NationStates Jolt Archive

I love the bio-rifle guy. I'm an old UT veteran. :D

:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

The person who said 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. didn't appear to know the difference between a molecule and an atom.

I love the bio-rifle guy. I'm an old UT veteran. :D

:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:
Word. The hammer was the best.

Ahh, those were the days.

...Oh dear. www.talkorigins.org

Read, hit head, learn.
So have you honestly researched the Darwinist belief system or are you just spouting Dogma that you have been told is fact? That goes for you too Pantylvania. If a scientist sets out with an open mind to prove that God does not exsist and that Darwinism is fact they innevitably come to the conclusion that God did in fact Create everything. Many of the arguements on this website are tragically flawed and offer no proof for the arguement claiming Darwinism as fact not a theory!

Pantylvania the laws of Chemistry and Physics both say that like particles repel and opposite charges attract. And yes Darwinism has said both everything goes to the more simplistic and yes we are apparently going to lose our useless appendix. All of your examples of nuclei being "jammed together" are examples of technology acting on them in a very focused way, not precisely calibrated and it doesn't work. And you just argue around in circles. Science still can not conclusively say why a nucleous does not just "blow" apart. Maybe you should study the topic before you try to defend it.
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. You are still going around in circles. You fail to show where the steps are and why we don't see them today.

The person who said didn't appear to know the difference between a molecule and an atom.
with the nucleous blowing out it would destoy the entire atom and molecule dumbass. Wake up and smell the coffee!

So have you honestly researched the Darwinist belief system or are you just spouting Dogma that you have been told is fact? That goes for you too Pantylvania. If a scientist sets out with an open mind to prove that God does not exsist and that Darwinism is fact they innevitably come to the conclusion that God did in fact Create everything.
What?
That didn't make any sense. Are you saying that the only scientists that are open-minded believe in creation?
Many of the arguements on this website are tragically flawed and offer no proof for the arguement claiming Darwinism as fact not a theory!
The other side does exactly the same thing, though.
Pantylvania the laws of Chemistry and Physics both say that like particles repel and opposite charges attract.
Umm, yes. And?
And yes Darwinism has said both everything goes to the more simplistic and yes we are apparently going to lose our useless appendix. All of your examples of nuclei being "jammed together" are examples of technology acting on them in a very focused way, not precisely calibrated and it doesn't work.
So if it has to do with technology, then it's not true. I like this reasoning...
And you just argue around in circles. Science still can not conclusively say why a nucleous does not just "blow" apart. Maybe you should study the topic before you try to defend it.
You are still going around in circles. You fail to show where the steps are and why we don't see them today.
Well, the creationists are doing no better, so nobody has a right to complain here.

with the nucleous blowing out it would destoy the entire atom and molecule dumbass. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Umm, you just said something that had nothing to do with the post you quoted.
Also, please refrain from insulting others, as it is against forum rules.
Thank you.

What?
That didn't make any sense. Are you saying that the only scientists that are open-minded believe in creation?

The other side does exactly the same thing, though.

Umm, yes. And?

So if it has to do with technology, then it's not true. I like this reasoning...

Well, the creationists are doing no better, so nobody has a right to complain here.

Neo, I gotta say. I may disagree with some of your views, but I love your style.

Neo, I gotta say. I may disagree with some of your views, but I love your style.
Whoa, I have a style?
:eek:
Wow.

Although this does nothing and means nothing, I like Neo-Anar, he is nice and kind, you might be seethingly sadistic and mean IRL, but here you are nice and correct and disprove me nice. When Bottle or Dempublicants finally proves Christianity is wrong to me, I want you, Neo, to be there to help me convert smoothly. But I also like Omega the Black...anyhow I said I was gonna go to bed earlier, but..

Whoa, I have a style?
:eek:
Wow.

The style where you refute others points logically w/o calling them assholes.

The style where you refute others points logically w/o calling them assholes.
Yeah, lots of people seem to have trouble doing that. I always thought it was relatively easy to just be kind to people and such.

Even though I'm not a Christian, I'd have to say I like the whole "Turn the other cheek" thing. If only we could all try, everything would run so much more smoothly...

we/I am probably ruining this thread (hurry up and destroy my arguements Dem, stop me from hijacking the thread!) But, neo-anar, I know few christians who are like you. I myself strive every DAY, nay, every HOUR to "turn the other cheek" its ..interesting..

Umm, you just said something that had nothing to do with the post you quoted.
Also, please refrain from insulting others, as it is against forum rules.
Thank you.
Your right, I am tired and a little ticked regarding other issues and I probably took it out too much on him.

On the flip side, I am tired of people trying to argue a dead issue with false facts and calling me behind the times because they can't understand the truths in front of their face. As for people that think Christians or other religions are behind the times because they are not willing ot jump on bandwagon with the latest fad and leave behind the truth, well don't belittle others because you are unwilling to accept the fact that you are mistaken. Get your mind opened and actually look into all aspects of the issue.
Good bye and look me up when you are willing to look beyond the end of your nose.

dang, why did you have to do that Omega, you just ruined your credibility? Why do christians do this? I saw a debate "Intelligent Design/Creationism VS. Evolution" and they had "open questions" once, and this christian just committed SUICIDE in an open question to the Evol representative. It annoys me so much.

dang, why did you have to do that Omega, you just ruined your credibility? Why do christians do this? I saw a debate "Intelligent Design/Creationism VS. Evolution" and they had "open questions" once, and this christian just committed SUICIDE in an open question to the Evol representative. It annoys me so much.
Well, it didn't seem all that bad to me...
Then again, I'm thinking in terms of disaster-bad when you say bad, like the arguments that Defensor Fidei always got into. Those were...interesting.

the laws of Chemistry and Physics both say that like particles repel and opposite charges attract.
Umm, yes. And?

they are trying to argue some nonsensical point that jack chick put into his comic, big daddy (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp). apparently not only does the bible tell us that atoms are held together by jesus personally, but this somehow is a damning argument against genetic variation and differential reproductive success. yeah, i don't get it either.

http://www.chick.com/tractimages9587/0055/0055_18.gif

http://www.chick.com/tractimages9587/0055/0055_19.gif

http://www.chick.com/tractimages9587/0055/0055_20.gif

Gluons are made-up because nobody's seen them?
I've never seen a howler monkey, but I'm pretty sure they exist...

So have you honestly researched the Darwinist belief system or are you just spouting Dogma that you have been told is fact? That goes for you too Pantylvania. If a scientist sets out with an open mind to prove that God does not exsist and that Darwinism is fact they innevitably come to the conclusion that God did in fact Create everything. Many of the arguements on this website are tragically flawed and offer no proof for the arguement claiming Darwinism as fact not a theory!None of us here are trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

Pantylvania the laws of Chemistry and Physics both say that like particles repel and opposite charges attract.That's all well and good, but the nucleons within a nucleus are more strongly attracted by meson exchange, or the strong force.

And yes Darwinism has said both everything goes to the more simplistic and yes we are apparently going to lose our useless appendix.No, evolution theory does not say that everything has to become more simplistic. No, evolution theory does not say we are going to lose the appendix in the next 1000 years. If there are people who naturally don't have an appendix and if that lack of an appendix gives them a greater chance of reproductive success, then evolution theory predicts that we'll lose the appendix. Because those conditions have not been met, evolution theory does not predict a loss of the appendix.

All of your examples of nuclei being "jammed together" are examples of technology acting on them in a very focused way, not precisely calibrated and it doesn't work.They are examples that disprove your theory. If you suspect that the experiments aren't calibrated, you're free to take part in a nuclear physics experiment to make sure that they do it properly.

And you just argue around in circles. Science still can not conclusively say why a nucleous does not just "blow" apart.The nucleons share valence quarks and an antiquark in a process called "meson exchange." If you start to pull the nucleons apart, it's like you're trying to rip their valence quarks out so they'll tend to move closer. After they are pulled even farther apart, they stop exchanging valence quarks and you can go back to you junior high physics rules.

Maybe you should study the topic before you try to defend it.Uh, yeah. I should.

You are still going around in circles. You fail to show where the steps are and why we don't see them today.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 in the species

Gluons are made-up because nobody's seen them?

yes, exactly. unlike sub-atomic jesus, who we all can quite easily see holding together every single atomic nucleus in the entire universe.

speaking of sub-atomic jesus, i wonder if jack chick realizes that his argument proves that jesus isn't omnipotent. because apparently jesus isn't strong enough to hold together all of those unstable radioactive isotopes.

http://www.chick.com/tractimages9587/0055/0055_18.gif

http://www.chick.com/tractimages9587/0055/0055_19.gif

http://www.chick.com/tractimages9587/0055/0055_20.gifheroic kid: Sir, what is the binding force of the atom?

evil professor: It's mesons! Gotcha!

heroic kid: Wrong, sir! Gluons are a made up dream. No-one has seen or even measured them... they don't exist! It's a desperate...wait, did you say "mesons?"

evil professor: Yes.

heroic kid: Oh, I guess the theory of evolution does a pretty good job of predicting changes in the physical traits of species. I'll sit down now.

heroic kid: Sir, what is the binding force of the atom?

evil professor: It's mesons! Gotcha!

heroic kid: Wrong, sir! Gluons are a made up dream. No-one has seen or even measured them... they don't exist! It's a desperate...wait, did you say "mesons?"

evil professor: Yes.

heroic kid: Oh, I guess the theory of evolution does a pretty good job of predicting changes in the physical traits of species. I'll sit down now.

http://www.weirdcrap.com/chick/links.html

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!

I love portugese.

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.

So the Church still thinks the world is flat and that the universe revolves around the earth?

Or did you mean to spout out such a pathetically weak argument?

So the Church still thinks the world is flat and that the universe revolves around the earth?

Or did you mean to spout out such a pathetically weak argument?
Nope scientific evidence eventually changed their mind irregardless of their religious beliefs … hopefully it keeps doing so

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.

(a) Human beings wrote the Bible, not God.
(b) So, if there was not actually a`prodigal son, Christ lied!??!?! Of could it just be that some truth lies in the point of the story, not in the details?

And plese, just because one author wrote Ch1 Genesis and another Ch2 genesis does not mean they are conflicting.

No, the fact that they conflict means that they conflict. The fact that they were written by two different authors, to make two different points, just shows that the point is in the meaning of the story, not in the details.

only thing is that in the past 2000+ years man has yet to record any evolution.

Yeah, there were concrete-eating termites before there was concrete. Viruses don't change every year. There was a nylon-bug before there was nylon.

And Dem, 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)

You are confusing personal religion with science. I am a Christian, with my own religious views. However, my views are irrelevant to science. The fact that I am a Christian and a scientist does not mean that the two mix.

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.

Look kids! Here is a person who knows nothing about physics, chemistry, or biology, but still tries to use them in an argument!

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.

Most Christians aren't backward unscientific morons. I am an example.

However, some "Christians" are.

And saying molecules break down into the most basic element and

"Molecules will break down into the stablest form."

is about the same thing.

This demonstrates a clear lack of any knowledge in Chemistry. Very often, in fact, most often, the stablest form and the most basic element are far from being the same.

Although this does nothing and means nothing, I like Neo-Anar, he is nice and kind, you might be seethingly sadistic and mean IRL, but here you are nice and correct and disprove me nice. When Bottle or Dempublicants finally proves Christianity is wrong to me, I want you, Neo, to be there to help me convert smoothly. But I also like Omega the Black...anyhow I said I was gonna go to bed earlier, but..

Why on Earth would I attempt to disprove my own religion?

we/I am probably ruining this thread (hurry up and destroy my arguements Dem, stop me from hijacking the thread!) But, neo-anar, I know few christians who are like you. I myself strive every DAY, nay, every HOUR to "turn the other cheek" its ..interesting..

"Turn the other cheek" is one of the most misinterpreted quotes in the Bible. It was never meant to suggest that you simply take whatever is thrown at you and was, in fact, a form of passive resistance. The problem is that you have to live in a society that forbids the use of the left hand to understand it.

[QUOTE=Einsteinian Big-Heads]Big Bang theory doesn't tend to get much of a mention onf NS General, which is a great shame.
QUOTE]

just wanted to mention Big Bang theory.
The Empire of Presidency thanks you.

Most Christians aren't backward unscientific morons. I am an example.

However, some "Christians" are.
Too bad the unscientific seem to be the ones with the biggest mouths

"Turn the other cheek" is one of the most misinterpreted quotes in the Bible. It was never meant to suggest that you simply take whatever is thrown at you and was, in fact, a form of passive resistance. The problem is that you have to live in a society that forbids the use of the left hand to understand it.
Grave_n_idle said something about that too ... its interesting how one of the main tenants (at least quoted statements) is based on a cultural mis-interpretation

Too bad the unscientific seem to be the ones with the biggest mouths

*shrug* Unfortunately, every group is judged by its extremists.

Too bad the unscientific seem to be the ones with the biggest mouths

It tends to be that way with every cause. And it's not just that the people with the most hardcore version of their beliefs tend to be the most outspoken (although it is true, I would say it's a matter of, more intense belief = fewer members = more perception of being threatened = greater need to get attention, out of fear of being destroyed; or something like that). It's also a matter of our attention spans. Read through the abortion threads. It's kind of a neat experiment. Several moderate posts, one hardcore lefty saying things like "Until that cord is cut, it's not a kid and we should abort it if we want to." Some more moderate posts, a hardcore righty "It is murder, and I don't care about the circumstances, who cares if she was raped, or if she'll die delivering." Then more moderates. But at the end of the thread, who do we remember, not the dozens of moderates, but those two guys that at least border on being nutjobs.

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.

The classic microevolution vs macroevolution. Macroevolution (speciation) is just what occurs over long periods (Several hundred thousand to many million generations) of time.

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.

The 2nd law problem is not a problem on earth. The entropy of the sun dumping energy into the universe greatly overcomes any increase in complexity in lifeforms on the earth. It is because some amino chains are capable of utilizing the excess energy the sun generates that life is able to overcome it's own entropy.

Also, molecular physics, like the big bang, abiogenesis theory, and a host of SEPERATE scientific models have no bearing on the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is based solely on what can be observed in biology and zoology in the natural world. Ask someone else why protons stick together (and there are reasons for this, you just weren't paying attention in physics class).


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.

Assumptions based on facts not found in evidence!

I believe the purpose of this thread was for creationists to show evidence. Hokily expounding about 'what god said' is not evidence, it's conjecture.

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.

Isolation, or weren't you paying attention. To make it simple (I.E.), two groups of the same species get seperated when a flood washes out part of the plain they live on and creates a new river. The river is impossible for either group to cross, and so they are unable to interact or interbreed with one another. On one side, a disease kills of the fruit trees that are the staple of their diet. The disease is unable to cross the river so it does not affect those trees on the other side. Group one is forced to change it's diet to staple on another type of fruit (one with a very minor toxin in it, that prevents them from eating in bulk). As a result, over time group one grows smaller than group two, because they have less food to eat, those who have the genes to be smaller are more likely to get enough food to survive to reproduce. Also, those that have adaptations that make them better able to handle the toxin get more nourishment than those that don't and therefore over time cause more of the population to have this same gene. Subtle changes (and even drastic ones) continue to happen on each side of the river. A million (or 5 or 10) years later the river dries up and the two populations re meat. They are no longer able to mate with each other, and do not recognize each other as the same species. Speciation has occured, now one is animal A, the other is Animal B, but Both came from animal C.

Each creature that exists today exists because it has a niche and is capable of exploiting it. Each time migrations, earthquakes, floods, or any kind of natural phenomenon occur there is a chance that a portion of the population is isolated without the niche (or with a slightly different niche). Over time odds are that it will either adapt to suppor the new niche, or it will go extinct.

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.

Mistakes happen. Hoaxes happen. (Some of them perpetrated by Creationists attempting to dispute evolution.) They are all part of smaller theories though. There is no evidence yet cross-examined that falsifies the major hypothesis of the theory (that adaptations happen and that they build up over time to cause speciation) only the hypothesis of the evolution of individual species. If you have evidence against the whole theory, this thread is your chance to share it.

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?

Carbon dating has about the same uncertainty range as any statistical analysis tools (~+/-3%). Since it is designed to give relatively accurate dates over a several hundred million period of time, being off by 6million years is no big deal (it's off by less than 2%, closer than most election poll results). That is why reputable scientists don't use C-14 dating on fossils they know to be less than a certain age, because the margin for error is larger than the date range of possibility.

Again though, this argument is about proving that you have evidence that actually supports creationism, and not about a chemistry experiment. The accuracy of C-14 dating in no way falsifies evolutionary theory.

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.

You mean, "eliminate the impossible". In no way have you done this in this post. Show us how evolutionary theory is impossible. Show us how your version of G-d and Creation are the only ones possible.

Please discuss your methodology and what your hypothesis are, and give us ways that we can falsify your hypothosis (or at least the ways you tested your hypothesis to come to your conclusion).

I would love to see someone actually prove G-d.

*shrug* Unfortunately, every group is judged by its extremists.
I agree but for some reson the religious ones either get the most air time or are talked about the most ... I dont get it

Nope scientific evidence eventually changed their mind irregardless of their religious beliefs … hopefully it keeps doing so
I want to start out by saying this, I am not going to try and argue that the earth is flat or anything like that, but what scientific evidence are you talking about (Another reminder: I do know what the evidence is, but I am a history person, and want to know if you know the real evidence or the generally accepted falsehoods).

I want to start out by saying this, I am not going to try and argue that the earth is flat or anything like that, but what scientific evidence are you talking about (Another reminder: I do know what the evidence is, but I am a history person, and want to know if you know the real evidence or the generally accepted falsehoods).
I am confused are you asking evidence that the world is round (current) or the evidence the “world is rounders” originally started to use? There is a difference I can quote current observations such as space observation but obviously they would have not been relying on that particular evidence

So have you honestly researched the Darwinist belief system or are you just spouting Dogma that you have been told is fact? That goes for you too Pantylvania. If a scientist sets out with an open mind to prove that God does not exsist and that Darwinism is fact they innevitably come to the conclusion that God did in fact Create everything. Many of the arguements on this website are tragically flawed and offer no proof for the arguement claiming Darwinism as fact not a theory!

Hi, I would like to introduce myself. I went to parochial (evangelical christian) school all my life. I have read the Bible 5 times from cover to cover. I went to seminary shool for a semester, and went to a private christian college with a minor in theology. In fact, I used to participate regularly in debates on the 'Creationist' side in my high-school debate team. I believe in evolution. It has nothing to do with the rhetoric on either side of the debate. It is the logical conclusion I came to after examining all the evidence available.

Evolution is a theory not fact. It is the only theory that so far is supported by evidence observable in the natural world and in the fossil record.

If you have a way to word the creationist theory in a way that it is falsifiable/testable, and have evidence to support the same (and won't ignore any evidence to the contrary) I for one would really appreciate it if you did, and quit blathering dogma at me.

Pantylvania the laws of Chemistry and Physics both say that like particles repel and opposite charges attract. And yes Darwinism has said both everything goes to the more simplistic and yes we are apparently going to lose our useless appendix. All of your examples of nuclei being "jammed together" are examples of technology acting on them in a very focused way, not precisely calibrated and it doesn't work. And you just argue around in circles. Science still can not conclusively say why a nucleous does not just "blow" apart. Maybe you should study the topic before you try to defend it.

You may want to pick up a particle physics book written after 1920. Protons don't fly away from each other because there is a force pushing them together (the Strong Nuclear Force) that is several hundred times stronger than the EM force pushing them apart.

Natural Selection says that species adapt to their environment, that genetic mutations occur, that beneficial mutations are more likely to allow them to reproduce (and will therefore weed out those without them), and that over time a buildup of these mutations and adaptations results in speciation of isolated groups of a species.

It is not about simplicity or complexity (you are thinking of Ocham's (sp?) Razor) as they have nothing to do with evolution. It is about being more likely to reproduce viable offspring (offspring capable of reproducing themselves). Individuals more capable of doing so will successfully reproduce more often than those that can't and the collective result is speciation.

You are still going around in circles. You fail to show where the steps are and why we don't see them today.

Because you are thinking like a human and not like a planet. The timeframes for speciation to occur are in the mult-million (or several hundred thousand, depending on length of the generation) year time frame. Since we've only been paying attention for like 200 years, we have yet to see it occur. If we manage to successfully record history of biology for the next 100 million years there is a strong likelihood that we will record several instances of speciation (likely our own, multiple times over).

Your shortsightedness is not proof against evolution.

I would love to see someone actually prove G-d.I'm not really big on all this forum stuff, but why do you and some others write "G-d"?

I am confused are you asking evidence that the world is round (current) or the evidence the “world is rounders” originally started to use? There is a difference I can quote current observations such as space observation but obviously they would have not been relying on that particular evidence
Basically, I meant what you said, the evidence that convinced the Church.

Basically, I meant what you said, the evidence that convinced the Church.
Enough of its members get exposed to overwhelming evidence it will shape any organization over time. Even if they don’t follow reality on the small things that they can get away with soon as there were people LIVING on the other side of the world it is kind of hard to deny lol

I'm not really big on all this forum stuff, but why do you and some others write "G-d"?
Not a forum thing … traditionally people do it in writing in order to avoid taking the name of their creator in vain (that’s what I was told by my catholic school teacher)

Nope scientific evidence eventually changed their mind irregardless of their religious beliefs … hopefully it keeps doing so

One can only hope.

One can only hope.

It eventually will (for most - don't forget that there are still flat-Earthers). However, there is usually a period of extremism and condemnation before any religion changes.

I'm not really big on all this forum stuff, but why do you and some others write "G-d"?

It's a thing I picked up on some jewish forums. In orthodox Judaism, the mitzvah not to take the Lord's name in vain, applies to everything. You do not invoke G-d unless you are praying to him. I only use it when I am speaking specifically of the Judeo-Christian god (YHVH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Etc) and it's only because god as a word is so widely used and so varied in meaning that I don't want anyone confusing what/to whom I am talking about.

EDIT: If i say "God" I am usually referring to the Buddhist version.

If this were a debate about the muslim creation mythos, I would be saying Allah everywhere instead (or the actual honorific, because I believe they have similar strictures against invoking his name).

It's a thing I picked up on some jewish forums. In orthodox Judaism, the mitzvah not to take the Lord's name in vain, applies to everything. You do not invoke G-d unless you are praying to him. I only use it when I am speaking specifically of the Judeo-Christian god (YHVH/Yahweh/Jehovah/Etc) and it's only because god as a word is so widely used and so varied in meaning that I don't want anyone confusing what/to whom I am talking about.

If this were a debate about the muslim creation mythos, I would be saying Allah everywhere instead (or the actual honorific, because I believe they have similar strictures against invoking his name).
Hehe my teach was right (look at previous post about taking gods name in vain)

I am a real bad one with this ... I dont even bother to capatalize god unless it is at the begining of a sentience

Not a forum thing … traditionally people do it in writing in order to avoid taking the name of their creator in vain (that’s what I was told by my catholic school teacher)
That was my first guess, but the majority of the time I've seen it, it's not been from people who would seem to care at all about doing that. But hey, thanks for clearing that up.

That was my first guess, but the majority of the time I've seen it, it's not been from people who would seem to care at all about doing that. But hey, thanks for clearing that up.
It just becomes standard ... I dont subscribe to the theory but ehh

That was my first guess, but the majority of the time I've seen it, it's not been from people who would seem to care at all about doing that. But hey, thanks for clearing that up.

I am an agnostic-atheist/universal deist. I don't think god exists. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong. And if he/she/it/they do exist, I think it most likely that they exist in the way that Benji Franklin or Albert Einstein described them, that the Creator and creation are one and the same I.E. that the multiverse is the mind/dream of God and we are just a part of that dream.

I try and use respectful and specific honorifics though when I am talking about specific deities. As I am willing to admit that I don't know, I see no need in wandering around and intentionally pissing a supernatural being off. For the same reason, I typically never capitalize goddamn, because I would hate for 'God' or 'G-d' to think I was being serious in my request.

I am an agnostic-atheist/universal deist. I don't think god exists. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong. And if he/she/it/they do exist, I think it most likely that they exist in the way that Benji Franklin or Albert Einstein described them, that the Creator and creation are one and the same I.E. that the multiverse is the mind/dream of God and we are just a part of that dream.

I try and use respectful and specific honorifics though when I am talking about specific deities. As I am willing to admit that I don't know, I see no need in wandering around and intentionally pissing a supernatural being off. For the same reason, I typically never capitalize goddamn, because I would hate for 'God' or 'G-d' to think I was being serious in my request.
Well take out the "by pithica" part and put "by upwardthrust" and you would still be true :)

I find this bit of information interesting. Roughly 50 years ago (I don't have the exact date), Pope Pius XII issued his "humani generis" encyclical which stated

"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

In 1996, Pope John Paul II issued a confirmation of Pius' encyclical, with two provisos:

1) That the original "spark of life" came from God
2) that the human soul also came from God

While I hate to use the old "famous people said this so it must be true" argument (i've forgotten the Latin name), it is interesting that two very religeous, arch-conservatives have given a luke-warm endorsement of evolution.

None of us here are trying to prove that God doesn't exist.

That's all well and good, but the nucleons within a nucleus are more strongly attracted by meson exchange, or the strong force.

No, evolution theory does not say that everything has to become more simplistic. No, evolution theory does not say we are going to lose the appendix in the next 1000 years. If there are people who naturally don't have an appendix and if that lack of an appendix gives them a greater chance of reproductive success, then evolution theory predicts that we'll lose the appendix. Because those conditions have not been met, evolution theory does not predict a loss of the appendix.

They are examples that disprove your theory. If you suspect that the experiments aren't calibrated, you're free to take part in a nuclear physics experiment to make sure that they do it properly.

The nucleons share valence quarks and an antiquark in a process called "meson exchange." If you start to pull the nucleons apart, it's like you're trying to rip their valence quarks out so they'll tend to move closer. After they are pulled even farther apart, they stop exchanging valence quarks and you can go back to you junior high physics rules.

Uh, yeah. I should.

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 in the species


Keep in mind, though, all this stuff is Uber-theoretical. Many scientists still don't buy a lot of this.

Keep in mind, though, all this stuff is Uber-theoretical. Many scientists still don't buy a lot of this.
Yet :) if it proves to fit data

While I hate to use the old "famous people said this so it must be true" argument (i've forgotten the Latin name), it is interesting that two very religeous, arch-conservatives have given a luke-warm endorsement of evolution.

Outside of the Spanish Inquisition (which was really more about racism and political control issues) and the Galileo Incedent (which was really more about Galileo being an asshole and pissing people off) the Catholic Church as an orginization has been fairly open to scientific development in general in comparison to some protestant denomonations.

When evidence slams in their faces, they tend to accept it, begrudgingly. They are more open to the parable assumption about the Bible's truth. Meaning, that the Bible contains truth that was given to man by G-d. The text that surrounds that truth is often in the form of parable or fable written by man and subject to man's falability. The truth at it's core is not subject to debate, but the poetry that surrounds it can be ignored at your leasure.

I find this a reasonable interpretation of religion. The demands for literal acceptance of the poetry defy logic.

Well take out the "by pithica" part and put "by upwardthrust" and you would still be true :)

It's nice to know I am not alone.

"Turn the other cheek" is one of the most misinterpreted quotes in the Bible. It was never meant to suggest that you simply take whatever is thrown at you and was, in fact, a form of passive resistance. The problem is that you have to live in a society that forbids the use of the left hand to understand it.

Sweet, something else we agree on. Hmm.. I will write more..later?

I have never really answered the thread's quesiton, I will soon

I for one, am all ears, even if the post has dropped to page 8.

Outside of the Spanish Inquisition (which was really more about racism and political control issues) and the Galileo Incedent (which was really more about Galileo being an asshole and pissing people off) the Catholic Church as an orginization has been fairly open to scientific development in general in comparison to some protestant denomonations.

When evidence slams in their faces, they tend to accept it, begrudgingly. They are more open to the parable assumption about the Bible's truth. Meaning, that the Bible contains truth that was given to man by G-d. The text that surrounds that truth is often in the form of parable or fable written by man and subject to man's falability. The truth at it's core is not subject to debate, but the poetry that surrounds it can be ignored at your leasure.

I find this a reasonable interpretation of religion. The demands for literal acceptance of the poetry defy logic.

Hardly. The only reason Copernicus' De revolutionibus wasn't immediately banned was because the theoligian it was entrusted to when it was about to go into print got rid of the original introduction (which treated it as a serious scientific manuscript on the physical nature of the world) and replaced it with one that made it seem like more of a mathematical endeavor meant to make predicting the positions of the known planets more accurate.

ANY heliocentric scientist who tried to publish anything supporting his view was usually shunned by the church, more often than not having his works banned.

The ironic thing is that most of these men thought they were doing God's work by discovering the mechanics of his creation.

I find this bit of information interesting. Roughly 50 years ago (I don't have the exact date), Pope Pius XII issued his "humani generis" encyclical which stated

"The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter."

In 1996, Pope John Paul II issued a confirmation of Pius' encyclical, with two provisos:

1) That the original "spark of life" came from God
2) that the human soul also came from God

While I hate to use the old "famous people said this so it must be true" argument (i've forgotten the Latin name), it is interesting that two very religeous, arch-conservatives have given a luke-warm endorsement of evolution.

What the hell is wrong with you people!!!???

I have been telling you for months that the Catholic Church supports evolution!!! I even posted it at the begginning of this thread!!! Why won't people listen??? Why???

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Proof of what, from which perspective, perhaps every possible perspective, can you live so long as to experience all of that, well once you have it all and you have your answer, just remember i say my prayers to you every night
perhaps you should have put a limit on the amount of proof you require, you know a defined set of rules like any good researcher might or might not follow
:headbang:

I think those arguing against evolution need to define what they mean by evolution, as half of those talking about it seem to be talking about something that is not evolution at all.

An Evolutionist would define it as change in population caused by 2 actions - genetic change and natural selection.

So maybe we should define genetic change and natural selection and see if we can see them in action.

Genetic change is pretty easy to spot. Let's use a biblical example. God created 1 man and 1 woman. Woman was created from Man, which would indicate that they are genetically idenitical, God just did a bit of jiggery pokery with the sex chromosomes and gave woman a tiny little extra bit of DNA. So from a pair of almost genetically identical humans we now have some 6 billion different people on the planet, all genetically different from each other. (That's ignoring the biblical fact that we are all descended from Noah and his family (which itself ignores the provable scientific fact that we are not)). So following the creation story in the bible and using the common sense evidence of our own eyes it's farly obvious that genetic change occurs.

How about natural selection, is that difficult to spot? We can continue to look at human genetic change and see if natural selection occurs among humans. An obvious example is sickle cell anaemia. Let's just ignore the fact for now that sickle cell anaemia is a genetic disorder and look how natural selection acts on it. Sickle cell anaemia is generally a debilitating disease, but some areas of Africa have a high prevalence of people with the disease. Scientists found that sickle cell anaemia confers some resistance to malaria, so tis mutation that has a generally negative effect has a positive effect on people in malarial areas. So the prevalence of the gene increased in malarial areas. The genotype of the population shifted towards those with sickle cell malaria - a change of population caused by genetic mutation and natural selection.

Being an amateur cod slinger I've always reconciled Evolution as coding. Why manage every little step every second of eternity when you could write good code ad automate most of it? Chaos could very well be just an incredibly complex (or simple) pattern.


”Blasphemy, blasphoyou, blasphor everybody in the room.”- Eddie Izzard

ok so the church support evolution now but they didn't before? Surely this means there turning back on themselves, as well as that the bible states god made the world in 7 days surely if he did that counts out evolution, as evolution takes many thousands of years




although being not being an evolutionist a can take Pope John Paul II was refering to the fact that in the bible adem and eve has 6 childre all one sex (male or female) and they married people from anouther religion. although not being a great religios pholosopher surely this means that christians should exept the fact that there are other gods, altrnatively it could be refering to the fact that adam and eve were the first 'inteligent' humans and there children 'married' apes and the 'inteligence' gene spread through out the ape kind and turned them into 'humans'



personally i think all i just said in the previus paragraph is bull but it's a view that can be taken

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.

I know you have all heard this before, but....

Faith is beleif in (or knowledge of) something being true, without any evidence (physical or otherwise). So if creationism is based entirely on faith, and then someone proves it, by definition it ceases to exist. hmm...

just thought I bring it in and see what y'all have to say about it.

I don't have the time to read the whoe forum but I read the first post and here is what I say. First how can everything come from nothing, it had to be created by something and the posibility of a giant explosane forming the universe is about 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999% imposible. I don't know the exact number but it is something like that. Also by no means is it possible for life to come from chemicals as the eveloutionists claim that all life came from. Another point is that they say everything evolved from bacteria. That is imposible because biologists have been raising animals for years that reproduce everyday and the only mutation ever seen has been for the worst. So answer me this how could bacteria have mutated from something so lowly and simple to a human the only animal that has anything besides natural instincts. I have much more to say but right now my hand is tired from typing so until next time. Bye. Sorry for the bad spelling that my one academic weakness.

ok so the church support evolution now but they didn't before? Surely this means there turning back on themselves, as well as that the bible states god made the world in 7 days surely if he did that counts out evolution, as evolution takes many thousands of years




although being not being an evolutionist a can take Pope John Paul II was refering to the fact that in the bible adem and eve has 6 childre all one sex (male or female) and they married people from anouther religion. although not being a great religios pholosopher surely this means that christians should exept the fact that there are other gods, altrnatively it could be refering to the fact that adam and eve were the first 'inteligent' humans and there children 'married' apes and the 'inteligence' gene spread through out the ape kind and turned them into 'humans'



personally i think all i just said in the previus paragraph is bull but it's a view that can be taken
Who says God only made Adam and Eve? They were just the first humans. He could have made more if he wanted to so that they would reproduce.

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.
Word.
*bows*

The only reason creationists believe what they believe is because they were indoctrinated with that belief. They then created a huge body of rationalization around their belief to defend it against critical logical analysis by their opponents. People don't believe in creationism because they found evidence of it, the found evidence of it because the believed in it.

At least proponents of evolution take a basic set of assumptions that doesn't include their arguement and arrive at a logical conclusion.

*bump*ies

I don't understand how evolution and creation are even at odds. Evolution is not the theory that explains the beginning of the universe. I believe in God but I also believe in micro-evolution. Macro-evolution on the other hand can only be believed on faith. There is no "proof" of macro-evolution only a series of hypothesis that generally point to a possibility that it could be true. To accept this takes as much if not more faith as creation.

Also if you want proof that the Earth is younger than some scientists claim, look at the findings from Mt. St. Helens. Sorry I don't have a link. I'm not that prepared.

In my opinion it all boils down to where you want to place your faith. In an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient God or that somehow nothing exploded a long time ago. Neither is scientifically possible to prove. God could evidence himself he he so chose but that would eliminate faith. Science simply has no ability to prove the arguement for either side.

I don't understand how evolution and creation are even at odds. Evolution is not the theory that explains the beginning of the universe. I believe in God but I also believe in micro-evolution. Macro-evolution on the other hand can only be believed on faith. There is no "proof" of macro-evolution only a series of hypothesis that generally point to a possibility that it could be true. To accept this takes as much if not more faith as creation.

Also if you want proof that the Earth is younger than some scientists claim, look at the findings from Mt. St. Helens. Sorry I don't have a link. I'm not that prepared.

In my opinion it all boils down to where you want to place your faith. In an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient God or that somehow nothing exploded a long time ago. Neither is scientifically possible to prove. God could evidence himself he he so chose but that would eliminate faith. Science simply has no ability to prove the arguement for either side.


Depends on your deffinition of 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.

the LITTERAL interpretation ... including animal appearance order

Which does not nessisarily match up with evolution

I believe in God and I believed that he did create the earth in seven days. However in the bible it does not state how long a day was. Before the calender and time it could have been billions of years in one day when talking about God so this planet very well could have been created by God, just not in the way most people think. This is just an idea, and nothing more.

Creationism does not agree with macro-evolution. Which in my understanding is the idea that all living things came from a common ancestor. i.e. Mankind-chimps Whales-cows type of thing. Micro-evolution, evolution within a species; i.e. breeds of dogs, on the other hand does not.

I don't have the time to read the whoe forum but I read the first post and here is what I say. First how can everything come from nothing, it had to be created by something and the posibility of a giant explosane forming the universe is about 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99999999999999999999999999999999999% imposible. -snip-

It's 100% impossible to compare statistics if the universe isn't lucky enough to be created ;) .

BTW, your spelling's fine but please don't post in orange, it gives me a headache.

Since these kinds of threads need *bump*ies every now and again, just doin' my part.

*ahem*

Big Mammals Evolved Thanks to More Oxygen
A newly compiled comprehensive record of Earth’s atmospheric oxygen shows a large peak 50 million years ago. The abundance of oxygen, which came on the heels of the dinosaur decline, could have fueled not only the evolution of giant, placental mammals such as the 10-foot sloth but also large-brained creatures, including humans.
The data come from deep-sea sediment cores dating to 205 million years ago that contain inorganic carbon-rich minerals as well as the organic remains of single celled marine phytoplankton. These organisms generated oxygen through photosynthesis and in the process, left behind a chemical signature by changing the ratio of the two stable isotopes of carbon--carbon 13 and carbon 12--in the sediments.
By comparing the amount of carbon 13 in the inorganic particles with the absence of carbon 13 in the organic matter, scientists can estimate how much oxygen was present in the atmosphere at that time. Paul Falkowski and his team at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey analyzed such evidence as well as related data published earlier by a German team, and concluded that oxygen levels have essentially doubled over the last 205 million years.
At the beginning of this time period, the atmosphere contained only 10 percent oxygen by volume. And mammals, which appeared around 190 million years ago, were tiny, weighing in at about two grams. Around 50 million years ago, in contrast, oxygen levels in the atmosphere measured 23 percent--2 percent higher than today. "It's exactly at this time, when we look at the fossil record, that we see the extreme radiation of large orders of new placental mammals," Falkowski says. In general, mammals require large amounts of oxygen just to move and to metabolize their food. Mammalian brains also burn about one third of the total calories consumed. And mammal mothers use up about 60 percent of the oxygen in their blood before it gets to the placenta. More oxygen in the air would have contributed to better conditions in the womb. Since the mammalian heyday, oxygen levels have dropped to about 21 percent, a reduction that may have been caused by great fires that burned over the earth about 10 million years ago, destroying large swaths of oxygen-producing vegetation. A paper detailing these findings appears in the current issue of Science. --Tracy Staedter

I don't understand how evolution and creation are even at odds. Evolution is not the theory that explains the beginning of the universe. I believe in God but I also believe in micro-evolution. Macro-evolution on the other hand can only be believed on faith. There is no "proof" of macro-evolution
There is.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Also: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm
# Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.

# Austin's samples were not homogeneous, as he himself admitted. Any xenocrysts in the samples would make the samples appear older (because the xenocrysts themselves would be old). A K-Ar analysis of impure fractions of the sample, as Austin's were, is meaningless.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013_1.html

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.

I love the argument from the second law of thermodynamics because how the creationists use it, it is impossible for me to clean my room because I am reducing the amount of entropy in the system. The answer is actually very simple: the second law applies only to closed systems which the earth is not. We recieve tons of energy from the big ball of fusion known as the sun and that energy can be used to increase complexity in cases (ie life evolving). When we consider the HUGE increased entropy of the sun and the small cases decreased entropy on earth there is a net increase so the second law is not violated.

I love the argument from the second law of thermodynamics because how the creationists use it, it is impossible for me to clean my room because I am reducing the amount of entropy in the system. The answer is actually very simple: the second law applies only to closed systems which the earth is not. We recieve tons of energy from the big ball of fusion known as the sun and that energy can be used to increase complexity in cases (ie life evolving). When we consider the HUGE increased entropy of the sun and the small cases decreased entropy on earth there is a net increase so the second law is not violated.
Excellent and concise.
*bows*

*bump*ies

Wow. My thread is back!

I love the argument from the second law of thermodynamics because how the creationists use it, it is impossible for me to clean my room because I am reducing the amount of entropy in the system. The answer is actually very simple: the second law applies only to closed systems which the earth is not. We recieve tons of energy from the big ball of fusion known as the sun and that energy can be used to increase complexity in cases (ie life evolving). When we consider the HUGE increased entropy of the sun and the small cases decreased entropy on earth there is a net increase so the second law is not violated.
I will have to remember that one lol

I love the argument from the second law of thermodynamics because how the creationists use it, it is impossible for me to clean my room because I am reducing the amount of entropy in the system. The answer is actually very simple: the second law applies only to closed systems which the earth is not. We recieve tons of energy from the big ball of fusion known as the sun and that energy can be used to increase complexity in cases (ie life evolving). When we consider the HUGE increased entropy of the sun and the small cases decreased entropy on earth there is a net increase so the second law is not violated.
Also, who says that higher life forms have lower entropy? I don't see any relation between biologic/chemical complexity and entropy.

If this hasn't been raised yet I'd like to state this, and only this about Evoloution. All orbits deteriorate over time right? Well, if that is true then for the Earth to have been around long enough for Evoloution which was what, 100billion years? It would had to of been so far from the Sun life could not be sustained, or if it were close enough for life it would be in the Sun by now.

Well, if that is true then for the Earth to have been around long enough for Evoloution which was what, 100billion years?

clearly we should all bow before your superior understanding of the universe.


the number you are look for is 4.55 billion. but what's a factor of 21 between friends?

If this hasn't been raised yet I'd like to state this, and only this about Evoloution. All orbits deteriorate over time right?

Wrong, actually. Some get further away. Example - moon, which is receding away from the earth at a rate of about 4 centimeters per year because of tidal effects. Same effects cause the earth to be actually moving away from the sun - at a rate of approximately one micrometer per year. 4.5 billion years of moving at one micrometer per year means that over that time, the earth has moved away 4500 meters - that's about 4.5 kilometers. Actually it would be more than that, since tidal effects decrease as the orbit increases - but the change in orbit is negligible anyway, since the distance between the earth and sun is 150,000,000 kilometers. This makes the change due to orbital physics about one-third of one-thousandth of one percent. Makes no difference in terms of climate.

A stronger effect is the solar wind - the sun, as it releases energy, must also lose mass. This effect isn't that much stronger though - over the ten-billion-year lifespan of the sun in its current form (i.e. the past 4.5 billion years and the next 5.5 more) will lose 0.1% of its mass, resulting in an orbital change of the earth of a total of approximately 150,000 km. This is a change in orbital distance of approximately one-tenth of one percent - and about half of that change is still to come. This is, again, a small enough effect so as to not change the climate in any significant way.

I don't have the time to read the whoe forum but I read the first post and here is what I say. First how can everything come from nothing, it had to be created by something and the posibility of a giant explosane forming the universe is about 99.9recursive(just editing your post so it doesn't make the screen too wide to see good, and because that's what i'm fairly shure you'd ment.)% imposible. I don't know the exact number but it is something like that. Also by no means is it possible for life to come from chemicals as the eveloutionists claim that all life came from. Another point is that they say everything evolved from bacteria. That is imposible because biologists have been raising animals for years that reproduce everyday and the only mutation ever seen has been for the worst. So answer me this how could bacteria have mutated from something so lowly and simple to a human the only animal that has anything besides natural instincts. I have much more to say but right now my hand is tired from typing so until next time. Bye. Sorry for the bad spelling that my one academic weakness.
humans have only been around for about 10 thousand years, that's 10.000 out of 4.500.000.000 of earth being around, or the slightest bit over .000002% of earth's total history. it takes a long time for evolution to take place. and all of the mutations that have occured weren't universally bad, for exmple the breeding of dogs; the breeders got the types of changes they were looking for.
and even though the percent of the big bang happening was so low, we couldn't have been discussing this if it didn't happen. out of the infinant universes, some of them had to have had a big bang(heheheh, i almost typed big band. well, that's fun music to play, i like playing euphonium on those pieces!)
you'd also said that humans are the only living things with things besides instincts, this is quite untrue, almost every living thing has thoughts besides instincts(well, i'm not shure about one celled living things, but i'm just talking about fungi plants and animals at the moment). even plants can think, they have measurable intelligence quotas too(one of my friends had told me the iq of a carrot was two, i'm not shure if that's true, but i know that plants can gather information. and that planarians have an iq of 6(and a psycologist told me that so i'm pretty certian it's true), heheh) and do you have any proof backing up your statement that bacteria are lowly? humans require many many of them to stay alive, i certianly would think that bacteria-not requiring the aide of other life forms to live as we do-would be more "highly" organisms.
what seperates life from any other chemical reaction? why couldn't it come from other chemicals? i don't see any part of any living thing that isn't a chemical(i believe the chemistry definition of chemical doesn't only apply to liquids, as most people ussually assosiate it?).

Actually, humans qua homo sapiens/homo sapien sapiens have been around for ~45,000 years.

I don't know much about science, but I think we have been around longer than 10 thousand years. Even the literalist Bible folks say at least 6 thousand years,

Actually, humans qua homo sapiens/homo sapien sapiens have been around for ~45,000 years.
really? oh, well, not much difference considering the 4.5 billion lifespan of the earth and the and that it was 160.000.000 years for dinosaurs.

I don't know much about science, but I think we have been around longer than 10 thousand years. Even the literalist Bible folks say at least 6 thousand years,
ok, i must be thinking of human civilizations then?

why do people on this forum give so much of a shit about this debate?

If you believe something and don;t believe what other peopel believe, damn well keep it to yourself i say! People have a right to think what they want...

why do people on this forum give so much of a shit about this debate?

If you believe something and don;t believe what other peopel believe, damn well keep it to yourself i say! People have a right to think what they want...
Many people on this forum, myself included, would be delighted to let this "debate" die...unfortunately, Creationists are not willing to play by the same rules as everybody else, and want their non-scientific theories taught to our children in science class. I give a shit when children are taught false, flawed, or non-scientific information in science class.

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?

Well, I think that it would be logical to say that the matter always existed. Without a beginning may sound strange, but from a Creationist's view, God always existed, so what is so hard to say about matter always existing? After all, it can't be created or destroyed. Then again, that's just an idea of mine. There are many explanations which seem equally logical. To get to the bottom of the matter, with our knowledge and technology, we are not capable of finding the answer anytime soon.

Biological organisms evidentally mutated into separate sexes which were equal enough to permit procreation by means other than self-insemination. After all, there are still lifeforms that don't have more than one sex.

There's no evidence Jesus even existed. And absolutely none that this person came back from a state of death.

Books are written by people, therefore, people wrote your bible. And I would hardly call it from every "type" of person, considering they were all Jews or Christians in the vicinity of Old Israel.

The feeling you get is called an adrenaline rush. People get it from cutting themselves, doing stunts, playing games, et cetera.

The way I see this issue, it's obviously two sided; either you choose to take things on blind faith without giving much thought to actual evidence and deny your own reality in order to comfort yourself into having an intellectual cop-out, or you choose to accept reality and the mistakes made by every scientist. We aren't perfect, but I'd rather put my trust in scientists than child-molesting priests.

Um, ok. You guys do know Creation and Evoloution is based on faith right? You can look around all you want through genetics or whatever for answers. But truth is Science is something that you can observe and repeate, and unless you can go back in time 4.5 billion years and watch the "Big Bang" I won't believe it has scientific proof. Also on that fact there is no scientific proof creation happend, because again we cannot observe creation.

Um, ok. You guys do know Creation and Evoloution is based on faith right? You can look around all you want through genetics or whatever for answers. But truth is Science is something that you can observe and repeate, and unless you can go back in time 4.5 billion years and watch the "Big Bang" I won't believe it has scientific proof. Also on that fact there is no scientific proof creation happend, because again we cannot observe creation.
And you have no proof that you existed five minutes ago, and that your entire life up to this point was not a fabrication. Your point?

Um, ok. You guys do know Creation and Evoloution is based on faith right? You can look around all you want through genetics or whatever for answers. But truth is Science is something that you can observe and repeate, and unless you can go back in time 4.5 billion years and watch the "Big Bang" I won't believe it has scientific proof. Also on that fact there is no scientific proof creation happend, because again we cannot observe creation.

It's too bad you haven't come across the basic definition of logical deduction. Let's think about what you said. If we go by your idiotic statement, then nothing has ever happened, because not everyone has seen the same event at the same time. Meaning that there was no World War II, there were no dinosaurs, and there is no such thing as recorded history.

My point is five minutes ago my brother or parents or anyone else could talk to me, write notes about me and observe me more then once. Where as 4.5 billion years ago according to evoloutionists there were no people to do so. Then with creation, no one was around to witness God creating the world and Adam and Eve. And neither of them or anyone then wrote anything about it that we can find. So they're both based on faith.

My point is five minutes ago my brother or parents or anyone else could talk to me, write notes about me and observe me more then once. Where as 4.5 billion years ago according to evoloutionists there were no people to do so. Then with creation, no one was around to witness God creating the world and Adam and Eve. And neither of them or anyone then wrote anything about it that we can find. So they're both based on faith.
Except the events of 4.5 billion years ago had effects that still reverberate through the universe, which we can measure and use to support theories.

My point is five minutes ago my brother or parents or anyone else could talk to me, write notes about me and observe me more then once. Where as 4.5 billion years ago according to evoloutionists there were no people to do so. Then with creation, no one was around to witness God creating the world and Adam and Eve. And neither of them or anyone then wrote anything about it that we can find. So they're both based on faith.
On the contrary... one theory is based on observations of an expanding universe, a seeming divergence from one point, a seeming divergence from one period, an observed (apparent) increase in the volume of the universe in ALL directions, and parallels on a smaller scale...

and...

the other 'theory' is based on a slightly dusty book, belonging to a gang of desert prophets, 3000 years ago.

Um, ok. You guys do know Creation and Evoloution is based on faith right?
Ummmm....you know, only creation is.


You can look around all you want through genetics or whatever for answers. But truth is Science is something that you can observe and repeate, and unless you can go back in time 4.5 billion years and watch the "Big Bang"
Ummmm....that has nothing to do with evolution.

My point is five minutes ago my brother or parents or anyone else could talk to me, write notes about me and observe me more then once.

That begs the question - how do we know that they observed you five minutes ago? If we can ascertain that five minutes ago they watched you, then we could just as easily ascertain that you existed five minutes ago. But how do we know that they watched you and took notes? After all, that's in the past, and we can't go back in time five minutes and watch!

So what do we do?

We ask them, NOW, about what happened EARLIER. We use information that we can find out in the present - pieces of paper that say "you exist now" that according to either memories or some other form of dating are determined to have been written five minutes ago.

You existing five minutes ago had effects - for example, it caused changes in the minds of people around you, namely causing them to remember that you existed, and if you had them take notes then it also created written records. By observing these effects we can (using only information available in the PRESENT) determine things about your PAST, such as the fact that you existed five minutes ago.

Same thing with evolution. While we can't go back in time and observe it directly, we can observe its effects that are still around - the fossil record that we can dig up, the DNA of currently existing species which we can use for phylogenetic analyses, the geographical distribution of animals with various physical features...