assaults for posting this, but I truly am curious. The problem I have always had with evolution is this (and I would love to have someone legitimately explain it to me), if upwards of 90% of mutations significant enough to constitue a changing of the species (to my understanding, the building block of evolution) are not viable (sterile, if even able to survive), and the odds of even seeing those mutations in the first place is fairly small, the odds seem drastically against ever seeing two of those mutations in the same area of opposite gender. If we assume (and since we're talking a changing of the species, that seems a fairly large assumption [make sure you understand, I'm not talking Black Lab to Chocolate Lab]) that this mutation is good and can breed with the original species, that wouldn't help us because DNA recombinations are much more likely to water down the mutation than spread it and pronounce it. And if these mutations do make the new species unable to breed with the original (which seems more likely), that would suggest that the opposite gender mutant would not a mutation at least similar to the original mutant. Strictly mathematically, the odds seem phenomenally small. And like I said, I'd love a rational explanation of the faults in that.

I've been following this thread for awhile, and I think it's finally my time to but in. I am a Christian, but I am not a Creationist. I am majoring in math and physics and search for truth. I see there to be two creation accounts in the Bible. First the six "day" creation that creationists stick to. Then, the creation of Adam and Eve. When I read it, this is what I see, how else did all of their kids have wives? why else was Cain given a mark so other people wouldn't kill him? where else would the Land of Nod come from that Cain went to?
Anyway, I take an axiomatic approach to creation. First, the axiom: God created the universe. Then I use the Biblical account as an outline, and science as proof. I could argue that a giant monkey pooped the earth out and it wouldn't go against the Bible--but it does go against science, and God created that too.

Don't get me wrong, I know I might just get slammed with half-illiterate assaults for posting this, but I truly am curious. The problem I have always had with evolution is this (and I would love to have someone legitimately explain it to me), if upwards of 90% of mutations significant enough to constitue a changing of the species (to my understanding, the building block of evolution) are not viable (sterile, if even able to survive), and the odds of even seeing those mutations in the first place is fairly small, the odds seem drastically against ever seeing two of those mutations in the same area of opposite gender. If we assume (and since we're talking a changing of the species, that seems a fairly large assumption [make sure you understand, I'm not talking Black Lab to Chocolate Lab]) that this mutation is good and can breed with the original species, that wouldn't help us because DNA recombinations are much more likely to water down the mutation than spread it and pronounce it. And if these mutations do make the new species unable to breed with the original (which seems more likely), that would suggest that the opposite gender mutant would not a mutation at least similar to the original mutant. Strictly mathematically, the odds seem phenomenally small. And like I said, I'd love a rational explanation of the faults in that.

Two problems:

(a) You are making the unfounded assumption that the differences occur only in a single mutation. Basically, you are assuming that a single mutation leads to speciation - something which has never been suggested. The original mutations that would begin to delineate the two would have nothing to do with speciation, and would simply represent different traits.

(b) You are forgetting that the theory of evolution as it relates to speciation relates to *isolated breeding groups*. Thus, DNA recombinations would in no way "water down the mutant," as breeding would occur between creatures which had the mutatnt gene.

I've been following this thread for awhile, and I think it's finally my time to but in. I am a Christian, but I am not a Creationist. I am majoring in math and physics and search for truth. I see there to be two creation accounts in the Bible. First the six "day" creation that creationists stick to. Then, the creation of Adam and Eve. When I read it, this is what I see, how else did all of their kids have wives? why else was Cain given a mark so other people wouldn't kill him? where else would the Land of Nod come from that Cain went to?
Anyway, I take an axiomatic approach to creation. First, the axiom: God created the universe. Then I use the Biblical account as an outline, and science as proof. I could argue that a giant monkey pooped the earth out and it wouldn't go against the Bible--but it does go against science, and God created that too.

An interesting post, but I find one tremendously important flaw. If a giant monkey pooped out the earth, then an animal would have been created before the earth, which does go against the Bible. Unless you want to argue for a pre-existant monkey. Well, I feel satisfied, yet another thread brought to a discussion of pre-existant monkies.

Short and sweet: creationists and non-creationists agree that there's no real way to prove what did or did not happen unless you ask someone that was there at the time. Although my high school world history teacher looked like she could have been there, she missed the event by several years and would not be of any help. So, scientists and individuals can make educated guesses, but we'll never know for sure.

I personally believe what Stephen Hawking mentioned in his book A Brief History Of Time: that is, that the universe was created and set into morion in a way that it appeared to have originated as a tiny point of matter (Big Bang theory). This creationist theory follows science, because scientists have proven that the universe appears to have begun as a point of infinite density, but have admitted they cannot ever prove that it was indeed at that state at any point in time. Add string theory into all of this and you open up the whole extra can of worms that is other universes, timelines, and dimensions, but since our laws of physics break down during whatever event caused the universe to exist, we'll never be able to figure out for certain what happened.

However the universe got here, it's here now. Might as well do something productive and useful with it.

I see there to be two creation accounts in the Bible.

Theological scholars agree with you. The first five books of the Bible are believed to have been written by no less than two authors, both of which have very distinctive styles. One is the "Priestly" author - the one who wrote the 6 days creation. This author was obviously trying to get across the idea of God's absolute might and the fact that human beings were the pinnacle of creation. The second is the "Yahwist" who seems to have compiled many of the tribal stories and written them down. This author was concerned with humankind's separation from God (hence the Adam and Eve story of creation) and also wished to establish the fact that man (and yes, I am using man and not humankind for a reason) as the absolute dominator of creation. Man was not made as the pinnacle of creation in this story, but creation was made *for* man.

adam and eve had a lot of babies. Cain's mark was to protect him not to stop others from killing him watch the history channel. I am not a creationalist and the only problem i have with the big bang is it doesnt answer where antimatter comes from (it says matter spontaneously created itself like it does every day.) It also doesnt explain the symetry break or what ever it is called (when antimatter ceased being as abudnent as matter).

I believe that there were 2 balls an antimatter one and matter one. They touched and went kaboom. The matter went on one side expanding the other way and the antimatter did the same thing on the other side and inthe middle of the universe there is a field of annihilation where matter and antimatter "struggle for control"

Just wondering how many generations before you see evolution? Actually changing from type animal to another or the dna changes that you could classify it as another creature?

Bacteria has went through 2 1/2 million generations That is mindboggling and still each time e-coli is e-coli. even under forced changes the e-coli remain e-coli. Evolution is a farce and kind of a joke the more science truly digs in the more they find out that evolution is untrue.

I do not know how many years 2 1/2 million generations of bacteria would transfer to humans but that is long enough.

There is also a funny thing every time a monkey breeds with another monkey ( not hold on this is amazing and beyond belief) monkeys are born?? Every single time it is quite amazing.

The burden of proof is in he that makes the claim. I make no claims therefore I offer no proof.

evelotution was never proven. Any way according to the theory of eveloution evelution occurs with the passing down of a good mutation so a monkey could theoretically got so screwed up with mutations that it caused a superintelligent creature and when breeded with the normal monkey got super stupid creatures humans

i forgot how to spell eveloution
Darwins evelotution got proved wrong and it became apparent that evelotution is more rapid then darwin thought

Just wondering how many generations before you see evolution? Actually changing from type animal to another or the dna changes that you could classify it as another creature?

Bacteria has went through 2 1/2 million generations That is mindboggling and still each time e-coli is e-coli. even under forced changes the e-coli remain e-coli. Evolution is a farce and kind of a joke the more science truly digs in the more they find out that evolution is untrue.

I do not know how many years 2 1/2 million generations of bacteria would transfer to humans but that is long enough.

There is also a funny thing every time a monkey breeds with another monkey ( not hold on this is amazing and beyond belief) monkeys are born?? Every single time it is quite amazing.

The burden of proof is in he that makes the claim. I make no claims therefore I offer no proof.

Oh. You're a crafty one, aren'tcha?

at least so far no one thinks that we were created when aliens abducted neanderthals and mixed there dna with the neanderthals creating us to get gold so the aliens could repair the atmosphere. There proof is the ancient mesopatanians had a tale like that and our facial and skull features.

A lil known fact-the neanderthals had a bigger brain then us

Don't get me wrong, I know I might just get slammed with half-illiterate assaults for posting this, but I truly am curious. The problem I have always had with evolution is this (and I would love to have someone legitimately explain it to me), if upwards of 90% of mutations significant enough to constitue a changing of the species (to my understanding, the building block of evolution) are not viable (sterile, if even able to survive), and the odds of even seeing those mutations in the first place is fairly small, the odds seem drastically against ever seeing two of those mutations in the same area of opposite gender. If we assume (and since we're talking a changing of the species, that seems a fairly large assumption [make sure you understand, I'm not talking Black Lab to Chocolate Lab]) that this mutation is good and can breed with the original species, that wouldn't help us because DNA recombinations are much more likely to water down the mutation than spread it and pronounce it. And if these mutations do make the new species unable to breed with the original (which seems more likely), that would suggest that the opposite gender mutant would not a mutation at least similar to the original mutant. Strictly mathematically, the odds seem phenomenally small. And like I said, I'd love a rational explanation of the faults in that.

Evolution is not the creation of new species by mutation but by natural selection. For example if you have 2 lions(male) the one that is stronger ect.. (superior) will be able to gain control of a pride and reproduce. The weaker one will be unable to reproduce and pass on its genes. If the location/prey is best for a faster animal then teh faster lion will seceed and over time will its genetic coding will have taken the best genes for speed an it will be a creature of speed: a cheetah
http://www.sineart.com/c3/
This site is a game of evloution i give no gereantees of its safty so use at your own risk

I do not know how many years 2 1/2 million generations of bacteria would transfer to humans but that is long enough.

I don't know where this number came from, but let's see:

At absolute max, population doubling time (ie. all cells have replicated) for a bacteria is about 12 hours. (This is, of course, assuming sufficient nutrients). So, if we assume a 12 hour generation time (this is *incredibly* generous, as a mammalian cell generally divides at least every 24 hours, and bacteria are much, much quicker.

That is 1.25 million days.
~3422 years

With human generations of approximately 20 years, this is about 171 human generations.

Now, if you were stating that the *total* number of generations for all bacteria is 2 1/2 million - you have just stated that there were no bacteria on this Earth until about 1400 A.D. Congratulations.

I don't know where this number came from, but let's see:

At absolute max, population doubling time (ie. all cells have replicated) for a bacteria is about 12 hours. (This is, of course, assuming sufficient nutrients). So, if we assume a 12 hour generation time (this is *incredibly* generous, as a mammalian cell generally divides at least every 24 hours, and bacteria are much, much quicker.

That is 1.25 million days.
~3422 years

With human generations of approximately 20 years, this is about 171 human generations.

Now, if you were stating that the *total* number of generations for all bacteria is 2 1/2 million - you have just stated that there were no bacteria on this Earth until about 1400 A.D. Congratulations.

I think the optimum time of reproduction for E. coli is roughly once every 20 minutes, so 72 generations per day, 26,280 a year, roughly 951 years. Congratulations, you've just shot yourself in the foot, considering that we haven't been observing E. coli since the 1000's.

Say nothing of the fact that we have seen mutations and new strains of E. coli popping up...

Bacteria does evolve. Look at the new strip throat that is immune to the vaccine treatment whatever you call it. That is because the medicine killed the ones not fittest to survive. So now laugh ha ha ha ha ha.

Bacteria has been around for about 3.6 billion years multiply by 365.26 the number of days in a year times 24 and you get a big number divide by 12 (for hours using the guys generous thing) and you should get the number of bacteria generations. Take that number multiply by the 12 and factorial and that should be the number of bacteria ever existed.

My calc says 2.629872*10^12 generations. in other words
2,629,872,000,000 a lot less then i thought

I think the optimum time of reproduction for E. coli is roughly once every 20 minutes, so 72 generations per day, 26,280 a year, roughly 951 years. Congratulations, you've just shot yourself in the foot, considering that we haven't been observing E. coli since the 1000's.

Say nothing of the fact that we have seen mutations and new strains of E. coli popping up...

I didn't shoot myself in the foot, considering that I stated very clearly that 12 hours was incredibly generous.

(Maybe you should have replied to the person who made the statement, not me).

I didn't shoot myself in the foot, considering that I stated very clearly that 12 hours was incredibly generous.

(Maybe you should have replied to the person who made the statement, not me).
Just correcting your 12 hours...

Bacteria does evolve. Look at the new strip throat that is immune to the vaccine treatment whatever you call it. That is because the medicine killed the ones not fittest to survive. So now laugh ha ha ha ha ha.

Bacteria has been around for about 3.6 billion years multiply by 365.26 the number of days in a year times 24 and you get a big number divide by 12 and you should get the number of bacteria generations. Take that number multiply by the 12 and factorial and that should be the number of bacteria ever existed.

My calc says 2.629872*10^12 generations. in other words
2,629,872,000,000 a lot less then i thought

It evolves? So then please show me what E-coli turns into. Does it not truly just adapt? it remains e-coli now and forever. Get used to it You will go to your grave and evolution will not be close to proven in fact more evidence against it will rise. The next thing ya know science will start saying that it is not an evolving at all but rather it happens instantly. A monkey gives birth to a chimpanzee?? Go figure.

It evolves? So then please show me what E-coli turns into. Does it not truly just adapt? it remains e-coli now and forever.

Adaptations occur *without* mutations. Mutations are numerous and evident in E. coli.

Also remember that something is called E. coli. because *we* classify it as such.

Note also the emergence of new bacteria within our lifetimes. All bacteria are not E. coli., you know.

adapting is evolving. If a giraffe (i know i cant spell :( ) has a longer neck than another giraffe it can pass down that genes to have offspring with a bigger neck. That giraffe can eat more food since it can reach higher. The shorter necked giraffes die when the buffalo eat all the grass. That is evolving since the giraffe are growing longer necks. Humans are evolving. Humans are getting less hair and the pinky finger is moving a tad bit to become like a second thumb. Evolution is a slow process. it doesn't happen over a day or month. It happens gradually over generations and is hard to notice.

It evolves? So then please show me what E-coli turns into. Does it not truly just adapt? it remains e-coli now and forever. Get used to it You will go to your grave and evolution will not be close to proven in fact more evidence against it will rise. The next thing ya know science will start saying that it is not an evolving at all but rather it happens instantly. A monkey gives birth to a chimpanzee?? Go figure.
E.coli O157:H7.

adaptation is caused by good mutations. If a family of black rabbits give birth to a brown rabbit in the summer and turns white in the winter is an example of adaptation caused through evelotution. vangaard go take biology.
Said in an inoffensive way

Evolution is not the creation of new species by mutation but by natural selection. For example if you have 2 lions(male) the one that is stronger ect.. (superior) will be able to gain control of a pride and reproduce. The weaker one will be unable to reproduce and pass on its genes. If the location/prey is best for a faster animal then teh faster lion will seceed and over time will its genetic coding will have taken the best genes for speed an it will be a creature of speed: a cheetah
http://www.sineart.com/c3/
This site is a game of evloution i give no gereantees of its safty so use at your own risk
But if we simplify evolution to being purely natural selection, it becomes a destructive force, the weeding out of the weaker for the benefit of the stronger. That can't be simply written away by suggesting that the old species move to area where their "talents" are more useful, because often the seemingly linked species share the same environs. If one animal is better suited, it might not happen immediately but eventually the weaker species would be starved out. But that (almost) never pans out. Which leads to the problem that natural selection evolution would be more a matter of convenience than survival. Which would make humans the most dilligent species on the planet, since we adapt to our environment (almost) universally on a generational basis (each person in each generation adapting for themselves). And that's ignoring the implications that natural selection would at best keep the number of species stable by replacing secies with better suited ones (and more likely lead to extinctions as super-species which can eclipse more than one older species rise out of the older ones). In any case, I think there are some flaws in the response.

adaptation is caused by good mutations. If a family of black rabbits give birth to a brown rabbit in the summer and turns white in the winter is an example of adaptation caused through evelotution. vangaard go take biology.
Said in an inoffensive way

That would not be an adaptation either. Adaptation is something which occurs within an organism's lifetime to make it better suited to the environment. For example, if I exercised more, my heart would be able to pump more at a time, so my body would adjust, slowing my heart rate - that is an adaptation.

But if we simplify evolution to being purely natural selection, it becomes a destructive force, the weeding out of the weaker for the benefit of the stronger. That can't be simply written away by suggesting that the old species move to area where their "talents" are more useful, because often the seemingly linked species share the same environs. If one animal is better suited, it might not happen immediately but eventually the weaker species would be starved out. But that (almost) never pans out. Which leads to the problem that natural selection evolution would be more a matter of convenience than survival. Which would make humans the most dilligent species on the planet, since we adapt to our environment (almost) universally on a generational basis (each person in each generation adapting for themselves). And that's ignoring the implications that natural selection would at best keep the number of species stable by replacing secies with better suited ones (and more likely lead to extinctions as super-species which can eclipse more than one older species rise out of the older ones). In any case, I think there are some flaws in the response.

You forget that natural selection does not necessarily equate to "survival of the strong." If and only if two creatures meet the same exact niche will one starve out the other. As long as they can evolve to meet separate niches, thre is no problem.

It evolves? So then please show me what E-coli turns into. Does it not truly just adapt? it remains e-coli now and forever. Get used to it You will go to your grave and evolution will not be close to proven in fact more evidence against it will rise.

Vangaardia, all you're demonstrating here is that you've got no grasp on the mechanism of evolution.

The next thing ya know science will start saying that it is not an evolving at all but rather it happens instantly. A monkey gives birth to a chimpanzee?? Go figure.

Why would "science" say that? It sounds more like something a willfully ignorant creationist might say while putting ridiculous claims in the mouth of strawman "science."

no that would be the other guys idea of evelotution. You know the guy before darwin. Adaptation is behavioral or structural. evelotion is stucteral used to better an organisms chance of survival. Adaptation is caused by competition for food or preventing an organism from eating the other. Behavioural is like ox traveling in herds or ducks or whatever the birds that fly in the v shape are called.

http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d048AF2D5A6BBB9E14%26sid%3d1879C7B171 B645F14%26qid%3dC0857932E4EFE143A3EB8582B1631306%26io%3d1%26sv%3dza5cb0d21%26o%3d0%26ask%3dadaptatio n%26uip%3d18b85389%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dAnimals%2band%2bAdaptation%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d102%26te_id%3d %26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.learninghaven.com%2fscience%2farticles%2fanimals_and_adaptation.htm&bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dadaptation%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=adaptation&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.learninghaven.com%2fscience%2farticles%2fanimals_and_adaptation.htm&qte=0&o=0&abs=Animals+and+Adaptation.++In+order+for+animals+to+survive%2c+they+need+to+be+able+to+adapt.&tit=Animals+and+Adaptation&bin=bb1a26e29347a177d2ed969238b88283%26s%3d1080106846&cat=wp&purl=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d048AF2D5A6BBB9E14%26sid%3d1879 C7B171B645F14%26qid%3dC0857932E4EFE143A3EB8582B1631306%26io%3d%26sv%3dza5cb0d21%26o%3d0%26ask%3dadap tation%26uip%3d18b85389%26en%3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fmyjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1

says there
the link better work

if not go here
http://www.learninghaven.com/science/articles/animals_and_adaptation.htm

http://web.ask.com/redir?u=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fr%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d048AF2D5A6BBB9E14%26sid%3d1879C7B171 B645F14%26qid%3dC0857932E4EFE143A3EB8582B1631306%26io%3d1%26sv%3dza5cb0d21%26o%3d0%26ask%3dadaptatio n%26uip%3d18b85389%26en%3dte%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3dAnimals%2band%2bAdaptation%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26ep%3d1%26te_par%3d102%26te_id%3d %26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fwww.learninghaven.com%2fscience%2farticles%2fanimals_and_adaptation.htm&bpg=http%3a%2f%2fweb.ask.com%2fweb%3fq%3dadaptation%26o%3d0%26page%3d1&q=adaptation&s=a&bu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.learninghaven.com%2fscience%2farticles%2fanimals_and_adaptation.htm&qte=0&o=0&abs=Animals+and+Adaptation.++In+order+for+animals+to+survive%2c+they+need+to+be+able+to+adapt.&tit=Animals+and+Adaptation&bin=bb1a26e29347a177d2ed969238b88283%26s%3d1080106846&cat=wp&purl=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.ask.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d048AF2D5A6BBB9E14%26sid%3d1879 C7B171B645F14%26qid%3dC0857932E4EFE143A3EB8582B1631306%26io%3d%26sv%3dza5cb0d21%26o%3d0%26ask%3dadap tation%26uip%3d18b85389%26en%3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fmyjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1

says there
the link better work

if not go here
http://www.learninghaven.com/science/articles/animals_and_adaptation.htm

That's nice, but it is not the way that most biologists refer to adaptation.

A thick fur coat in the winter time *is* an adaptation which occurs in response to cold weather, just as my heart example occurs in response to heavy exercise.

Genetic changes are mutations, not adaptations. They may make an individual organism more adaptable, and thus more well-suited for its environment - causing them to be selected for, but adaptations themselves are not evidence of evolution.

This is patently untrue.

The belief or non-belief in God is, by definition, an axiomatic statement. It is the basis from which logical discussion of God comes. If you take the axiom that there is no God, then you will argue from that viewpoint. If you take the axiom that there is, you will argue from that viewpoint.
Therefore, logic cannot address the question of whether or not there is a God. Which part of this do we disagree on?

evelotution is caused by mutations which are adaptions.

evelotution is caused by mutations which are adaptions.
Wrong

mutation
• The act or process of being altered or changed.
• An alteration or change, as in nature, form, or quality.
• Genetics.
a. A change of the DNA sequence within a gene or chromosome of an organism resulting in the creation of a new character or trait not found in the parental type.
b. The process by which such a change occurs in a chromosome, either through an alteration in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA coding for a gene or through a change in the physical arrangement of a chromosome.
c. A mutant.



a. • The act or process of adapting.
b. The state of being adapted.
a. • Something, such as a device or mechanism, that is changed or changes so as to become suitable to a new or special application or situation.
b. A composition that has been recast into a new form: The play is an adaptation of a short novel.
• Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.


See not the same

You forget that natural selection does not necessarily equate to "survival of the strong." If and only if two creatures meet the same exact niche will one starve out the other. As long as they can evolve to meet separate niches, thre is no problem.Touché. Probably one of the better returns I've seen on this forum. But I have to ask, wouldn't that make evolution a process bent towards convenience rather than necessity?

God spoke everything into being. While this may make room for a "big bang" (as in insta-creation), it doesn't leave room for fish turning into birds, monkeys, or humans.

Touché. Probably one of the better returns I've seen on this forum. But I have to ask, wouldn't that make evolution a process bent towards convenience rather than necessity?
Yes, but that's the point of evolution in the long run, more food (more offspring) for less work.

Touché. Probably one of the better returns I've seen on this forum. But I have to ask, wouldn't that make evolution a process bent towards convenience rather than necessity?

No one has ever claimed anything different. This world does not *need* rabbits. If they all died out, the Earth would go on existing. There is no necessity for rabbits to have evolved.

However, the reason rabbits have the traits they currently have are that it was convenient. Traits such as powerful hind legs gave ancient proto-rabbits a leg-up (no pun intended) on the competition, putting them into the niche which they currently occupy. They had to do less to continue to survive, making better use of resources, etc.

God spoke everything into being. While this may make room for a "big bang" (as in insta-creation), it doesn't leave room for fish turning into birds, monkeys, or humans.

Why do you accept the priestly version of creation and reject the Yahwist?

Why do you accept the priestly version of creation and reject the Yahwist?
Because it is always easer then thinking/reading/doing for yourself

Nice one, upward thrust, it always feels good to make accusations without proof, eh?

Anyhow I read all the pages in class and I will be posting soon enough. Briefly:

Religious faith has little to do with creationism. I have yet to meet a creationist who backs his creationism up with some sort of "religious faith". He does speak on what the Bible says, and then goes to science and shows proof (woops, I forgot you're all evolutionist so my "proof" is just irrational hypocritical christian lies, yes that is ad hominem and a sweeping generalization fallacy)

Next, who ever posted a "why can't we all just get along" post is wrong, dichotomous thinking is the only way to think in this world. There is only ONE truth. if I am wrong, well that sucks, because I swear something supernatural happens when I worship or pray or talk to God.

No one has ever claimed anything different. This world does not *need* rabbits. If they all died out, the Earth would go on existing. There is no necessity for rabbits to have evolved.


That is an interesting point, but Rabbits occupy a position in the food web of the world that, if they all mysteriously disappeared there could be serious reprocussions. That fact that everything is so interrelated and complex makes me think that evolution on the macro scale is flawed. Why would some creatures evolve into herbivores and some into carnivores if they all came from the same original animal/cell? Most of the posts I've read here seem to say things like giraffes necks would grow longer in order to reach higher and would block out other giraffes from getting food, and yet this is a far cry from macro evolution.

Nice one, upward thrust, it always feels good to make accusations without proof, eh?

Anyhow I read all the pages in class and I will be posting soon enough. Briefly:

Religious faith has little to do with creationism. I have yet to meet a creationist who backs his creationism up with some sort of "religious faith". He does speak on what the Bible says, and then goes to science and shows proof (woops, I forgot you're all evolutionist so my "proof" is just irrational hypocritical christian lies, yes that is ad hominem and a sweeping generalization fallacy)
The thing is, not yet has anyone seen any proof. Some supporting evidence, but no proof.

Neither side has total proof.

Most of the posts I've read here seem to say things like giraffes necks would grow longer in order to reach higher and would block out other giraffes from getting food, and yet this is a far cry from macro evolution.

Don't be silly. Giraffes' necks got longer to help them stretch their way along the great chain of being.

That is an interesting point, but Rabbits occupy a position in the food web of the world that, if they all mysteriously disappeared there could be serious reprocussions. That fact that everything is so interrelated and complex makes me think that evolution on the macro scale is flawed. Why would some creatures evolve into herbivores and some into carnivores if they all came from the same original animal/cell? Most of the posts I've read here seem to say things like giraffes necks would grow longer in order to reach higher and would block out other giraffes from getting food, and yet this is a far cry from macro evolution.

Again, herbivores and carnivores occupy different niches. If everything was a carnivore, everything would die out. If everything was an herbivore, competition would be too high and most species would not survive.

Also, note that my rabbit analogy was very simplified. Obviously, there would be repurcussions if the entire rabbit population disappeared, but this is because the various species have coevolved. The point was that, prior to rabbits forming, there was no specific *need* for rabbits.

Religious faith has little to do with creationism. I have yet to meet a creationist who backs his creationism up with some sort of "religious faith". He does speak on what the Bible says, and then goes to science and shows proof (woops, I forgot you're all evolutionist so my "proof" is just irrational hypocritical christian lies, yes that is ad hominem and a sweeping generalization fallacy)

I have met Creationists who used scientific words, but never a single one that used actual science. There is quite a difference.

See my post on the first page re: chicken births.

dichotomous thinking is the only way to think in this world.

This is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

That is an interesting point, but Rabbits occupy a position in the food web of the world that, if they all mysteriously disappeared there could be serious reprocussions. That fact that everything is so interrelated and complex makes me think that evolution on the macro scale is flawed. Why would some creatures evolve into herbivores and some into carnivores if they all came from the same original animal/cell? Most of the posts I've read here seem to say things like giraffes necks would grow longer in order to reach higher and would block out other giraffes from getting food, and yet this is a far cry from macro evolution.
Little evolution over a long period of time leads to large evolution. (Mirco->Macro).


As for your other statement, we've already answered this, species differentiate to gain more food with the least effort. If you're compeating with a thousand other species for the same type of food, you're going to evolve something that gives you the ability to eat something else, as the first animal that has the mutation to do that will be extremely well fed (and thus have the most offspring, generally) as will their offspring, as will their offspring, ad infinitum.

just courioius from an Evolutionists view explain how the bombardier beetle came about from evolution

oh and the big Bang theory is a load of crap because no one yet has been able to satisfy the question of why out of the blue everything in the universe came togather to spin in a blissful joy untill bang universe created

just courioius from an Evolutionists view explain how the bombardier beetle came about from evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html

Looks fairly logical.

Ah where to start.

Firstly I think MOST of the main objections to evolution come from individuals, through no fault of their own, are not in possesion of an accurate description of the current evolution theory.

Secondly, objections to evolution arrise when individuals take PART of the process of evolution and wonder why it doesnt explain the entire picture.

Thirdly, people associate other problems, such as what was before the big bang, which have no relevence to the process of evolution and point them out as problems with evolution.

It seems to me that creationist arguments are fatally flawed because they presuppose not only the existence of a god, but also assume that he/she/it fits their definition of what that god is, rather than the evolutionist who starts with no assumptions (ok the basic assumptions of science) and constructs his theory based on what is occuring around them.

The leap from the beauty of the world to it having a creator is flawed because it is based on the subjective opinion of the individual.

Sometimes you have to accept things as true even if you dont like them, not liking the fact that we are closely related to chimps is not a valid reason for deciding it is untrue. Similarly believing something to be true just because you want it to be is also flawed reasoning, correct me if im wrong but this is what faith is.

Currently evolution, even if it is wrong, is the best explination that we currently have for what we observe and until a better theory (which is unlikely as it will more likely be a modification of the current explination) is put forward then evolution is where im putting my money (metaphorical money, unless anyone knows of a betting agency thats taking this sort of bet).

just courioius from an Evolutionists view explain how the bombardier beetle came about from evolution

oh and the big Bang theory is a load of crap because no one yet has been able to satisfy the question of why out of the blue everything in the universe came togather to spin in a blissful joy untill bang universe created

You're forgetting that time itself is a part of our universe. None of the laws of physics or anything existed before the Big Bang. Since our science works under assumptions based in this universe, we can't properly examine the pre-universal stage (I don't say period because there would be no period for a stage where time does not pass).

just courioius from an Evolutionists view explain how the bombardier beetle came about from evolution

oh and the big Bang theory is a load of crap because no one yet has been able to satisfy the question of why out of the blue everything in the universe came togather to spin in a blissful joy untill bang universe created
Why has nothing to do with it, and quite frankly, the big bang doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or the creation of the universe.

Originally Posted by Cole Square
just courioius from an Evolutionists view explain how the bombardier beetle came about from evolution

oh and the big Bang theory is a load of crap because no one yet has been able to satisfy the question of why out of the blue everything in the universe came togather to spin in a blissful joy untill bang universe created

I love it! We dont know what happened before the big bang therefore the entire theory of the big bang is rubbish! genius!

The big bang theory doesnt make any statements about what happened before, the BBT just describes what evidence suggests occured after 10^-35 seconds after the start of the universe.

A theory that deals with what happened before the big bang is M-Theory, a branch of quantum mechanics that has stemed from string theorum.

Just because we dont know what happend before the big bang doesnt mean that because you have a book that says "this happened" we should accept it without question. Perhaps the big band does require an external influence it does not follow that that influence is necessariy the God that the bible speaks of.

Are you fools? How can anyone seriously deny the validity of Christianity? The great prophet Hideaki Anno has written the holy text Neon Genesis Evangelion, simutaneously clarifying so much of Revelations and proving that Japanese can record the Truth just as well as Hebrew and Greek. Don't you see, the end is nigh. My neighbor has a cousin who has a friend whose neighbor's boss knows a pest extermination company that once got a call from Seele to deal with a Japanese bean beetle infestion in their HQ. How can you deny that?

Ah yes Eva completely slipped my mind, however you forget the prophecy key to "end of evangellion" where we find ourselves looking into an cinema. How can we deny this sign that we must flock to fill those empty seats and take our place watching Shinji <ommitted> over Asuka.

hmmm.

Well, just think about this for a while... Meanwhile, I'll just stop wasting my time in this pointless topic, seeing as how there's no way I'll ever convince any of you...

Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

by Ken Ham


Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.

The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.

Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.

However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.

Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.

On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.

No actual science is involved from anyone who touts evolution as fact. It is a theory and will remain so. For me anyone who states that it is fact is not credible and certainly no where near a true scientist.

No actual science is involved from anyone who touts evolution as fact. It is a theory and will remain so. For me anyone who states that it is fact is not credible and certainly no where near a true scientist.

For someone who thinks they can pronounce who is and who is not a true scientist, you certainly don't know very much about science.

Yes, evolution by natural selection as the source of modern biodiversity is a "just" a theory, the mechanics of evolution through natural selection are proven, observable fact and the basis for much of modern biology.

By the way, I would use quite the sardonic tone with that "just". Gravity is "just" a theory. Electromagnetism is "just" a theory. There's cell "theory".

You clearly have no idea exactly what the difference between theory and fact is.

For someone who thinks they can pronounce who is and who is not a true scientist, you certainly don't know very much about science.

Yes, evolution by natural selection as the source of modern biodiversity is a "just" a theory, the mechanics of evolution through natural selection are proven, observable fact and the basis for much of modern biology.

By the way, I would use quite the sardonic tone with that "just". Gravity is "just" a theory. Electromagnetism is "just" a theory. There's cell "theory".

You clearly have no idea exactly what the difference between theory and fact is.


I do very clearly recognize Ad hominem though!! It is "just" a theory and pretty pathetic one at that that has WASTED minds and dollars and space. It is the ultimate slippery slope logical fallacy. I know enough about true science to tell you that! Tell you what show me direct casual agent from one species to the next. Slippery slope.

For someone who thinks they can pronounce who is and who is not a true scientist, you certainly don't know very much about science.

Yes, evolution by natural selection as the source of modern biodiversity is a "just" a theory, the mechanics of evolution through natural selection are proven, observable fact and the basis for much of modern biology.

By the way, I would use quite the sardonic tone with that "just". Gravity is "just" a theory. Electromagnetism is "just" a theory. There's cell "theory".

You clearly have no idea exactly what the difference between theory and fact is.


Actually, gravity is a law. There is a difference, although a good theory (relativity, for example) is practically indistinguishable from a law.

just courioius from an Evolutionists view explain how the bombardier beetle came about from evolution

oh and the big Bang theory is a load of crap because no one yet has been able to satisfy the question of why out of the blue everything in the universe came togather to spin in a blissful joy untill bang universe created

And, of course... the same is true for all religions.

Aside from a sudden fickleness, no religion has an ACTUAL explanation of why a god or gods would spontaneously create everything.

So, by your logic - all religions are 'a load of crap'?

Oh wow, mad props to Neo-Anarchists for being so nice to me. We have met up in previous threads and you have corrected me very nicely, you have yet to plain out tear me apart, I fear you could be worse than Bottle.

So Dumpublicants, why is dichotomous thinking so silly? It is true. Evolution can not be the ONE truth in Africa, but Christianity the ONE truth in Mexico. There is one truth out there, you know it and I know it otherwise we would not be clashing with religion VS. science. (Well it is touted as religion vs. science, but I'd say its supporting facts for worldview vs supporting facts for opposite worldview, but 'hey' I'm a sinister fanatical hypocritical irrationally thinking christian)

Dempublicents-
I have met Creationists who used scientific words, but never a single one that used actual science. There is quite a difference.

Dictionary.com defines science as:
sci·ence (sns)
n.

1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to explaining a limited class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

I think you are wrong, unless you meant some.. weird christian guy. ( to you I'm sure we're all the same, yes accusation of sweeping generalization!) If you have websites of these christian scientists NOT using science please send to me, I would love to tear them apart for making me look worse than usual (well, there is no difference to you I bet, yes! ad hominem..I think)

Grave_n_idle, uh the Bible has a reason for why God created man and woman.

So, my belief in a young earth does have a BIG problem(if you are evolutionist read "my belief in a young earth does have one BIG problem I choose to recognize"): Stars emanating light. It would take millions of year for that light to reach earth.

Anyhow, I had said earlier I was going to write a lot about my belief and defend and crap, but I am a lazy irrational thinking christian, so I'm gonna go work out. :gundge:

Well, there are a few arguments, but all of them can be fairly easily debunked.

For starters, there is the standard Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. It's odd that this one is still trotted out, given that it's been refuted decisively for about 250 years now (David Hume debunked it during the time of the American Revolution, people). Basically, this is the argument that "Well, the universe must have a cause, and only God must have a cause, therefore God exists." This I think is what, in fairly primitive form, all those people who were critiquing the Big Bang Theory (which is odd, as the Big Bang theory, of all theories, leaves the widest gap for the existence of God) were talking about when they talked about how "you don't know what happened before the big bang, so nyah!", as well as the Pales' Watch Argument, and so on.

Basically, the counterargument goes something like this:

Dramatis Personae:
Secularist Devil
Knight of Faith

Act 1, Scene 1:

KoF: God created the Earth!
SD: How do you know this?
KoF: Everything must have a cause, and only God could be the cause of everything, therefore God exists!
SD: So what created God?
KoF: What do you mean what created God?
SD: Well, if everything has a cause, and God exists, then God must have a cause. . .
KoF: . . .Er, God created himself. Yeah, that's it!
SD: If God has the ability to create himself, why can't the universe have that same power?
KoF: . . .Let's change the subject.
End scene

Simply put, the Cosmological "causal" argument just doesn't hold up very well, because in order to make it work, you have to assume (arbitrarily) that the causal chain stops at God. However, so long as you're being arbitrary about it, the causal chain can just as easily stop at the universe itself. God, therefore, is not needed nor sufficient to explain the existence of the world.

The other major argument I've heard runs something along the lines of how it is very improbable that the universe, acting on its own, could have spawned life. Some of the arguments run along the lines of how life violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which is the law stating that the general tendency of all things is towards greater disorder. Now, some other people have refuted this already, but I'd like to go for a deeper attack on this, so as to undercut the entire probabilistic argument altogether. First of all, the funny thing about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is that it talks about a tendency, not an ironclad, irrefutable motion of nature.

Take, for example, a thought experiment involving a box with a divider that completely seperates two equal quantities of water. In one half of the box, I saturate the water with red food dye, and in the other half, I saturate the water with blue food dye. Then I remove the divider. Now, the natural tendency of the food dye is to merge and diffuse throughout the expanded container, so that eventually the water is a uniform purple color. This is completely in accord with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. However, there is also nothing that prevents those red and blue dye particles to, purely through random bouncing against other particles and water, to eventually return their old positions within their respective halves of the container, such that once again the water is half red and half blue. Statistically improbable for certain, but there is nothing in the 2nd Law to make it impossible.

Moreover, there is a funny thing about statistics that creationists tend to overlook, and that is that it is often the case that while particular examples of a phenomenon are quite rare, general instances of such a phenomenon are at the same time usually quite common. To give you an example, let's say, hypothetically, that later this evening, Bottle and I (her being a woman and I being a man) meet for dinner, hit it off, and have sex once. Again, remember, I am speaking of this as a hypothetical situation, so don't all of you bring in Bottle to have her e-attack me. Now, supposing this was the one time we ever had sex with each other (I wasn't the lover she was hoping for, or something to that effect), what would the probability be that precisely 27 weeks from today, Bottle gives birth to the child of that pairing? The odds, truth be told, are pretty slim. If even one of us was using protection, the odds of conception are already down in the 1 in 10,000 range, with both, almost too low to compute. Then you have to factor in the fact that the egg is only viable for one day in the entire 28 day cycle, and sperm can only survive in the vagina/uterus for 5 days, so there is only a 5/28 chance of them even being within the same area alive at the same time. Of those living eggs and sperm, very often they fail to meet, so the odds of actual conception are fairly low. Even supposing the egg becomes fertilized, there is a very high probability that (somewhere around 66-75%, IIRC) the fertilized egg will never implant on the uterine wall. Even if it does implant on the uterine wall, only one of three zygotes live past the blastocyst (sp?) stage. Supposing that it does implant, and it does live past the first stage to become a full-blown embryo, and further assuming that Bottle doesn't abort it, there is about an 80% chance that it will develop into a healthy fetus. However, it is fairly unlikely that it will be born in exactly 27 weeks.

What was the point of this story? Well, not to tick off Bottle (hope you didn't mind being the subject of that hypothetical example, B) so much as to point something out: it is extremely unlikely from a statistical standpoint that the particular incident in question, namely me having sex with Bottle sometime tonight, will have the effect of a baby sired by us arriving promptly 27 weeks later. However, would you then be willing to say, from this thought experiment, that it would be impossible for a general someone, despite having protection and the overall statistical unlikelihood of the event, from having a baby exactly 27 weeks later from such a pairing? Of course not; it probably happens far too often. As such, we can see that while individual, specific events are often very rare, a generic type of that event can still be, and often is, a very common occurance. The same thing is true from an evolutionary standpoint: while it is extremely unlikely that at some specific time x proteins y and z merged into amino acid w, that does not mean that it is therefore incredibly unlikely that at any time, two instances of proteins y and z did not merge purely by chance into amino acid w. In fact, it was almost cartain that at some point in history, they did. Perhaps to put it more strongly, a world where those proteins never combined would be far more difficult to explain than one where they did. If so, then probability theory alone can explain how the proverbial 747 got assembled in the junkyard of ancient Earth, and God is not necessary.

This isn't to say that God doesn't exist, but dagnabbit, if you all want God, you need to learn how to properly argue for his existence. Arguing against evolution doesn't earn you a hill of beans in that respect.

It's quite simple actually - Everything cannot come out of nothing
Anyone who uses the Bible or any other religious text as a scientific quideline is a fool.
But so is anyone that can't see beyond tangible things and believe in something, that can never be understood.

Well, not to tick off Bottle (hope you didn't mind being the subject of that hypothetical example, B)
are you kidding? not only was it a very useful story, but i get to score in it too!

rock on.

Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.

There is no presupposition in Evolution that there is no God, nor that there is no God which performed any acts of creation.

Actually, gravity is a law. There is a difference, although a good theory (relativity, for example) is practically indistinguishable from a law.

A law is simply a theory that has been around a long time and hasn't been falsified. It is still "just" a theory in the exact same sense that any scientific thought is a theory - and it is always open to falsification.

are you kidding? not only was it a very useful story, but i get to score in it too!

rock on.
I figured you'd come in and reply with something along those lines after I read it.
:D

So Dempublicants, why is dichotomous thinking so silly? It is true.

Anyone who looks at two possible options and says "This is completely true or that is completely true and there is no possibility of an in-between," lacks the ability or the motivation to actually think for themselves.

There is one truth out there, you know it and I know it otherwise we would not be clashing with religion VS. science.

There is absolutely no reason to set up such a false dichotomy. Only a fundamentalist would suggest that anything has to be religion or science.

Dempublicents-

I think you are wrong, unless you meant some.. weird christian guy.

Actually, I have seen some of the most "respected" Creationist speakers. None of them actually utilize science.

( to you I'm sure we're all the same, yes accusation of sweeping generalization!)

Oh, way to look really silly! I am a Christian, so obviously I am well aware that we are not all the same.

If you have websites of these christian scientists NOT using science please send to me, I would love to tear them apart for making me look worse than usual

I don't need a website. Look in any basic science book. Usually, the first chapter describes the scientific method - a method which no Creationist follows. Every single Creationist out there does things completely backwards. They begin with a conclusion that is, to them, absolutely set in stone and will not be changed no matter what. Then, they look for anything they can construe as being "evidence" of said conclusion. ((See my chicken and dog analogy on the first page)).

One of the first rules of science is that *every hypothesis* is falsifiable. In fact, in order to be performing science correctly, you must be attempting to *disprove* your hypothesis.

(well, there is no difference to you I bet, yes! ad hominem..I think)

Yes, you are right, this was an ad hominem attack. So perhaps you should stop making them.

Anyone who looks at two possible options and says "This is completely true or that is completely true and there is no possibility of an in-between," lacks the ability or the motivation to actually think for themselves.



There is absolutely no reason to set up such a false dichotomy. Only a fundamentalist would suggest that anything has to be religion or science.



Actually, I have seen some of the most "respected" Creationist speakers. None of them actually utilize science.



Oh, way to look really silly! I am a Christian, so obviously I am well aware that we are not all the same.



I don't need a website. Look in any basic science book. Usually, the first chapter describes the scientific method - a method which no Creationist follows. Every single Creationist out there does things completely backwards. They begin with a conclusion that is, to them, absolutely set in stone and will not be changed no matter what. Then, they look for anything they can construe as being "evidence" of said conclusion. ((See my chicken and dog analogy on the first page)).

One of the first rules of science is that *every hypothesis* is falsifiable. In fact, in order to be performing science correctly, you must be attempting to *disprove* your hypothesis.



Yes, you are right, this was an ad hominem attack. So perhaps you should stop making them.

You are correct creationist start with a conclusion of which any answer not known must then be an assumption and that is not science.

I do think that there are evidences both ways. Bottom line we arrived here somehow. And either or whatever way you choose requires faith.

I do think that there are evidences both ways. Bottom line we arrived here somehow. And either or whatever way you choose requires faith.
you aren't getting it: there isn't an "either way." the phrase "either way" implies there are only two possible ways to approach the problem.

we got here somehow, i agree. i don't presume to know how, nor do i believe any human theory (religious or scientific) has answered that question sufficiently. exactly how does "faith" come into that? what am i putting my "faith" in, by deciding there isn't enough information for me to reach any conclusion?

not all people are slaves to dichotomy.

I do very clearly recognize Ad hominem though!! It is "just" a theory and pretty pathetic one at that that has WASTED minds and dollars and space. It is the ultimate slippery slope logical fallacy. I know enough about true science to tell you that! Tell you what show me direct casual agent from one species to the next. Slippery slope.

Oh, you don't feel the need to go out and do your own research into why exactly you're wrong?

Ok, I guess I'll huff up and tell you.

No theory ever becomes fact. No theory ever becomes law (at least not anymore). There is no step above theory. You cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. In fact, that's a defining characteristic of theory, it's a falsifiable statement based upon field observations (facts!) that can make useful predictions about that which it attempts to explain. Evolution fits this. General relativity fits this. (Most) of Maxwell's theories on electromagnetism fit this.

But there are exceptions, like Newton's "Laws" of Motion and their ilk. They aren't really laws, there are no actual laws, they were just old enough during a time in the late 19th and early to middle 20th century when scientists were slapping the label "law" on everything they could. Newton's "Laws" of Motion and Boyle's "Law" are just theories that have yet to be falsified.

Now we get to fact.

Facts are nothing more than the things you can see, feel, smell, taste, or hear, things you can sense and directly observe. Whether it be the unfolding of a mathematical equation or the unfolding of a flower's petals, facts are what you must collect before you do anything else. Once you collect the facts, you make a hypothesis in an attempt to explain why these facts are like they are. Once you come up with a suitable hypothesis, you go and try to prove yourself wrong. You tell other people to try to prove you wrong. If, after repeated experimentation, you and others fail to prove your hypothesis wrong, it becomes theory. However, you don't stop there, you continue trying to prove it wrong, ad infinitum.

Saying something is "just" a theory is horribly misleading and demonstrates an extreme lack of knowledge on the most basic of scientific axioms. The mechanics of natural selection of favorable inheritable traits leading to a speicies evolving is an observed fact, but this mechanism being the source of modern biodiversity is a theory. The latter will never become fact, there is no possible way a theory can become fact, ever.

Actually, gravity is a law. There is a difference, although a good theory (relativity, for example) is practically indistinguishable from a law.

I'll refer you to the above. Gravity, or at least the existance of some kind of a force that pulls us towards the center of anything with mass, is an observed fact. General relativity, the most accepted theory of gravity today, is a theory and will always be a theory. You may see some people claim it was proven by Britons early in the century by their observations of stars that should be behind the sun, but that is not proof, it is supporting evidence. The only thing even closely related to science where you can absolutely prove something is mathematics.

not all people are slaves to dichotomy.
Isn't that dichotomous thinking Bottle?

So anyhow, I just woke up,maybe its my first real coffee in 2 weeks, maybe its the sleep. But I don't feel like ad hominem'ing or being overly stupid (evolution read: I will be passively stupid).


No theory ever becomes fact. No theory ever becomes law (at least not anymore). There is no step above theory. You cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. In fact, that's a defining characteristic of theory, it's a falsifiable statement based upon field observations (facts!) that can make useful predictions about that which it attempts to explain. Evolution fits this. General relativity fits this. (Most) of Maxwell's theories on electromagnetism fit this.

That is why us chrazy christians work to disprove evolution and prove creationism/intelligent design. Actually, creationism is a theory, uh? Mmm, no I am wrong, dictionary.com is bland enough to say:

creationism

n : the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis; "creationism denies the theory of evolution of species"

Regardless, I will say creationism is a theory. Until Dempublicents says otherwise. Also, the Young Earth Theory is exactly that, theory. btw, respected christians like Ken Ham?

Anyhow I've got to go to school, but, my problem with not believing in evolution is: it takes the Elohim out of Elohim. Elohim means "god in the three" and "most powerful god" or so says massive christian propaganda. If evolution is true, then why would there be a God? (yes! slave to dichotomy, right here, aisle 4)

last thing, evolution begins with a coclusion, just like creationism

Isn't that dichotomous thinking Bottle?

So anyhow, I just woke up,maybe its my first real coffee in 2 weeks, maybe its the sleep. But I don't feel like ad hominem'ing or being overly stupid (evolution read: I will be passively stupid).




That is why us chrazy christians work to disprove evolution and prove creationism/intelligent design. Actually, creationism is a theory, uh? Mmm, no I am wrong, dictionary.com is bland enough to say:



Regardless, I will say creationism is a theory. Until Dempublicents says otherwise. Also, the Young Earth Theory is exactly that, theory. btw, respected christians like Ken Ham?

Anyhow I've got to go to school, but, my problem with not believing in evolution is: it takes the Elohim out of Elohim. Elohim means "god in the three" and "most powerful god" or so says massive christian propaganda. If evolution is true, then why would there be a God? (yes! slave to dichotomy, right here, aisle 4)

last thing, evolution begins with a coclusion, just like creationism


No not conclusion ... hypothesis or theory … which is constantly being changed as it is proven false (conclusion different then hypothesis)

Whereas religion has a CONCLUSION which HAS to be true

Isn't that dichotomous thinking Bottle?

So anyhow, I just woke up,maybe its my first real coffee in 2 weeks, maybe its the sleep. But I don't feel like ad hominem'ing or being overly stupid (evolution read: I will be passively stupid).




That is why us chrazy christians work to disprove evolution and prove creationism/intelligent design. Actually, creationism is a theory, uh? Mmm, no I am wrong, dictionary.com is bland enough to say:



Regardless, I will say creationism is a theory. Until Dempublicents says otherwise. Also, the Young Earth Theory is exactly that, theory. btw, respected christians like Ken Ham?

Anyhow I've got to go to school, but, my problem with not believing in evolution is: it takes the Elohim out of Elohim. Elohim means "god in the three" and "most powerful god" or so says massive christian propaganda. If evolution is true, then why would there be a God? (yes! slave to dichotomy, right here, aisle 4)

last thing, evolution begins with a coclusion, just like creationism


YEC, ID, and any other type of creationism are NOT theories. They are not falsifiable and make no useful predictions.

Okay. Honestly, I'm having a bit of trouble reading through ALL of this as I'm supposed to be working.

HOWEVER

I want to throw this out, even if it already has been.

What if Creationist and Evolutionists are BOTH right?

Something had to bring forth the first living beings. Where we ALL sprouted from, right? The primordial ooze if you will, or whatever.

So, from those first living beings, we grew and evolved, etc.

I hope I'm doing a good job of explaining what I was thinking... I'm sorry if I'm not.

Okay. Honestly, I'm having a bit of trouble reading through ALL of this as I'm supposed to be working.

HOWEVER

I want to throw this out, even if it already has been.

What if Creationist and Evolutionists are BOTH right?

Something had to bring forth the first living beings. Where we ALL sprouted from, right? The primordial ooze if you will, or whatever.

So, from those first living beings, we grew and evolved, etc.

I hope I'm doing a good job of explaining what I was thinking... I'm sorry if I'm not.


Cant happen ... not creationism

Evolition leaves room for god

but CREATIONISM specificaly says it is EXACTLY has it happened in the bible ... 6 days and all (does not leave room for evolution)

anything other then exact following of the bible is not creationism

Cant happen ... not creationism

Evolition leaves room for god

but CREATIONISM specificaly says it is EXACTLY has it happened in the bible ... 6 days and all (does not leave room for evolution)

anything other then exact following of the bible is not creationism
lol, how arrogant.

guess what? there are literally HUNDREDS, if not thousands, of Creation theories, only a few of which are contained in the Christian Bible. indeed, the Bible itself has contradictory creation accounts in Genesis!

additionally, the theory of evolution is not in direct conflict with any particular Creation theory, since abiogenesis and evolution are not remotely the same thing; evolution could be an accurate theory for describing the development of existing living systems, and those living systems could have been Created by some intelligent designer. there would be no conflict in that.

only the truly ignorant would even attempt to claim that the myth of Creation is exclusively Christian....read a book.

lol, how arrogant.

guess what? there are literally HUNDREDS, if not thousands, of Creation theories, only a few of which are contained in the Christian Bible. indeed, the Bible itself has contradictory creation accounts in Genesis!

additionally, the theory of evolution is not in direct conflict with any particular Creation theory, since abiogenesis and evolution are not remotely the same thing; evolution could be an accurate theory for describing the development of existing living systems, and those living systems could have been Created by some intelligent designer. there would be no conflict in that.

only the truly ignorant would even attempt to claim that the myth of Creation is exclusively Christian....read a book.
Are you calling me arrogent? I am not a proponent of creationism

I was mearly stating the deffinition of the word creationism

cre·a·tion·ism Audio pronunciation of "creationism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm)
n.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

I may not agree with them but by the deffinition of the word creationism and evolition can not co-exist

only the truly ignorant would even attempt to claim that the myth of Creation is exclusively Christian....read a book.
Ohh and wanted to add I never claimed creation is exclusivly christian ... rather that "creationism" the WORD by deffiniton is a belief in the Bible (in that way not limited to christianity either being it is OT)

I'll throw out something to play with before the real creationists show up.

If God creates life, then life should exist. Life exists, which is consistent with the scenario of God creating life

AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
If p then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

Example: [see quoted text]

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT
If p then q.
Not-p.
Therefore, not-q.

Example: "If a person believes in God, that person might have morals. You don't believe in God, so you have no morals."

IN A CERTAIN RESPECT AND SIMPLY
a is an attribute of all bs, therefore a is an attribute of c.

Example: "All airplanes (b) have to be designed by an intelligent agent (a), therefore life (c) must have been designed by an intelligent agent."

(NAME UNKNOWN, BUT THIS IS THE FALLACY THAT APPEARS IN THE GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUMENT)
n could follow y or z.
The properties of y are uncertain.
Therefore, n follows z.
Therefore, the properties of z are A.

Example: "Mountains are either formed naturally or built by a man. We don't know how mountains could be formed naturally. Therefore, it is most logical to assume that they were built by a man. If the mountains were built by a man, his name must be Jones, he must be our enemy, and he must have many riches."

(ANOTHER I DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF)
All ps are x.
All qs are x.
All ps are y.
Therefore, all qs are y.

Example: "All aircraft are complex, all life is complex, and all aircraft are designed. Therefore, life must have been designed."



I wouldn't be so sharp with IDists and Creationists, but they continue to assert that the above types of argument are logical even after you've proven that they are not. This is annoying.

AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
If p then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

Example: [see quoted text]

DENYING THE ANTECEDENT
If p then q.
Not-p.
Therefore, not-q.

Example: "If a person believes in God, that person might have morals. You don't believe in God, so you have no morals."

IN A CERTAIN RESPECT AND SIMPLY
a is an attribute of all bs, therefore a is an attribute of c.

Example: "All airplanes (b) have to be designed by an intelligent agent (a), therefore life (c) must have been designed by an intelligent agent."

(NAME UNKNOWN, BUT THIS IS THE FALLACY THAT APPEARS IN THE GOD OF THE GAPS ARGUMENT)
n could follow y or z.
The properties of y are uncertain.
Therefore, n follows z.
Therefore, the properties of z are A.

Example: "Mountains are either formed naturally or built by a man. We don't know how mountains could be formed naturally. Therefore, it is most logical to assume that they were built by a man. If the mountains were built by a man, his name must be Jones, he must be our enemy, and he must have many riches."

(ANOTHER I DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF)
All ps are x.
All qs are x.
All ps are y.
Therefore, all qs are y.

Example: "All aircraft are complex, all life is complex, and all planes are designed. Therefore, life must have been designed."



I wouldn't be so sharp with IDists and Creationists, but they continue to assert that the above types of argument are logical even after you've proven that they are not. This is annoying.

I trying to remember the last two were a member of a non following conclusion but I don’t remember exactly (been three years sense I have taken philosophy lol)

Regardless, I will say creationism is a theory. Until Dempublicents says otherwise. Also, the Young Earth Theory is exactly that, theory. btw, respected christians like Ken Ham?

Creationism and ID are theories in the layman's sense of the word, but not the scientific sense of the word.

Anyhow I've got to go to school, but, my problem with not believing in evolution is: it takes the Elohim out of Elohim. Elohim means "god in the three" and "most powerful god" or so says massive christian propaganda. If evolution is true, then why would there be a God? (yes! slave to dichotomy, right here, aisle 4)

Do you really think God is so stupid that God could not create and utilize a system such as evolution?

last thing, evolution begins with a coclusion, just like creationism

This is absolutely untrue. The theory of evolution is a hypothesis which is always believed by scientists to be in question. It is falsifiable. Anything we find which contradicts it will either bring in the need for a new theory altogether, or for a revision of the theory itself.

Creationists start with an absolute statement: "Whichever translation of whichever Genesis account I choose to believe in is absolutely, completely, and literally true." This is set in stone for the Creationist and cannot, under any circumstances, be changed. If the data seems to contradict the Creationist dogma, the dogma is not changed - the data is skewed to fit it.

Oh, you don't feel the need to go out and do your own research into why exactly you're wrong?

Ok, I guess I'll huff up and tell you.

No theory ever becomes fact. No theory ever becomes law (at least not anymore). There is no step above theory. You cannot prove a theory, only disprove it. In fact, that's a defining characteristic of theory, it's a falsifiable statement based upon field observations (facts!) that can make useful predictions about that which it attempts to explain. Evolution fits this. General relativity fits this. (Most) of Maxwell's theories on electromagnetism fit this.

But there are exceptions, like Newton's "Laws" of Motion and their ilk. They aren't really laws, there are no actual laws, they were just old enough during a time in the late 19th and early to middle 20th century when scientists were slapping the label "law" on everything they could. Newton's "Laws" of Motion and Boyle's "Law" are just theories that have yet to be falsified.

Now we get to fact.

Facts are nothing more than the things you can see, feel, smell, taste, or hear, things you can sense and directly observe. Whether it be the unfolding of a mathematical equation or the unfolding of a flower's petals, facts are what you must collect before you do anything else. Once you collect the facts, you make a hypothesis in an attempt to explain why these facts are like they are. Once you come up with a suitable hypothesis, you go and try to prove yourself wrong. You tell other people to try to prove you wrong. If, after repeated experimentation, you and others fail to prove your hypothesis wrong, it becomes theory. However, you don't stop there, you continue trying to prove it wrong, ad infinitum.

Saying something is "just" a theory is horribly misleading and demonstrates an extreme lack of knowledge on the most basic of scientific axioms. The mechanics of natural selection of favorable inheritable traits leading to a speicies evolving is an observed fact, but this mechanism being the source of modern biodiversity is a theory. The latter will never become fact, there is no possible way a theory can become fact, ever.



I'll refer you to the above. Gravity, or at least the existance of some kind of a force that pulls us towards the center of anything with mass, is an observed fact. General relativity, the most accepted theory of gravity today, is a theory and will always be a theory. You may see some people claim it was proven by Britons early in the century by their observations of stars that should be behind the sun, but that is not proof, it is supporting evidence. The only thing even closely related to science where you can absolutely prove something is mathematics.


I happen to disagree. There are good theorys and bad the hollow earth theory or the flat earth theory are these not bad theorys? I will make it easy on you just show me direct causal agent of merely 25% of one species changing to another. evolution was and is a LUDICRIOUS theory saturated in HORRIBLE assumptions.

I happen to disagree. There are good theorys and bad the hollow earth theory or the flat earth theory are these not bad theorys?

They aren't theories, or rather, they might have been once, but they have since been falsified.

I will make it easy on you just show me direct causal agent of merely 25% of one species changing to another. evolution was and is a LUDICRIOUS theory saturated in HORRIBLE assumptions.

We humans have been writing down our observations of nature for some time now, perhaps 1000 or more years? But we've been watching for evolution, what, 150?

You're not going to see speciation (the creation of a new breeding population) in a century and a half.

Ok, so, evolution does not leave room for a christian God. The Bible glorifies him as all-powerful and impossible for the human brain to comprehend. Therefore, saying God used evolution does not make sense. (Weakness in my argument, I am saying "since you can not understand it, you might as well believe it" oh well). But, why would God allow millions, if not billions, of years of death and sin (dang I need my dad's book to back up the "and sin" phrase) to create man. And after all that, why would Elohim (God in Trinity) say:

Genesis 1:31
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

Do you really think God is so stupid that God could not create and utilize a system such as evolution?

Dempublicents, why would God need to use evolution? Again, evolution begins with a conclusion that the Christian God cannot be possible, that man must have come about without the Christian God who I, and many others, profess to believe in. Our God is represented in the Bible as all-powerful and incomprehensible, why wait millions of years to have something in mere days, or hours?

Creationism and ID are theories in the layman's sense of the word, but not the scientific sense of the word.

What is that supposed to mean, that there are now different levels of theories? If so, then I disagree, I consider evolution a theoryin the layman's sense of the word, but not the scientific sense of the word.
My proof? Well I am going regional on my facts. I I have had to watch school board meetings and I have friends in the public schools.

Evolutionists start with an absolute statement. "However I choose to understand the theory of evolution, I will exclude the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal God creating man in six days as the Christian God is supposed to have done." Do you really think God is so unconfident, weak powered, or foolish that He can't do something in a matter of days? Ok I am running out on this front, I need to get indoctrinated in my lies again.

In the Bible there are multiple stories of creation that contradict each other?
If those of you who say Genesis has contradicting creation stories are referring to

Genesis 2:7
7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

And

Genesis 1:26
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.27 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.28 God blessed them and said to them.. "

Isn't it possible that the author of the book used Gen2:7 to reiterate how important man and woman are to Elohim? :gundge:

Anyhow I've got to go to school, but, my problem with not believing in evolution is: it takes the Elohim out of Elohim. Elohim means "god in the three" and "most powerful god" or so says massive christian propaganda.

No. Wrong, I'm afraid.

Shouldn't always buy into the propaganda...

It is merely a plural for 'god' or 'spirit' in Hebrew.

The presence of the term 'elohiym' in the earliest creation account, is a mere holdover from the polytheistic early days of Hebrew society.

No. Wrong, I'm afraid.

Shouldn't always buy into the propaganda...

It is merely a plural for 'god' or 'spirit' in Hebrew.

The presence of the term 'elohiym' in the earliest creation account, is a mere holdover from the polytheistic early days of Hebrew society.

mm, your website for this?plzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplzplz

"Not everyone believes in a god"

"You can't prove that god exists, and your hypothesis offers no testable conditions, so it has no more scientific merit then the five minutes ago hypothesis (which states that the universe was created whole, five minutes ago.)"

one definition of elohim -http://www.revelations.org.za/Elohim.htm

I should probably stop now I am super tired, but if Elohim backs up plurality, and John backs up the Trinity, then no doubt Elohim is God in the Three

I am going to regret posting.

Just because not everyone does not believe in a God doesn't mean God is not there. No testable conditions? Truth, but...ah to tired. You're right I gave no testable conditions and if I say Christianity has facts backing it up I will have to and find it and then debate on whether it is the truth or not and different translation meaning, and infallibility of the Bible, and blah, I am tired.

So many times on NS General I have seen creationists claim that Literal Biblical Creation has piles of proof, and yet no-one has ever bothered to point this out to me. Well, here's your chance.

Some rules:

Please, please, please do not turn this into a metaphysical debate about the nature of "proof". Lets try and talk about this in terms of evidence, and the term "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Secondly, lets not keep this to an Evolution vs Creation debate. Big Bang theory doesn't tend to get much of a mention onf NS General, which is a great shame.

Thirdly, this is NOT a God vs Science debate. Belief in both God and Evolution/Big Bang theories is not contradictory. I myself am a fervent Christian and believe in Evolution and the Big Bang, as has the Catholic Church since the end of the Second Vatican Council in 1966.

So Creationists, please come into this discussion with an open mind.



i see your point with the possibility of God and evolution/bigbang because when it talks about God creating the earth it doesnt say how he did it. this could be the big bang but the evolution part i dont so much because it says He created the creatures of the earth but it also does not say whether or not He used evolution

we're gonna need some genius like bottle or skaje to translate ancient bebrew for us so we can know

What scientists call support is an experiment that attempts to disprove a theorem and fails. There are lots and lots of these experiments for evolution. There are none for creationism because it is impossible to devise an experiment that could disprove creationism. That's why it isn't a scientific theory. Nobody who understands the scientific method can claim that the evidence supports creationism.

John Locke did state he believed God could be proven with Mathmatics, but didnt state how. And also, Science cant prove itself with the scientific method, should I believe it doesnt work or exist? Its a Paradox...

Ok, so, evolution does not leave room for a christian God. The Bible glorifies him as all-powerful and impossible for the human brain to comprehend. Therefore, saying God used evolution does not make sense. (Weakness in my argument, I am saying "since you can not understand it, you might as well believe it" oh well). But, why would God allow millions, if not billions, of years of death and sin (dang I need my dad's book to back up the "and sin" phrase) to create man. And after all that, why would Elohim (God in Trinity) say:

Genesis 1:31




Dempublicents, why would God need to use evolution? Again, evolution begins with a conclusion that the Christian God cannot be possible, that man must have come about without the Christian God who I, and many others, profess to believe in. Our God is represented in the Bible as all-powerful and incomprehensible, why wait millions of years to have something in mere days, or hours?



What is that supposed to mean, that there are now different levels of theories? If so, then I disagree, I consider evolution a theory
My proof? Well I am going regional on my facts. I I have had to watch school board meetings and I have friends in the public schools.

Evolutionists start with an absolute statement. "However I choose to understand the theory of evolution, I will exclude the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal God creating man in six days as the Christian God is supposed to have done." Do you really think God is so unconfident, weak powered, or foolish that He can't do something in a matter of days? Ok I am running out on this front, I need to get indoctrinated in my lies again.

In the Bible there are multiple stories of creation that contradict each other?
If those of you who say Genesis has contradicting creation stories are referring to

Genesis 2:7


And

Genesis 1:26


Isn't it possible that the author of the book used Gen2:7 to reiterate how important man and woman are to Elohim? :gundge:


why doesnt evolution leave room for a God

John Locke did state he believed God could be proven with Mathmatics, but didnt state how. And also, Science cant prove itself with the scientific method, should I believe it doesnt work or exist? Its a Paradox...

Science's only assumption is that the world exists as we observe it. By the very definition of science, anything that exists outside our world, and as such cannot be observed to have static qualities, is supernatural.

Let me take the matrix example:

If we are, in fact, all inside the matrix, but we don't know it, we need not concern ourselves with the possibility, as it does not effect us. Science deals with everything that we can percieve and gives actual results to the predictions it makes.

You know... potato salad has no phsysical abilites to fall but neither do racoons and wind socks cannot be set on fire unless the weather changes.

of course those tiny hamsters in my head used to tease me but then i got out a drill and now they know whose boss.

Isn't the temprature of mars equal to the rate of snow and sticks that fall for trees when they are shaken?

Don't get me wrong I'm no Dave Chappelle but the south end of a magnet is much better tasting.

EDIT- Salami

Science's only assumption is that the world exists as we observe it. By the very definition of science, anything that exists outside our world, and as such cannot be observed to have static qualities, is supernatural.

Let me take the matrix example:

If we are, in fact, all inside the matrix, but we don't know it, we need not concern ourselves with the possibility, as it does not effect us. Science deals with everything that we can percieve and gives actual results to the predictions it makes.

Good Rebuttal, but it still doesnt deny the paradox. The Scientific method is a method used by science to try and varify these things we observe but are unsure about. We observe science working, so we test it with the Scientific Method to see if it works, but we cant, and that means Science doesnt exist, which means science isnt observing the world as we observe it, and that our testing standards for science werent right, which disproves sciences "proof providing abilities." Which therefore denys science.

You know... potato salad has no phsysical abilites to fall but neither do racoons and wind socks cannot be set on fire unless the weather changes.

of course those tiny hamsters in my head used to tease me but then i got out a drill and now they know whose boss.

Isn't the temprature of mars equal to the rate of snow and sticks that fall for trees when they are shaken?

Don't get me wrong I'm no Dave Chappelle but the south end of a magnet is much better tasting.

EDIT- Salami

I can understand if you were trying to mock someones evidence or reasonings for a theory, but can you state who it was against and then actually contribute to the thread? Please?

if indeed i was it were

Good Rebuttal, but it still doesnt deny the paradox. The Scientific method is a method used by science to try and varify these things we observe but are unsure about. We observe science working, so we test it with the Scientific Method to see if it works, but we cant, and that means Science doesnt exist, which means science isnt observing the world as we observe it, and that our testing standards for science werent right, which disproves sciences "proof providing abilities." Which therefore denys science.great, you managed to prove that science is intangible

great, you managed to prove that science is intangible

No I said it didnt exist, look, We cant sense gravity, but we saw it working with the apple and the tree, and then Newton tested it with the Scientific Method. Its not if its intangible, its if it works. So we test it with its own method, and stumble upon a Paradox, A contradiction does not mean we cant sense it, it means its wrong.(In general Philosophy anyway, some people think Paradoxs can be correct, but thats debatable.)

if indeed i was it were
What the? :confused: :confused: :confused: :eek: :confused: ??

Because it is always easer then thinking/reading/doing for yourself

Or maybe it's because I've come to this conclusion on my own, while your conclusion seems to be ridicule of those with different ideas/thoughts.

How enlightened of you.

if indeed i was it were
Dude, your not funny, leave the thread if your not going to contribute.

I think that God is smart enough that when he creates rules, he follows them. A stupid god is a god that has to intervene and set things straight directly, that has to make things just perfectly or it will all fall apart. The foolish tinkerer builds fifty mechanical toys. The clever tinkerer builds one mechanical toy and watches it build forty-nine others. The Big Bang was God's way of creating the universe. Evolution was God's way of making sure life turned out the way it was supposed to. Why couldn't God have just set everything up, given it a firm boot to the arse, and get it going along the right path, instead of having to constantly step in and steer us there (and to avoid future comments, no, I'm not talking about fate. Fate suggests a predestined path for individuals. I'm talking about God knowing what God wanted to see and giving everything a boost so that it would become what God wanted to see)? What's wrong with that idea?

I happen to disagree. There are good theorys and bad the hollow earth theory or the flat earth theory are these not bad theorys? I will make it easy on you just show me direct causal agent of merely 25% of one species changing to another. evolution was and is a LUDICRIOUS theory saturated in HORRIBLE assumptions.

You can disagree all you want, but it means that you aren't using the scientific sense of the word theory.

John Locke did state he believed God could be proven with Mathmatics, but didnt state how. And also, Science cant prove itself with the scientific method, should I believe it doesnt work or exist? Its a Paradox...
You're right. Science has axioms that cannot be proven. It has no more absolute basis than does a belief in God. It's kind of like trying to define every word in a language. However, if you accept the axioms of science, then you cannot attempt to address creationism with it. John Locke obviously did not have a firm grasp on the modern axioms of logic when he said that.

Good Rebuttal, but it still doesnt deny the paradox. The Scientific method is a method used by science to try and varify these things we observe but are unsure about. We observe science working, so we test it with the Scientific Method to see if it works, but we cant, and that means Science doesnt exist, which means science isnt observing the world as we observe it, and that our testing standards for science werent right, which disproves sciences "proof providing abilities." Which therefore denys science.

No, it means science provides the only meaningful interpretation of our observations. It has no need to be proven in much the same way 1 follows 2 in a base 10 number system. While there are places, no doubt, where science doesn't work, they don't exist in our universe and have no effect upon us and as such are not something we should be concerned with.

By the way, get off your god damned computer, get out of your house, take off your clothes, and sit on the ground. Science gave you all those things, if you want to say it doesn't exist, then don't try and reap the benefits of it.

Dude, your not funny, leave the thread if your not going to contribute.
Por que devia eu? É liberdade de expressão é ele não? São horrribly demente se pensa que penso que eu sou engraçado! eu sou completamente só Soluço! soluço!

No not conclusion ... hypothesis or theory … which is constantly being changed as it is proven false (conclusion different then hypothesis)

Whereas religion has a CONCLUSION which HAS to be true

If it were truly a theory or hypothesis, they would teach it that way.

It isn't presented in that light, and any objective person can see that.

I always thought a theory was the basis for proving true a conclusion. Or maybe my science teachers were a bit daft. English - go figure.

But either way, I just love the irony of this statement:

"which is constantly being changed as it is proven false"

Well if that doesn't make you wonder, eh? I mean after all, we creationists/Intelligent Designers (hrrm??) have pretty much had only one "theory" since this debate started, right?

You guys are the ones changing horses midstream.

No, it means science provides the only meaningful interpretation of our observations. It has no need to be proven in much the same way 1 follows 2 in a base 10 number system. While there are places, no doubt, where science doesn't work, they don't exist in our universe and have no effect upon us and as such are not something we should be concerned with.

By the way, get off your god damned computer, get out of your house, take off your clothes, and sit on the ground. Science gave you all those things, if you want to say it doesn't exist, then don't try and reap the benefits of it.


i dont know if you believe in God but if you dont you cant use His name can you?

I think that God is smart enough that when he creates rules, he follows them. A stupid god is a god that has to intervene and set things straight directly, that has to make things just perfectly or it will all fall apart. The foolish tinkerer builds fifty mechanical toys. The clever tinkerer builds one mechanical toy and watches it build forty-nine others. The Big Bang was God's way of creating the universe. Evolution was God's way of making sure life turned out the way it was supposed to. Why couldn't God have just set everything up, given it a firm boot to the arse, and get it going along the right path, instead of having to constantly step in and steer us there (and to avoid future comments, no, I'm not talking about fate. Fate suggests a predestined path for individuals. I'm talking about God knowing what God wanted to see and giving everything a boost so that it would become what God wanted to see)? What's wrong with that idea?
As a computer programmer, I would say that a clever tinkerer builds something whose only purpose is to manufacture mechanical toys and then have it make 50 of them. I guess this manufacturer would be the Earth/universe in the creationist model.

No, it means science provides the only meaningful interpretation of our observations. It has no need to be proven in much the same way 1 follows 2 in a base 10 number system. While there are places, no doubt, where science doesn't work, they don't exist in our universe and have no effect upon us and as such are not something we should be concerned with.

By the way, get off your god damned computer, get out of your house, take off your clothes, and sit on the ground. Science gave you all those things, if you want to say it doesn't exist, then don't try and reap the benefits of it.
LOL, 1 follows 2....

i dont know if you believe in God but if you dont you cant use His name can you?

Oddly enough, my upbringing has led to me incorporate words like "jesus tap-dancing christ" and "god damn" in as emphasizing swear words. I always offend people when I don't mean to, but it really is just something I do.

i dont know if you believe in God but if you dont you cant use His name can you?
God? It's a noun used by christians to refer to their guy in the sky. Can you not say the word "odin"?

As a computer programmer, I would say that a clever tinkerer builds something whose only purpose is to manufacture mechanical toys and then have it make 50 of them. I guess this manufacturer would be the Earth/universe in the creationist model.

I don't understand that last sentence, could you clarify?

If it were truly a theory or hypothesis, they would teach it that way.

It isn't presented in that light, and any objective person can see that.

I always thought a theory was the basis for proving true a conclusion. Or maybe my science teachers were a bit daft. English - go figure.

But either way, I just love the irony of this statement:

"which is constantly being changed as it is proven false"

Well if that doesn't make you wonder, eh? I mean after all, we creationists/Intelligent Designers (hrrm??) have pretty much had only one "theory" since this debate started, right?

You guys are the ones changing horses midstream.
My very first day of Chemistry, my science teacher said something to us. He said that nothing is known to be absolutely true. Scientific theories are disproven all of the time, and that's something we have to accept. He brought up the models of the atom, how they had changed over time. Then he said that there might not even be atoms at all. Somebody could do an experiment tomorrow and contradict all of science as we know it. But he isn't preparing to have to change careers because it's so incredibly unlikely at this point.

No, it means science provides the only meaningful interpretation of our observations. It has no need to be proven in much the same way 1 follows 2 in a base 10 number system. While there are places, no doubt, where science doesn't work, they don't exist in our universe and have no effect upon us and as such are not something we should be concerned with.

By the way, get off your god damned computer, get out of your house, take off your clothes, and sit on the ground. Science gave you all those things, if you want to say it doesn't exist, then don't try and reap the benefits of it.

Yes it works everywhere, except when proving itself. Its a Paradox, get over it! You have two choices, try to disarm the paradox by finding natural fault in besides saying "It works because we have seen it work." or "Its as obvious as 2 coming after 1." Thank you.

Ok, so, evolution does not leave room for a christian God.

Bullshit.

Genesis 1:31

Notice that, in Genesis 2, God has to create the animals all over again. Oh no! Where'd they go!?? If you are going to use the Bible, at least bother to study it first. There are *two* creation stories in the Bible. Why do you choose one over the other?

Dempublicents, why would God need to use evolution?

No one said that God *needed* to use evolution. However, all evidence suggests that God *did* use evolution. God could've made everything from jello had God wanted to.

Again, evolution begins with a conclusion that the Christian God cannot be possible, that man must have come about without the Christian God who I, and many others, profess to believe in.

Anyone who states this has never bothered to actually study the theory, which states no such thing.

Our God is represented in the Bible as all-powerful and incomprehensible, why wait millions of years to have something in mere days, or hours?

Why not? In truth, it is much easier to understand "Poof!" than a long process.

What is that supposed to mean, that there are now different levels of theories?

No, there are two definitions of the word theory. In layman's terms, a theory is anything you have a hunch about. In scientific terms, it is an idea which has been tested and no current evidence has falsified it. Creationism and ID only count as theories in the first sense.

If so, then I disagree, I consider evolution a theory

Of course evolution is a theory, as is everything science states. The theory of relativity is "just" a theory, but it accurately predicts the motion of everything we currently observe. The atomic theory is "just" a theory, but it is backed up by every experiment we have performed thus far that could disprove it.

Evolutionists start with an absolute statement. "However I choose to understand the theory of evolution, I will exclude the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal God creating man in six days as the Christian God is supposed to have done."

Again, you are making things up. There is no such statement inherent in the theory of evolution. In *all* of science, the idea of a God is irrelevant. We are discussing the way *this* universe works. An all-powerful God, by definition, would exist outside of our universe and outside of the rules of said universe. As such, the very subject of the existence or non-existence of God is completely outside the scientific realm.

The theory of evolution did not start with the assumption that there was no 6 days creation. However, all evidence has pointed to that idea. The theory was formed from the evidence.

As a side note, the number of atheists present in the scientific field is not statistically any higher than those present in the general population.

Do you really think God is so unconfident, weak powered, or foolish that He can't do something in a matter of days?

Not in the least. If God wished to poof the world into existence 5 minutes ago, that would be within God's realm. However, all evidence points to the idea that God did not do this. I don't claim to know why. Perhaps you should stop making suppositions about an all-powerful being.

In the Bible there are multiple stories of creation that contradict each other?
If those of you who say Genesis has contradicting creation stories are referring to

Genesis 2:7

And

Genesis 1:26

Isn't it possible that the author of the book used Gen2:7 to reiterate how important man and woman are to Elohim? :gundge:

First of all, if it were meant to "reiterate", it wouldn't have things happening in two conflicting sequences. In truth, the two stories of creation in Genesis were very clearly written by two different authors with two very different points to make. Their tone, style, and purpose are completely different.

LOL, 1 follows 2....

At least as far as natural numbers are concerned >_>

If it were truly a theory or hypothesis, they would teach it that way.

It isn't presented in that light, and any objective person can see that.

I always thought a theory was the basis for proving true a conclusion. Or maybe my science teachers were a bit daft. English - go figure.

But either way, I just love the irony of this statement:

"which is constantly being changed as it is proven false"

Well if that doesn't make you wonder, eh? I mean after all, we creationists/Intelligent Designers (hrrm??) have pretty much had only one "theory" since this debate started, right?

You guys are the ones changing horses midstream.

The beauty of science is that instead of sticking to a foregone conclusion when the evidence points the opposite way, the theory is changed to meet the evidence.

Meanwhile, *EVERY SINGLE MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEXTBOOK* begins with a chapter on the scientific method, what constitutes a theory, etc. If a student reads that and still believes that evolution is being taught as "fact," they should fail out of school.

The Big Bang was God's way of creating the universe. Evolution was God's way of making sure life turned out the way it was supposed to. Why couldn't God have just set everything up, given it a firm boot to the arse, and get it going along the right path...

Actually, God being the "great clock maker," making the universe and leaving it to function on it's own is a Deist idea. Most of America's founding fathers were Deists, but I digress.

The thing that many people on opposite poles of these arguments fail to realize is that science and religion are not in conflict, but in the creation argument, neither one of them has any more credibility than the other. Biblical creationism (I mean in this case the fundamental Christian theory) is full of holes, like namely about how long it would take two people to populate the globe to this population with it's diversity in the amount of time given in the bible (12,000 years, if I'm not mistaken.)

The big bang theory also has one giant hole in it. It can explain and mathematically back up it's theory to 10 to the -99 second of the universe, but the big bang theory cannot explain what was there at exactly 0 seconds, and certainly not what happened before then. It is out of the realm of science and then delving into metephysics, philosophy and mysticism.

The answer humanity has reached at this point for the absolute origin of the universe is, put shortly, "We're not really sure."

One other point that I would like to make is that there is a MASSIVE difference between beleiving in the possibility of a Divine Power and accepting the Judeo-Christian personification of God. You can beleive that, because the universe came into existance from (apparently) a point of non-existance that there has to be some force that is external to existance as we know it now. That does not mean you have to accept that Jesus was the god-incarnate or anything like that.

I don't understand that last sentence, could you clarify?
God makes the Earth or the universe. The Earth makes the life. At least, that's how I would design it. Of course, I'd have to design the process to make the life, too. Like you said, though, why make the 50 things yourself when you can get something else to do it? We just disagree on what that thing does.

Yes it works everywhere, except when proving itself. Its a Paradox, get over it! You have two choices, try to disarm the paradox by finding natural fault in besides saying "It works because we have seen it work." or "Its as obvious as 2 coming after 1." Thank you.

If you want me to tell you what it is I will. I just like to let people grow intellectually before I give them an answer. You see Paradoxs werent ment to state the ludacrious, we know science works, but the paradox does pose a point. You have to reach a compromise between the two.

Oh, thank you. Yes, if God followed that speculation at all, then he would have probably had to make rules for how life can and cannot be formed. And of course, many rules would result in other rules, which would result in more rules, and so on. God could have made two or three and let them make more.

As far as I recall, it was from a matter / antimatter reaction that favored matter by one part in a billion. That is the start of the Big Bang.
The rest is just coincidence that physics is perfectly set to allow for life.
Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
the matter/antimatter inequality is how photons came to become electrons and protons and the like... the big bang had already started by then.

My very first day of Chemistry, my science teacher said something to us. He said that nothing is known to be absolutely true. Scientific theories are disproven all of the time, and that's something we have to accept. He brought up the models of the atom, how they had changed over time. Then he said that there might not even be atoms at all. Somebody could do an experiment tomorrow and contradict all of science as we know it. But he isn't preparing to have to change careers because it's so incredibly unlikely at this point.


Your chemistry teacher was mistaken. There is something known to be absolutely true.

Your chemistry teacher was mistaken. There is something known to be absolutely true.

Anyone who claims they know something to be absolutely true is either insane, or a liar.

Your chemistry teacher was mistaken. There is something known to be absolutely true.
Then science can't address it. Science only knows what is false.

You will note that the supposed tree of descent of the dinobirds contains two *supposed* intermediaries, the rest are branches. The inconvenient fact that all of these species existed contemporaneously in the fossil record and/or in some cases in the wrong order, is buried in the footnotes. E.g. Compsognathus and Ceratosaurus, supposed dinosaur precursors, appear in the Jurassic while Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx and Caudipteryx, supposed intermediates, appear *earlier*, in the Cretaceous, and all at the *same time* as Confuciusornis which is essentially a fully-developed bird.

I don't know if someone else pointed this out yet as I haven't read through the whole thread, but I'd like to point out that the jurassic period came before the cretaceous period. Thusly, precursors to dinosaurs appearing in the jurassic and then precursors to birds originating from dinosaurs appearing in the cretaceous makes perfect, logical sense. Maybe you were looking at a BCE timeline and somehow interpreted 210 million years as being after 144 million years, I don't know, but you're wrong.

Anyone who claims they know something to be absolutely true is either insane, or a liar.


Really? I will give you an absolute now and I want you to disprove it ok deal??

"Something cannot bring itself into existence."

This is cold hard absolute.
so insane or a liar?? There is another absolute too just waiting for someone to set it up.

Really? I will give you an absolute now and I want you to disprove it ok deal??

"Something cannot bring itself into existence."

This appears to be an absolute, yes. However, any rational person must admit the possibility that we may find something which disproves the statement in the future.

Notice that, in Genesis 2, God has to create the animals all over again. Oh no! Where'd they go!?? If you are going to use the Bible, at least bother to study it first. There are *two* creation stories in the Bible. Why do you choose one over the other?
and

First of all, if it were meant to "reiterate", it wouldn't have things happening in two conflicting sequences. In truth, the two stories of creation in Genesis were very clearly written by two different authors with two very different points to make. Their tone, style, and purpose are completely different.

I don't see where you're getting the idea that the first chapter of Genesis and the second chapter of Genesis are two distinct creation accounts (let alone that they are "very clearly written by two different authors"). To my reading (which I'd say is a rather common interpretation), chapter one is presented as an overview of creation, and chapter two focuses more on the creation of humanity. Differences between the two come not from "sequence conflicts", but rather from chapter 2's anthrocentric focus. For example,
When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens--- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground... (Genesis 2:4, NIV)
doesn't so much contradict the order of creation from Genesis 1 as it speaks to the condition of the earth before humans were created. Note the use of the term "of the field" to describe the plants that hadn't sprung up yet; this seems to refer to domesticated strains of plantlife, rather than plants in general. The bit about "no man to work the ground" affirms this interpretation.

Really? I will give you an absolute now and I want you to disprove it ok deal??

"Something cannot bring itself into existence."

This is cold hard absolute.
so insane or a liar?? There is another absolute too just waiting for someone to set it up.
The statement "Something can bring itself into existence" cannot be proven false. Thus, you don't actually know that your statement is absolutely true. You know that it hasn't been contradicted.

It's a myth developed by the early Hebrews, much like the Greek or Chinese creation stories, meant to explain something they couldn't comprehend.
Yes, God did create the earth... but he used physics to do it. ;)

Anyone who claims they know something to be absolutely true is either insane, or a liar.

By your reckoning, either your statement above is false, or you're insane. :D

I kid. I kid because I love... to make wisecracks. XD

I don't see where you're getting the idea that the first chapter of Genesis and the second chapter of Genesis are two distinct creation accounts (let alone that they are "very clearly written by two different authors").

Theological studies can do wonders. Theological scholars, who actually read these things in Hebrew from the earliest known texts, agree that they are two different accounts, written by two different authors.

To my reading (which I'd say is a rather common interpretation), chapter one is presented as an overview of creation, and chapter two focuses more on the creation of humanity. Differences between the two come not from "sequence conflicts", but rather from chapter 2's anthrocentric focus.

In the first account, all creatures are made before humankind, which is made male and female.

In the second, Adam is created, then all the creatures are created, then Eve is created.

Your "interpretation" is very common, but is based on common mistranslations and the idea that every word in the Bible has to be absolutely literal.

The statement "Something can bring itself into existence" cannot be proven false. Thus, you don't actually know that your statement is absolutely true. You know that it hasn't been contradicted.

It is not my burden to prove something false. However what I have stated is true until proven false and since you just said it cannot then it is indeed an absolute. And if I am mistaken then are you saying that everything is then relative? If that is true then it is in fact self defeating logic because it would then become an absolute. Therefore absolutes exist.

It's a myth developed by the early Hebrews, much like the Greek or Chinese creation stories, meant to explain something they couldn't comprehend.
Yes, God did create the earth... but he used physics to do it. ;)


so since its done with physics do you comprehend everything then?

It is not my burden to prove something false. However what I have stated is true until proven false and since you just said it cannot then it is indeed an absolute. And if I am mistaken then are you saying that everything is then relative? If that is true then it is in fact self defeating logic because it would then become an absolute. Therefore absolutes exist.

Nothing is "true until proven false." Something can be assumed until proven false, but it is not "true until proven false."

By your reckoning, either your statement above is false, or you're insane. :D

I kid. I kid because I love... to make wisecracks. XD

Actually, you're right. I should have prefaced my statement with the assumption that all human beings are flawed.

It is not my burden to prove something false. However what I have stated is true until proven false and since you just said it cannot then it is indeed an absolute. And if I am mistaken then are you saying that everything is then relative? If that is true then it is in fact self defeating logic because it would then become an absolute. Therefore absolutes exist.
I agree with Dempublicent's rebuttal to this. However, I do agree that there are absolutes. The statement that you made wasn't one of them, though. An absolute statement is a conditional that includes all of its assumptions.

Really? I will give you an absolute now and I want you to disprove it ok deal??

"Something cannot bring itself into existence."

This is cold hard absolute.
so insane or a liar?? There is another absolute too just waiting for someone to set it up.
The symbolism of the virgin goddess is a creatrix who brought herself into being. So in a sense the statement can be proven false.

Actually, you're right. I should have prefaced my statement with the assumption that all human beings are flawed.


all humans are flawed so therefore that means that anyones statements of nothing being able to be totally true and that everything is disproveable which means that the statement is flawed therefore that whole argument is flawed and therefore all humans are flawed unless you can show me someone who has lived a normal life and has done nothing wrong or ever been wrong about something

Nothing is "true until proven false." Something can be assumed until proven false, but it is not "true until proven false."

So then this is absolute. There are absolutes why the obsession with people to want to fight that there are absolutes.

If you say everything is relative then that is absolute.

what you state above is absolute.

Your absolute to disprove my absolute is quite amusing however.

So then this is absolute. There are absolutes why the obsession with people to want to fight that there are absolutes.

If you say everything is relative then that is absolute.

what you state above is absolute.

Your absolute to disprove my absolute is quite amusing however.

I didn't say that there are no absolutes. I said that no human being, who cannot possibly know everything, can be sure of any given absolute.

all humans are flawed so therefore that means that anyones statements of nothing being able to be totally true and that everything is disproveable which means that the statement is flawed therefore that whole argument is flawed and therefore all humans are flawed unless you can show me someone who has lived a normal life and has done nothing wrong or ever been wrong about something


so then your above statement is absolutely true? And if not then it is false and why believe it??

There are absolutes!! that is absolute!!:)

"Have you ever noticed that Creationists look really un-evolved?"

-Bill Hicks-

so then your above statement is absolutely true? And if not then it is false and why believe it??

There are absolutes!! that is absolute!!:)


nice and yes it is absolutely true

I didn't say that there are no absolutes. I said that no human being, who cannot possibly know everything, can be sure of any given absolute.


So then this statement is also absolutely true?? If you say yes then absolutes are indeed true if you say no then the above statement is then false and invalid so why state something that is false when trying to prove something that is indeed true?
No matter where you turn there are absolutes they exist.

So then this statement is also absolutely true?? If you say yes then absolutes are indeed true if you say no then the above statement is then false and invalid so why state something that is false when trying to prove something that is indeed true?
No matter where you turn there are absolutes they exist.

You apparently can't read, so I will repeat myself.

I never said that there were no absolutes.

You apparently can't read, so I will repeat myself.

I never said that there were no absolutes.

oops sorry !!:) :fluffle:

oops sorry !!:) :fluffle:

These threads always end in fluffles!!

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

Yo, I'm still around. I gotta go to my LHFITC class soon so I will post later..or sooner...


LHFITC - Lying hypocritical fanatical irrationally thinking christians

On second thought, I will post my first thoughts on some of the things I skimmed, sorry for incorrect name spelling, I am lazy.


Stuep- Evolution says that the world was not created in six days, that we are gradually changing from simple to complex. Creationist read: The Christian God must not be real because he lied to you in the Bible, the Christian God is not as divine as He is represented in the Bible because the earth was not created in six days and He lied to you.

Dem - Evolution takes the action of trying and/or succeeding at taking away from the omnipotence, omniscience, and infinity of God (not mormon infinity, different subject) And plese, just because one author wrote Ch1 Genesis and another Ch2 genesis does not mean they are conflicting. Also, Christianity has yet to be disproved as well as evolution, only thing is that in the past 2000+ years man has yet to record any evolution. (oooh I can't wait to get ass rammed for that assumption) In conclusion, I like that Vangaardi guy, he is like 2000+ steps ahead of my thought paths. And Dem, Again, you are making things up. There is no such statement inherent in the theory of evolution. In *all* of science, the idea of a God is irrelevant. What about all of our inventors/scientists/modernists pre-1900 post-1400? Syre the greek's science had no/little room for God, but as I understand it plenty of great inventors and statesmen and philosophers after the Protestant thing exploded were christians. (historical fallacy, i.e. time fallacy, appeal to the future/past)

Yo, I'm still around. I gotta go to my LHFITC class soon so I will post later..or sooner...

LHFITC - Lying hypocritical fanatical irrationally thinking christians

Doesn't sound like a great class. You should check into actual theology classes - they are much more useful, and they don't require lying, hypocrisy, fanaticism, or irrational thought.

Nothing is "true until proven false." Something can be assumed until proven false, but it is not "true until proven false."
This statement, at least from a scientific stand-point, isn't so. Scientific theories, for instance the theories of gravity, are "held as true" until proven false, even though they are not necessarily true and the expectation --nay, hope --is that they can be refined someday to be more true than they are.

This statement, at least from a scientific stand-point, isn't so. Scientific theories, for instance the theories of gravity, are "held as true" until proven false, even though they are not necessarily true and the expectation --nay, hope --is that they can be refined someday to be more true than they are.

Note that "held as true" and "true" are not the same.

So many times on NS General I have seen creationists claim that Literal Biblical Creation has piles of proof, and yet no-one has ever bothered to point this out to me. Well, here's your chance.

Some rules:

Please, please, please do not turn this into a metaphysical debate about the nature of "proof". Lets try and talk about this in terms of evidence, and the term "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Secondly, lets not keep this to an Evolution vs Creation debate. Big Bang theory doesn't tend to get much of a mention onf NS General, which is a great shame.

Thirdly, this is NOT a God vs Science debate. Belief in both God and Evolution/Big Bang theories is not contradictory. I myself am a fervent Christian and believe in Evolution and the Big Bang, as has the Catholic Church since the end of the Second Vatican Council in 1966.

So Creationists, please come into this discussion with an open mind.

I havent read this forum and i dont intend to but i would just like to say that i think it would be a better idea if Christians didn't discuss differences in theology on here... no offence but it'd be better if we all just agreed on the main points of Christianity and decided that some things we shouldn't stress about... not to mention we all get along better that way... :)

Theological studies can do wonders. Theological scholars, who actually read these things in Hebrew from the earliest known texts, agree that they are two different accounts, written by two different authors.
Indeed. And my theological studies indicate that the opinion of your nameless "Theological scholars" is not held unanimously among Theologans and Biblical scholars.


In the first account, all creatures are made before humankind, which is made male and female.

In the second, Adam is created, then all the creatures are created, then Eve is created.
I assume you mean the passage (specifically Genesis 2:19) which in the NKJV reads "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and bird of the air..." and in the the NIV reads "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..." (emphasis added). As the goal of the NIV was, among other things, "...the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the Hebrew writers..." (NIV preface, p.vii) rather than a rigid translation of individual Hebrew words, it seems to indicate that the act of creation of the animals was an act which had been completed in the past, and not immediately before their naming by Adam.


Your "interpretation" is very common, but is based on common mistranslations and the idea that every word in the Bible has to be absolutely literal.
If anyone is suffering from a wooden, literalistic interpretation of scripture, it would seem to be you. And it's such a stubborn adherence to "literal" word meanings without consideration for context and grammar that mandates that Genesis 1 and Geneis 2 "had" to have been written by seperate authors.

I assume you mean the passage (specifically Genesis 2:19) which in the NKJV reads "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and bird of the air..." and in the the NIV reads "Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field..." (emphasis added). As the goal of the NIV was, among other things, "...the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the Hebrew writers..." (NIV preface, p.vii) rather than a rigid translation of individual Hebrew words, it seems to indicate that the act of creation of the animals was an act which had been completed in the past, and not immediately before their naming by Adam.

The NRSV is the Bible most commonly held to be an accurate English translation, as it was translated directly to English from the oldest texts available.

If anyone is suffering from a wooden, literalistic interpretation of scripture, it would seem to be you. And it's such a stubborn adherence to "literal" word meanings without consideration for context and grammar that mandates that Genesis 1 and Geneis 2 "had" to have been written by seperate authors.

Actually, the fact that they were written by separate authors is backed up much more simply by the fact that a study of the scripture reveals vast stylistic and focus differences between those parts of the Torah written by the Priestly author and those written by the Yahwist.

So many times on NS General I have seen creationists claim that Literal Biblical Creation has piles of proof, and yet no-one has ever bothered to point this out to me. Well, here's your chance.
Thirdly, this is NOT a God vs Science debate. Belief in both God and Evolution/Big Bang theories is not contradictory. I myself am a fervent Christian and believe in Evolution and the Big Bang, as has the Catholic Church since the end of the Second Vatican Council in 1966.
So Creationists, please come into this discussion with an open mind.
I have studied all sorts of religions including Darwinism. I and several prominent Christian scientists have established the bases of a "comprimise" between what we can prove and can be proven to be false.
1. Evolution does exist but only within a species. All proof is of this form of evolution. There is no actual facts supporting the Darwinist evolution of one species into another.
2. The very laws of Physics and Chemistry prove that not only can evolution not happen but we should not be able to exist. All molecules should break down to the most basic element. Protons can not be jammed into the nucleous together without pushing eachother away, effectivly blowing the molecules apart. Even Evolution says that everything goes to the most simple, supposedly this is why we will lose our appendix in a thousand years. Yet Darwinism suspends all of these Laws to say that we can from some primordial sludge.
3. If Darwinism is true then we must go against all logic and ignore the major question of what is actually holding us together. The Bible states God's comment that the essencs of life is held together by his will alone. This was all said centuries before humans were even aware of the elements that make up everything.
4. If Darwinism is true then why did some of the species in our "evolutionary line" stay as the animals that they are today? Did they miss the e-mail or memo? According to Darwinism All of them should have evolved or we should be able to see the steps alive now.
5. Most of the skeletal "steps" have similair sketelons in existance today. There are several that have been built around remains proven to not even be human in the least. One was even built around the tooth of a wild boar from Africa.
6. The carbon dating they are using to "prove" the age of these fossils has been used on a LIVING mulosk and the dating process said that it had been dead for 6 Million years! Accurate, eh? So how reliable is the information that is supplied by these "scientists" who are willing to ignore the evidence in favour of their hypothesis?

The most relevant saying I can think of in relation to this issue is, "If you eliminate the probable; whatever is left, no matter how immprobable, must be the truth." In my studies I have been able to eliminate one religion or belief after another and all that is left is God and Creation. By giving us free-will god gave us the ability to evolve into better people, a better society and hopefully improve the species.

I have studied all sorts of religions including Darwinism. I and several prominent Christian scientists have established the bases of a "comprimise" between what we can prove and can be proven to be false.
1. Evolution does exist but only within a species. All proof is of this form of evolution. There is no actual facts supporting the Darwinist evolution of one species into another.
2. The very laws of Physics and Chemistry prove that not only can evolution not happen but we should not be able to exist. All molecules should break down to the most basic element. Protons can not be jammed into the nucleous together without pushing eachother away, effectivly blowing the molecules apart. Even Evolution says that everything goes to the most simple, supposedly this is why we will lose our appendix in a thousand years. Yet Darwinism suspends all of these Laws to say that we can from some primordial sludge.
3. If Darwinism is true then we must go against all logic and ignore the major question of what is actually holding us together. The Bible states God's comment that the essencs of life is held together by his will alone. This was all said centuries before humans were even aware of the elements that make up everything.
4. If Darwinism is true then why did some of the species in our "evolutionary line" stay as the animals that they are today? Did they miss the e-mail or memo? According to Darwinism All of them should have evolved or we should be able to see the steps alive now.
5. Most of the skeletal "steps" have similair sketelons in existance today. There are several that have been built around remains proven to not even be human in the least. One was even built around the tooth of a wild boar from Africa.
6. The carbon dating they are using to "prove" the age of these fossils has been used on a LIVING mulosk and the dating process said that it had been dead for 6 Million years! Accurate, eh? So how reliable is the information that is supplied by these "scientists" who are willing to ignore the evidence in favour of their hypothesis?

The most relevant saying I can think of in relation to this issue is, "If you eliminate the probable; whatever is left, no matter how immprobable, must be the truth." In my studies I have been able to eliminate one religion or belief after another and all that is left is God and Creation. By giving us free-will god gave us the ability to evolve into better people, a better society and hopefully improve the species.
...Oh dear. www.talkorigins.org

Read, hit head, learn.

...Oh dear. www.talkorigins.org

Read, hit head, learn.

on one of the articles in that site it uses the horse as proof for evolution. this is troublesome since that argument has been thrown out by the mojority of scientists.

heres some info:You would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils.

O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where "both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus".

In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: "Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains." Doesn't this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?

There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.

The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly "intermediate" stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.

Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.

that site is not completely accurate.

The most relevant saying I can think of in relation to this issue is, "If you eliminate the probable; whatever is left, no matter how immprobable, must be the truth."
What?
Eliminate the probable?
Was that a typo?

on one of the articles in that site it uses the horse as proof for evolution. this is troublesome since that argument has been thrown out by the mojority of scientists.

heres some info:You would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don't. In fact, bones of the supposed "earliest" horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils.

no. it hasn't. you are thinking of the idea of a linear progression of horse evolution. but talk.origins doesn't use that.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

and do you have a source for your claim that the fossils claimed to be the oldest don't also come from the oldest sediment layers, and are in fact found in the same layer as modern horse remains?

Its times like this that I LOVE being Agnostic!!! :sniper:

heres the sources: O. C. Marsh, "Recent Polydactyle Horses", American Journal of Science 43, pp. 339-354 - Vol. 30

Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California)

you are thinking of the idea of a linear progression of horse evolution.
yes i was referring to the 'line' progression, which was thought to be proof for darwinists (macroevolutionists). that article you gave shows the species changes within the horse family (microevolution). micorevolution is proven, but its changes in a species. darwinists used the horse as an example of macroevolution, which it is not. i agree with the article in microevolution.

2. The very laws of Physics and Chemistry prove that not only can evolution not happen but we should not be able to exist. All molecules should break down to the most basic element. Protons can not be jammed into the nucleous together without pushing eachother away, effectivly blowing the molecules apart. Even Evolution says that everything goes to the most simple, supposedly this is why we will lose our appendix in a thousand years. Yet Darwinism suspends all of these Laws to say that we can from some primordial sludge.No part of the mechanisms of evolution violates a law of physics. There's no law of physics saying that a molecule can't change into a more complex molecule. Particle accelerators, tevatrons, fusion bombs, and solar neutrino detectors show that nuclei really can be jammed together. Evolution theory does not say that everything goes to the most simple, nor does it say that we will lose the appendix in 1000 years. And the primordial proteins and cell membranes weren't necessarily in sludge.
3. If Darwinism is true then we must go against all logic and ignore the major question of what is actually holding us together. The Bible states God's comment that the essencs of life is held together by his will alone. This was all said centuries before humans were even aware of the elements that make up everything.Holding the world together? Gravity. Holding us together? Chemical bonds. Holding nuclei together? Mesons.
4. If Darwinism is true then why did some of the species in our "evolutionary line" stay as the animals that they are today? Did they miss the e-mail or memo? According to Darwinism All of them should have evolved or we should be able to see the steps alive now.An evolutionary step should only be obvious if a rare trait (or a lack of a usual trait) that makes a big difference in external structure suddenly creates a big advantage regarding reproductive success. If the trait with the new advantage is already common or if it doesn't make a big difference in external structure or if it is only a small advantage, you won't notice a big difference.
6. The carbon dating they are using to "prove" the age of these fossils has been used on a LIVING mulosk and the dating process said that it had been dead for 6 Million years! Accurate, eh? So how reliable is the information that is supplied by these "scientists" who are willing to ignore the evidence in favour of their hypothesis?The carbon dating deternines how long something has been separated from the atmosphere. If there aren't cosmic ray neutrons available to turn nitrogen near the mollusk into carbon-14, it won't have very much carbon-14. Other dating techniques are used along with carbon dating just in case one technique goes wrong.

edit: fusion

Fission bombs show that nuclei can be jammed together? That's not the approach that I would have taken. Of course, my approach was just to assume that the person was beyond teaching.

I havent read this forum and i dont intend to but i would just like to say that i think it would be a better idea if Christians didn't discuss differences in theology on here... no offence but it'd be better if we all just agreed on the main points of Christianity and decided that some things we shouldn't stress about... not to mention we all get along better that way... :)

Wrong. I am sick to death of people thinking of Christians as backward unscientific morons because Prodestants are three quarters of a century behind in respect to a religious view of Science.

(edit) This is a pretty long post, but please read it. There is a lot of important stuff in here.(end edit)

I have studied all sorts of religions including Darwinism. I and several prominent Christian scientists have established the bases of a "comprimise" between what we can prove and can be proven to be false.
1. Evolution does exist but only within a species. All proof is of this form of evolution. There is no actual facts supporting the Darwinist evolution of one species into another.

Righto: I am going to apply a principle called the anthropic principal. It states: "Humans exist, therefore, all accurate theories cannot contradict this fact." If, as you state, evolution does not result in the separation of species, than our species has either been arround since the begginning of time, or we have appeared out of no-where. If we have been arround since the beggining of time, the world must have been created spontaneously at the same time that the first human skeletons are found in the sedimentary layers of the Earth, about 200 thousand years ago (dont quote me on the date, but it's within that kind of time frame). This is not supported by any other observational data: the decay of radioactive isotopes puts the age of the Earth at more than 3.2 Billion years, and Hubble's law puts the age of the universe at 10 to 20 billion years.

If you want to argue that the human race appeared spotaneously after the Universe had been arround for 20 billion years, go for it. See how many people take you seriously.

2. The very laws of Physics and Chemistry prove that not only can evolution not happen but we should not be able to exist. All molecules should break down to the most basic element. Protons can not be jammed into the nucleous together without pushing eachother away, effectivly blowing the molecules apart. Even Evolution says that everything goes to the most simple, supposedly this is why we will lose our appendix in a thousand years. Yet Darwinism suspends all of these Laws to say that we can from some primordial sludge.
3. If Darwinism is true then we must go against all logic and ignore the major question of what is actually holding us together. The Bible states God's comment that the essencs of life is held together by his will alone. This was all said centuries before humans were even aware of the elements that make up everything.

You are about a century behind in partical physics, and 300 years behind in elementary chemistry. Molecules will break down into the stablest form. Protons in the nucleus are held together by what is called the Strong Nuclear Force, which is millions of times more powerfull than the Electromagnetic Force which tries to drive them appart.

5. Most of the skeletal "steps" have similair sketelons in existance today. There are several that have been built around remains proven to not even be human in the least. One was even built around the tooth of a wild boar from Africa.

Trust me, If the scientific evidence is wrong, it wont just be creationists checking it. Scientists are just as hard on the evidence as you are, and it will only be accepted as widely as theories such as evolution if it is correct.

6. The carbon dating they are using to "prove" the age of these fossils has been used on a LIVING mulosk and the dating process said that it had been dead for 6 Million years! Accurate, eh? So how reliable is the information that is supplied by these "scientists" who are willing to ignore the evidence in favour of their hypothesis?

Then why is carbon dating effective in so many other areas? Perhaps this is a statistical anomily or bad scientific practice, personally I dont believe it, but you can if you want. Anyway, if you honestly believe that carbon dating is the only method used for dating fossils, you're only proving your ignorance.

Protons can not be jammed into the nucleous together without pushing eachother away, effectivly blowing the molecules apart.

so what exactly do you think stops this from happening? after all, atoms with more than one proton actually exist.

put down the chick tracts and think rationally for a change.

ok I gotta get some food and sleep, just some encouragement. thanks tons Justifidians and Benmurphia, especially Benmurphia. You both brought interesting points, and it is good to hear deep theological information from someone who is on my side or on a similar side.

And saying molecules break down into the most basic element and
Molecules will break down into the stablest form.

is about the same thing. A rise in intricacy and complexity is the key to evolution :gundge:

Hey thanks Einsteinian Big-Heads for correcting that one person. I too am sick of people thinking I am a completely irrational fanatic who can not debate using facts and respect

No, that author really didn't appear to know the difference between a molecule and an atom.

Fission bombs show that nuclei can be jammed together? That's not the approach that I would have taken. Of course, my approach was just to assume that the person was beyond teaching.


I think he means fusion. Fissions splits 'em.

One of the wonders of the universe- the strong nuclear force. What is it and where does it come from?

No, that author really didn't appear to know the difference between a molecule and an atom.

I am geussing you were talking about me. :gundge:

I am geussing you were talking about me. :gundge:
Not about but in response to.

*tired* :gundge: I humbly beseech you to.. explain?