NationStates Jolt Archive

I am doing some research and am interested to know what people think. The way I see it is that there is much proof for creation and some real proof for evolution. I don't really know what to think. The more and more research I do the more and more other Christians make me frustrated. It seems that there is always this simple understanding that it must be either or, but I wouldn't say that. I, personally, believe that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution (I don't as of now though) because all that really matters is that we believe that God was in control. Right?

What kind of creation are we talking about here?

I, personally, believe that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution (I don't as of now though) because all that really matters is that we believe that God was in control. Right?
Right. you are not alone in that thinking. Alot of Christians believe in Evolution.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/gtfogrowswearybullshitptu8.jpg

What kind of creation are we talking about here?

The Christian belief.

Right. you are not alone in that thinking. Alot of Christians believe in Evolution.

I don't personally believe in evolution, but I do find it interesting. My personal belief is that they world was created by God, but not necessarily in 7 literal days (though it could have bee). The Hebrew word used was yohm, which could also refer to an age.

I, personally, believe that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution (I don't as of now though) because all that really matters is that we believe that God was in control. Right?
Wrong, if you find these dissident Christians you must kill the infidels in the name of our all-merciful Lord. :D

Just messing, really there are many Christians that accept evolution from the perspective that you have taken.

I don't personally believe in evolution, but I do find it interesting. My personal belief is that they world was created by God, but not necessarily in 7 literal days (though it could have bee). The Hebrew word used was yohm, which could also refer to an age.

My belief is that evolution is how God created the world. he started the process and nudged things here and there.

My belief is that evolution is how God created the world. he started the process and nudged things here and there.

I have done some research and that could make sense too.

Evolution certainly has more empirical evidence supporting it than creationism. However I do not think science can ever really be applied to religion, the core of which is faith, not experience. Frankly, I do not see why they are mutually exclusive, who's to say god didn't create life with the capacity to change itself.

I believe in Evolution, of course it also helps that The Vatican hasn't really taken a stand on this issue, thus leaving it up to the individuals. Let's face it, Catholic rules. :D

Yeehaa! Once more for those who missed this debate the first hundred or so times its been around.

Come to think of it, I now have to support creation over evolution: These things keep getting created and never seem to evolve.

I suggest massive spamming and hijacking. It's the only cure.

The Christian belief.

7 days, two people, no such thing as dinosaurs... that belief?


or the one that God did create the world, and that Evolution just shows us how.

I believe in Evolution, of course it also helps that The Vatican hasn't really taken a stand on this issue, thus leaving it up to the individuals. Let's face it, Catholic rules. :D

If by "haven't taken a stand" you mean "declared that evolution happened and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old", then yes.

I have done some research and that could make sense too.makes more sense to me than anything else so far.

Evolution certainly has more empirical evidence supporting it than creationism. However I do not think science can ever really be applied to religion, the core of which is faith, not experience. Frankly, I do not see why they are mutually exclusive, who's to say god didn't create life with the capacity to change itself.*nods in agreement*
Cookie?

Evolution certainly has more empirical evidence supporting it than creationism. However I do not think science can ever really be applied to religion, the core of which is faith, not experience. Frankly, I do not see why they are mutually exclusive, who's to say god didn't create life with the capacity to change itself.

For me at least, I don't believe science is outside of faith. If God created everything, then he created science. I have never said that they were mutually exclusive. My belief is that, so long as a Christian believes God's hand was in control, a Christian can believe in evolution.

The Christian belief.Which one?

If by "haven't taken a stand" you mean "declared that evolution happened and the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old", then yes.

Hmm, I thought the Vatican didn't take a stand on it because they wanted to leave it up to the individual to decide for him/herself. I really should sign up for their newsletter. "You got Holy!"

7 days, two people, no such thing as dinosaurs... that belief?


or the one that God did create the world, and that Evolution just shows us how.

Well, that's the discussion. I don't really believe either fully.

http://tfp.killbots.com/fanart/kevinmac/005_kevin-morbo.gif
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION

Thank you Morbo.

You always hear about it. People don't like evolution in school. Now, I recognize people's rights to their faiths. But why not teach multiple theories in schools? Evolution is supposedly taught as a theory. But read the wording in the textbooks. Not much of how you'd word a "theory" if you ask me. They stae it as fact. You argue it's unconstitutional, "What about securalism?" The thing is the constitution also says the government won't favor any faith over another. "Faith" is the belief in something that can't 100% be proven. I also think, in textbooks and schools, that teachers and material should have an equal emphasis on "Creationism" (but in textbooks the same rules applies as evolution), exploring the sciences of various religions, and explaining how in this theory that a deity or several deities made the universe, etc. But I also think schools should continue to teach evolution. No holy books of religions would be discussed. Atheistic theories, and creationistic theories would recieve equal emphasis in schools. Now my question is: why can't we tune down the wording in textbooks, teach kids other theories, and let them choose for themselves what they believe? Why can't we stop these problems in a fair way, like this one? What happened to securalism? Really?

For me at least, I don't believe science is outside of faith. If God created everything, then he created science. I have never said that they were mutually exclusive. My belief is that, so long as a Christian believes God's hand was in control, a Christian can believe in evolution.

or it could be that Science is our way of trying to understand the Glory of God's work. ;)

Wrong, if you find these dissident Christians you must kill the infidels in the name of our all-merciful Lord. :D

Just messing, really there are many Christians that accept evolution from the perspective that you have taken.

Theistic evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution) is a pretty widly held idea. As long as you are prepared to accept that the bible mostly speaks in metphor and parable rather than literal truth, evolutionary theory and theolgy have no real need to be in conflict. And in fact the last Pope was commonly seen to be a believer in theistic evolution.

Evolutionary theory does fit the evidence we find very well and many people like the idea that God set the wheels in motion and let evolution do the driving...

Who are we to tell God how he had to create the world?

He left evidence lying around showing us how he did it. Shouldn't we consider that evidence as a drawn out explanation he left for us?

I don't like to think of God as limited. But Creationists appear to insist on it.
Which sounds more reasonable?

A) God is concerned about a schedule of 1 week and builds everything manualy in that week.
It's simple and easy to understand. It doesn't take much additional faith because it's how a person would do it.

B) God is unconcerned about time because he is eternal, omnicent and omnipresent. He creates natural laws that will build everything to his design and kicks it off with a spark and watches his grand design unfold as he had intentioned.
It's more complex and requires a lot of faith because the nature of this creation is alien to us. It requires that we actualy believe that God is omnicent.

Option A is easy. It's easy for a man existing before science to record the concept in a book because he can understand the concept.
Option B is hard. A man existing at the time Genisis was written would not be able to grasp the concepts involved. The philosophy and science required to convey the concepts did not exist.

As evidenced by my obvious bias, I believe option B. I don't see Creationisim as being anything but men trying to enfoce their secular views on other people. They lack true faith. Who are they to tell God how he has to create?

/edit
Aack! Helspotistan posted the same argument while I was typing mine up. And much more eloquently.

Who are we to tell God how he had to create the world?

He left evidence lying around showing us how he did it. Shouldn't we consider that evidence as a drawn out explanation he left for us?

I don't like to think of God as limited. But Creationists appear to insist on it.
Which sounds more reasonable?

A) God is concerned about a schedule of 1 week and builds everything manualy in that week.
It's simple and easy to understand. It doesn't take much additional faith because it's how a person would do it.

B) God is unconcerned about time because he is eternal, omnicent and omnipresent. He creates natural laws that will build everything to his design and kicks it off with a spark and watches his grand design unfold as he had intentioned.
It's more complex and requires a lot of faith because the nature of this creation is alien to us. It requires that we actualy believe that God is omnicent.

Option A is easy. It's easy for a man existing before science to record the concept in a book because he can understand the concept.
Option B is hard. A man existing at the time Genisis was written would not be able to grasp the concepts involved. The philosophy and science required to convey the concepts did not exist.

As evidenced by my obvious bias, I believe option B. I don't see Creationisim as being anything but men trying to enfoce their secular views on other people. They lack true faith. Who are they to tell God how he has to create?

I would say that I believe option B.

Because a diety/dieties are not testable and thus not scientific. Therefore their existance should not be debated in a science class.

let me ask one question, why do you not believe in evolution?

http://tfp.killbots.com/fanart/kevinmac/005_kevin-morbo.gif
EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CREATION

Thank you Morbo.

I would say that they are connected.

let me ask one question, why do you not believe in evolution?

I am not excluding the possiblity, but I have seen more evidence against than for it.

He left evidence lying around showing us how he did it. Shouldn't we consider that evidence as a drawn out explanation he left for us?

You fool! That's not evidence that God left behind, it's evidence left by the Devil to trick people and to tempt them away from the word of God!

I am not excluding the possiblity, but I have seen more evidence against than for it.

what evidence?

I would say that they are connected.

They are totally unrelated.

Evolution is the process by which speciation occurs. It makes no speculation about the origion of life, or of the universe.

what evidence?

I want to see this evidence too. Hmm, I guess we all agree on something with someone on here. :D

7 days, two people, no such thing as dinosaurs... that belief?


or the one that God did create the world, and that Evolution just shows us how.

I am a creationist, and I believe there were dinosaurs. However-due to the climate change which would have occured after Noah's flood. They could not survive in such an environment. As to the OP, I believe there are many problems with how we discuss the theorys and such.
"Science" is observable, recordable, and repeatable in a lab. Evolution and creation are not these and thus are outside the realms of science. Evolution has many problems with itself
1. Fossil record-no missing links- we should find ample supply of these "missing links"
2. Another fossil record- timetables- we find many different fossils in many different layers- if evolution occred we should find:

----------(Top layer)
Latest forms of life
----------
Middle forms
----------
Early forms

However- the fossil layer is staggered- we find early forms in the top layer, and "later" forms in the early layer.



More of my problems in evolution occur with how they talk about it- they describe it as fact- when it is just a theory. They declare creationism wrong just because it takes faith-when evolution takes as much faith as creationism.

Another one- Spontaneous Generation- all scientists claim this is false- yet evolution calls for it to happen in its theory.

Sorry if I'm not clear. Just hard to communicate through this.

what evidence?

There is a lot of it, but here are a few examples.

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

And there is more.

Because a diety/dieties are not testable and thus not scientific. Therefore their existance should not be debated in a science class.
Plus most people have enough trouble as it is remebering the useful stuff they learnt at school. Do you want to make it even worse by confusing them with unsupported and essentially unlimited alternatives?

I would say "Evolution v. Creationism" is a false dilemma. The facts of it are that no theory that science has ever created says anything about what God did or didn't do. Pick your poison or mix yourself up a cocktail - it doesn't matter.

:sniper: where in the christian religion does it say that there werent any dinosaurs!!!!!! gosh!!! i hate stupid people!!!!!!!!!! gahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

:sniper: where in the christian religion does it say that there werent any dinosaurs!!!!!! gosh!!! i hate stupid people!!!!!!!!!! gahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

It doesn't say there were none explicitly, it just doesn't mention God creating them in Genesis.

You fool! That's not evidence that God left behind, it's evidence left by the Devil to trick people and to tempt them away from the word of God!

Satan has no power. He can't affect the mortal world, he can only tempt.

I have faith in God, but very little in my fellow man. Men want power and wealth. They do it by convincing other men to follow them for whatever reason. Some use religion. They are by far the most despicable. Not to say all men of faith are corupt power seekers, but a great many are.
My relationship with God is between him, me, and his son, that's it. Everyone else can say whatever they want. I will listen but then consider their motives and what I know from my relationship with God. Creationists are the people that want power and those who are fooled by them.

God bless you if you are one of the people fooled by the corrupt. I hope you will find your way.
I believe that Creationisim is one of the Devil's tools.

there is much proof for evolution but little for creation there is a theory in the scientific comunity that if pure energy collided at a single point moving faster than is calculatable it would create matter with is basically gennesis or "creation" but there is much more evidents heading towards evolution such as the findings of primitive man and the similarities or the fact that our chromosones (DNA) is exactly 99.9% the same as the average orangitang or you could use geology wich would show that the lower down a fossil the older it probably is wich closely relates to most primitive primates fossils being so similar even though they were found in different geological layers so for myself i believe in a little of both.

My dear ladies and gentlemen,

I recently had a discussion along a similar vein with a close friend of mine, whom is a particularly modern-evangelical Christian, with a faith firmly rooted in biblical teachings and a literal interpretation of the teachings of the books contained therein, including Creationism within the six day period as described in the various English translations of the first chapters of Genesis. I myself am an anglican Christian, and find the idea of Creationism rather implausible, and was trying to convince my friend of this. Here are some of the arguements I proposed.

First I laid out the scientific arguements, those arguements which have led to evolution becoming largely accepted as fact. Of course evolution is still a theory, which statement cannot be reiterated enough. Nonetheless, the evidence for evolution is particularly convincing, particularly in terms of the evolution of homosapiens from common ancestors of various members of the animal kingdom. There can be little doubt that we all came from one common ancestor at some point in the distant past.

Of course it should be pointed out that this is not a full explanation of creation - "Where did the origins of life come from?" is a particularly useful question which has yet to be answered properly. Nonetheless, the periods of time which can be charted, not only in evolutionary terms, but in the history of the Earth in terms of terrain, and in terms of various observations of the universe made in Astronomy, extend far beyond the approximate six-thousand years as required by the biblical account of creation. So much for science for this question.

I further argued that to create the world in a period of six days seemed particularly "UnGodly." When God acts in the modern age it seems always to be in such a way as not to prove his existence. The Christian religion relies on faith, and faith would be unnecessary if God were to reveal His presence to us. Although one occasionally hears reports of "Miracles" such as spontaneous healing or demon exorcisms (though I have never seen them myself, I would be reluctant to accuse my friends whom claim to have so seen of lieing) there are various psychological explanations for these, for example, self-hynosis and hysteria, which mean that the action of God may be disputed. My point is that God acts, if and when he acts, in a "Natural" way, so that the universe follows His will without breaking her own laws. And I find this method of acting particularly beautiful. The thought of a God so blunt and unartistic as to create the world in a sequence of stages a child might find simplistic seems rather incongruous with the Christian God I've come to know and love, whereas the complexities of evolution leading to something as remarkable as the human race, not to mention the great and wonderful special variety we have on the Earth, seems remarkable enough to be more worthy of God. Obvious miracles, by contrast, do not impress me at all.

Finally, I would simply suggest that those who deny evolution ensure they know the scientific material they deny. Evolution is not a theory of creation - it is part of our scientific history, and merely one scientific observation which demonstrates the scientific flaws of creationism as a theory (because of the time periods involved). Also, I would like to point out that, contrary to what was stated in the initial post, there is no proof whatsoever to back up creationism.

Thank you for your time, I do hope I haven't put you all to sleep!

Bye!

Satan has no power. He can't affect the mortal world, he can only tempt.

Satan has no power . . . You are right only in that God has already won (when Jesus died and rose again), but he still tempts us and because sin looks good we fall for it. He is still decieving people to this day about the Truth. So, no, he has no power in that the end is already decided, but his power is in that people fall for his temptations and lies.

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

False. The claim that there are no "links" is a silly misrepresentation of the fossil record. The first important thing to understand is that the fossil record offers an incomplete glance into the history of the world. It is like having 1/100th of the puzzle peices in a million piece puzzle. The second important thing is to remember that every fossil we find is a link.

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Also false:

"11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved."

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=4&catID=2

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Unsupported slander.

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

And there is more.


Source. Unbiased and well researched please. Unsupported claims as false as these are absurd and insult the facts that science has uncovered.

Here is an excellent site to learn more about evolution.

TalkOrigins' Evolution FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html)

TalkOrigins' Evidence for Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html)

I suggest reading it. That doesn't look like little evidence to me.

welly put kinda sensible people

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

not true at all geologist use fossil finds to date strata so why not the other way round?

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Which is why grass is found above fast moving animals. O WAI

I am a creationist, and I believe there were dinosaurs. However-due to the climate change which would have occured after Noah's flood. They could not survive in such an environment. As to the OP, I believe there are many problems with how we discuss the theorys and such.
"Science" is observable, recordable, and repeatable in a lab. Evolution and creation are not these and thus are outside the realms of science. Evolution has many problems with itself
1. Fossil record-no missing links- we should find ample supply of these "missing links"
2. Another fossil record- timetables- we find many different fossils in many different layers- if evolution occred we should find:

These points have all been addressed may times by legitimate scientists. They have all been found to be incorrect. They are usualy either accidental or deliberate misrepresentiations of the data by persons who are not properly trained as a scientist.

Evolution is a properly tried scientific theory. If you believe in science, you must believe in evolution. If you don't you are lying to yourself.
Creationisim is not a theory in the scientific sense. It is not even a hypothesis. It's an usuported opinion.
Creationisim as a matter of faith is even questionable. You are entitled to believe what you like, but please strop trying to insist that is is anything more than an unsuported belief. Fake science perporting to disprove evolution doesn't do anything but serve the Prince of Lies.

/edit
A Scientific Theory is not just an idea. It is something that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like the Theory of Gravity. Creationists try to represent the Theory of Evolutioon as being less than a fact because it's "only a theory" using the colequial definition of theory instead of the correct scientific one. This is disengenious and a deliberate intention to deceive. Further proof that Creationists are in service of the Devil.

Right. you are not alone in that thinking. Alot of Christians believe in Evolution.

And I'm one of them. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Which is why grass is found above fast moving animals. O WAI

it's true, you strap a rocket pack on to an tortose and aim that baby straight down to the ground...


it will end up below the grass. :D

hmmm not true a nuclear reserch centre in sweeden was able to produce matter out of no matter by useing a particle accelerater they used pure energy wich according to science is not matter and wich proves genesis is possible

"11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved."

Since you seem to have a good understanding of this issue (and I am not being sarcastic), I was wondering if you could explain to me why the giraffe still exists. Surely this cannot be explained by evolution. Because of the length of their necks when they bend the blood rushes to their brains. A sponge like material holds it to keep it from flooding the brain. The giraffe who did not have this and therefore died could not have through any form of evolution passed down a trait such as this because the giraffe would be dead.

hmmm not true a nuclear reserch centre in sweeden was able to produce matter out of no matter by useing a particle accelerater they used pure energy wich according to science is not matter and wich proves genesis is possible

wich neither proves nor disproves God's hand in the works. ;)

Source. Unbiased and well researched please. Unsupported claims as false as these are absurd and insult the facts that science has uncovered.

Have you studied the evidence? Both sides of this issue tend to think the other is defending “bad science,” but “good” evidence may exist on both sides. Why not teach all the major scientific evidence? Evolutionists avoid a thorough, publishable, head-to-head comparison of the evidence for and against evolution. In fact, evolutionist leaders advise others never to participate in even an oral scientific debate on the evidence for and against evolution. In what other major science controversy has one side refused to allow all the evidence on the table?

Do you even KNOW what you're talking about? Why do you think you can convince us by throwing a small tidbit of unrelated scientic fact at us? Or perhaps if we use a particularly powerful telescope we'll realise we're the focal point of the biggest, most powerful and incredibly accurate particle accelerator ever, which has somehow created a complex Earth out of electrons moving at incredible speeds.

Its a little bit of both.

hmmm not true a nuclear reserch centre in sweeden was able to produce matter out of no matter by useing a particle accelerater they used pure energy wich according to science is not matter and wich proves genesis is possible

Newsflash. This ain't the 1700s anymore. We've known for years that matter and energy are the same thing.

I am a creationist, and I believe there were dinosaurs. However-due to the climate change which would have occured after Noah's flood. They could not survive in such an environment. As to the OP, I believe there are many problems with how we discuss the theorys and such.
"Science" is observable, recordable, and repeatable in a lab. Evolution and creation are not these and thus are outside the realms of science. Evolution has many problems with itselfWell, there isn't really any evidence for Noah's flood...
1. Fossil record-no missing links- we should find ample supply of these "missing links"No. Fossilization is an extremely rare process. Ever left footprints in mud? Were they still there the next day or a week later? And yet, there are fossilized footprints. A few out of countless many real footprints most of which never became fossils.
2. Another fossil record- timetables- we find many different fossils in many different layers- if evolution occred we should find:

----------(Top layer)
Latest forms of life
----------
Middle forms
----------
Early forms

However- the fossil layer is staggered- we find early forms in the top layer, and "later" forms in the early layer.We do? Care to prove this?



More of my problems in evolution occur with how they talk about it- they describe it as fact- when it is just a theory. They declare creationism wrong just because it takes faith-when evolution takes as much faith as creationism.Gravity is just a theory, yet no one is dumb enough to deny it as false. Special relativity is just a theory, and yet, you wouldn't have satellite television without it.

Another one- Spontaneous Generation- all scientists claim this is false- yet evolution calls for it to happen in its theory. Spontaneous generation of what?

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

http://necsi.org/projects/evolution/evidence/layers/evidence_layers.html

Even Darwin saw that wasn't true.

Since you seem to have a good understanding of this issue (and I am not being sarcastic), I was wondering if you could explain to me why the giraffe still exists. Surely this cannot be explained by evolution. Because of the length of their necks when they bend the blood rushes to their brains. A sponge like material holds it to keep it from flooding the brain. The giraffe who did not have this and therefore died could not have through any form of evolution passed down a trait such as this because the giraffe would be dead.

you assume the sponge like material evolved after the neck.

It is equally possible that the sponge like material developed first, and the long neck came later, and those that evolved the long neck managed to survive because they had already developed the sponge like material.

Why do they have to happen in that order?

Have you studied the evidence? Both sides of this issue tend to think the other is defending “bad science,” but “good” evidence may exist on both sides. Why not teach all the major scientific evidence? Evolutionists avoid a thorough, publishable, head-to-head comparison of the evidence for and against evolution. In fact, evolutionist leaders advise others never to participate in even an oral scientific debate on the evidence for and against evolution. In what other major science controversy has one side refused to allow all the evidence on the table?That's because it gets really frustrating talking to someone that keeps spouting bullshit. It's why I don't debate all that much with Nazis about the Holocaust.

Hey, aren't you the dude who claimed to have premonitions of death and to belong to some bad-ass secret society?

Not exactly, but yes, you are thinking of me.

hmmm not true a nuclear reserch centre in sweeden was able to produce matter out of no matter by useing a particle accelerater they used pure energy wich according to science is not matter and wich proves genesis is possible

you mean someone turned energy...into matter? Amazing....

erm, e=mc^2, we've known that for decades. Also your science is nonsensical since a particle accelerator can not be used to accelerate pure energy, it already moves at the speed of light and can not be accelerated beyond that, additionally since pure energy has no mass and is charge neutral, it can not be manipulated by electromagnetic fields.

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.Not really. Plenty of sedimentary rocks you see today aren't generated by oceanic processes.

Have you studied the evidence? Both sides of this issue tend to think the other is defending “bad science,” but “good” evidence may exist on both sides.
Now I hate people quoting fallacies as much as the next guy, but that's a classic grey fallacy.
Why not teach all the major scientific evidence? Evolutionists avoid a thorough, publishable, head-to-head comparison of the evidence for and against evolution. In fact, evolutionist leaders advise others never to participate in even an oral scientific debate on the evidence for and against evolution.
That's because all that will happen is jokers like you will do what you just did at the start of your post and assume that becuase proper scientists are condescending to refute cod science that either have equal validity somehow. The scientific community as a whole sorts this out itself with falsification and peer review. If you can do that then you can be debated. Without it then no.

Not really. Plenty of sedimentary rocks you see today aren't generated by oceanic processes.

True enough, but how would you explain the significant amount of fossils dating from around the same period in time? Something had to happen worldwide that would bury the fossils before they could decay or were eaten.

Since you seem to have a good understanding of this issue (and I am not being sarcastic), I was wondering if you could explain to me why the giraffe still exists. Surely this cannot be explained by evolution. Because of the length of their necks when they bend the blood rushes to their brains. A sponge like material holds it to keep it from flooding the brain. The giraffe who did not have this and therefore died could not have through any form of evolution passed down a trait such as this because the giraffe would be dead.

Then one assumes that the adaptation of said sponge-like material made it advantageous for whichever Giraffe prediscesor species gained the adaptation (which may have looked nothing like a modern giraffe) to have a longer neck. Therefore, those animals that had longer necks were fitter, since they were able to reach folliage that their short-necked counterparts could not.

I'm really not NSG's evolution expert (Names are escaping me, but we have at least one Genetics Ph.D. here who can probably better answer your question).

I really don't see what your description prooves at all, tbh.

True enough, but how would you explain the significant amount of fossils dating from around the same period in time? Something had to happen worldwide that would bury the fossils before they could decay or were eaten.Significant amount of fossils from the same time? Are you kidding?

True enough, but how would you explain the significant amount of fossils dating from around the same period in time? Something had to happen worldwide that would bury the fossils before they could decay or were eaten.

The second sentence does not logically follow from the first.

Since you seem to have a good understanding of this issue (and I am not being sarcastic), I was wondering if you could explain to me why the giraffe still exists. Surely this cannot be explained by evolution. Because of the length of their necks when they bend the blood rushes to their brains. A sponge like material holds it to keep it from flooding the brain. The giraffe who did not have this and therefore died could not have through any form of evolution passed down a trait such as this because the giraffe would be dead.

As the progenator of the giraffe grew longer and longer necks, the giraffes who were more able to lower their head had a natural advantage and survived to breed. It wasn't a fully formed organ back then, but a small defect that actualy proved to be marginaly advantagious. The giraffe that had it passed it on and the more complex and larger it became, the greater the advantage. So, over generations one small mutation grew into such an organ (I presume, as I have no specific knowedge of giraffe biology). The longer necked giraffes were able to reach higer up for food so they thrived. The ones without the sponge organ died, simple as that. Just like aligators can hold their breath for 20 minutes and flying squirels can glide using the skin between their front and back legs. It's how it works.

Have you studied the evidence? Both sides of this issue tend to think the other is defending “bad science,” but “good” evidence may exist on both sides. Why not teach all the major scientific evidence? Evolutionists avoid a thorough, publishable, head-to-head comparison of the evidence for and against evolution. In fact, evolutionist leaders advise others never to participate in even an oral scientific debate on the evidence for and against evolution. In what other major science controversy has one side refused to allow all the evidence on the table?

Actually, the issue that you fail to grasp is that there is no debate. There are a few, ideologically biased, scientists who deny the occurance of evolution. The vast (and I mean vast majority do not). There is no debate, merely dogmatic claims by people who have no real grasp of the mechanism of evolution, and who therefore accept whatever drivel is provided to them by churches and assume that it must be true (even when it has been soundly debunked). Debating with them is pointless because they do not debate on facts, merely misunderstandings of science.

True enough, but how would you explain the significant amount of fossils dating from around the same period in time? Something had to happen worldwide that would bury the fossils before they could decay or were eaten.Maybe it was the asteriod (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/29/content_5406887.htm). That would cause pretty big waves I'd bet. It'd probably kill a lot of stuff at the same time, kick up huge amounts of fossils and deposit them in unnatural ways. Of course, this is speculation on my part.

Maybe it was the asteriod (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-11/29/content_5406887.htm). That would cause pretty big waves I'd bet. It'd probably kill a lot of stuff at the same time, kick up huge amounts of fossils and deposit them in unnatural ways. Of course, this is speculation on my part.I'm still amazed that he calls time spans longer than human history, let alone existence, "the same time."

The K-T impact is not actually associated with a bone spike, due to the massive quantities of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide that were pumped into the atmosphere.

Actually, the issue that you fail to grasp is that there is no debate. There are a few, ideologically biased, scientists who deny the occurance of evolution. The vast (and I mean vast majority do not). There is no debate, merely dogmatic claims by people who have no real grasp of the mechanism of evolution, and who therefore accept whatever drivel is provided to them by churches and assume that it must be true (even when it has been soundly debunked). Debating with them is pointless because they do not debate on facts, merely misunderstandings of science.

I'd also like to mention that there are some very religious scientists that find evolution perfectly compatible with their beliefs. There is no real conflict between God and evolution.

I'd also like to mention that there are some very religious scientists that find evolution perfectly compatible with their beliefs. There is no real conflict between God and evolution.

Yeah, although I was more concerned with showing that in the real academic community, there was no debate, and not that there should be no debate.

Yeah, although I was more concerned with showing that in the real academic community, there was no debate, and not that there should be no debate.

And I just wanted to show that there are no real religious grounds for a scientist objecting to evolution.

Since you seem to have a good understanding of this issue (and I am not being sarcastic), I was wondering if you could explain to me why the giraffe still exists. Surely this cannot be explained by evolution. Because of the length of their necks when they bend the blood rushes to their brains. A sponge like material holds it to keep it from flooding the brain. The giraffe who did not have this and therefore died could not have through any form of evolution passed down a trait such as this because the giraffe would be dead.

Who-boy, here we go. Sit tight, kids, this is going to be one hell of a long trip.

Alright, here's the basics of how it POSSIBLY could have happened.

The first thing you must understand about evolution is what is considered "success". The single, and only, measure of success in evolution is the likely hood of reproduction. All other factors are simply part of how likely an animal will reproduce. For instance, in cat's, how they catch food is with their claws. Now, one would assume that longer and sharper claws would be the measure of success, as it would increase the chances of survival by being able to catch food easier, however this is not actually true. An animal could have longer and sharper claws, but it could never pass on it's genetics, thus it's traits are not successful in this sense.

HOWEVER, these traits increase the probability of reproduction, as those that have the said claws are more likely to either survive, or be stronger more nourished, thus being better mates.

So, in basics, in evolution the only measure of success is probability of reproduction.

No, to the Giraffe. Let's first remember that Giraffes did NOT go from short-necked to long-necked all in one go. It was a gradual process, with the neck growing slowly over the ages. Why did it grow? Well, look at the area they live in. There is not much foliage low on the ground, and they eat the leaves of the trees high up. Now, there are a few possible ways they could have adapted to this. They could have grown much larger. However, this would increase the amount of energy needed, and would mean that they would have had to eat far more, thus the population may have not be sustainable. Or, they could "grow" longer necks. In other words, those with slightly longer necks could reach more food, thus were more healthy, thus had a higher probability of reproduction. And over time, their necks grew longer, and longer, into what it is today.

The same would hold true for the "spongy" material.

HOWEVER, there is a differing explanation, which I am mostly unfamiliar with, so I would suggest to go here:

http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm

True enough, but how would you explain the significant amount of fossils dating from around the same period in time? Something had to happen worldwide that would bury the fossils before they could decay or were eaten.

Er... fossils are found throughout natural history, actually. And one must remember that in order for fossilization to even have a chance to occur, very specific events must follow, in very specific types of locations. The animal must be buried relatively quickly, in a relatively organism free environment, with rather specific types of sediment. The vast majority of fossils are found in such certain parts of the world where the process had the most likely chance to occur. Infact, for most species we have only have a few dozen specimens fossilized, from varying time periods.

I am doing some research and am interested to know what people think. The way I see it is that there is much proof for creation and some real proof for evolution. I don't really know what to think. The more and more research I do the more and more other Christians make me frustrated. It seems that there is always this simple understanding that it must be either or, but I wouldn't say that. I, personally, believe that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution (I don't as of now though) because all that really matters is that we believe that God was in control. Right?

There is no 'proof' for Creation.

Case closed.

hmmm not true a nuclear reserch centre in sweeden was able to produce matter out of no matter by useing a particle accelerater they used pure energy wich according to science is not matter and wich proves genesis is possible

Actually... only slightly true.

Matter is made up of Atoms. Atoms are made up of Protons and Electrons. Which are energy.

Basically, Matter is Energy, which is BASICALLY why when you split an atom, you release a great deal of energy.

Also, it is often confused that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed", which is not true at all. In actuality, the statement was "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form."

So really, all that they did was they changed the form of energy from one form(particles), to another(matter).

There is no real conflict between God and evolution.

at least if you are willing to accept a god that isn't flagrantly in violation of our every observation of the universe

at least if you are willing to accept a god that isn't flagrantly in violation of our every observation of the universe

And that's entirely possible. I mean, there are some very prominent biologists, geneticists, and physicists that are both devoutly religious, Christian in particular, and are also excellent scientists that accept scientific teachings as the correct explanation for the development of life.

They're also very well known scientists who have and continue to make significant contributions to their disciplines. In fact, some of them are the strongest arguers for the compatibility of religion and science.

Matter is made up of Atoms. Atoms are made up of Protons and Electrons. Which are energy.



I only have a half a year of chemistry under my belt and i can tell you that Protons an Electrons are most certainly not energy. Sorry but you're just wrong. And i can't even say thats its a common misconception because it isn't. Its pretty much just you.

I only have a half a year of chemistry under my belt and i can tell you that Protons an Electrons are most certainly not energy. Sorry but you're just wrong. And i can't even say thats its a common misconception because it isn't. Its pretty much just you.

Matter and energy are the same thing, just in different states.

I believe evolution was cause by Allah as his way to create the universe. As to why he chose this method, I don't know.

I believe evolution was cause by Allah as his way to create the universe. As to why he chose this method, I don't know.

"Because Allah loves wondrous varieties."

Intelligent design.
No matter what we believe, The brilliant Creator is much larger than we give credit for.
I have studied most of my life on this subject.
It is similar to tiny creatures living on an atom and trying to understand humans or the thing we have done!
The brilliance of the Universe is unimaginable.
Lets just appreciate the creation.
God is watching the Evolution of His creations. Brilliant!

"Science" is observable, recordable, and repeatable in a lab. Evolution and creation are not these and thus are outside the realms of science.

This is patently untrue. Scientists observe evolution in labs every single day.

1. Fossil record-no missing links- we should find ample supply of these "missing links"

This is even more patently untrue. Every single fossil in existence is a "link" of some sort. I've never understood what anti-evolutionists think they mean when making this argument. The "links" between you and your grandparents are your parents, yes? Your parents are not bizarre creatures whose top halves look exactly like you and whose bottom halves look exactly like their parents, yes? Every organism is descended from other organisms; most organisms are ancestors to other organisms. Every fossil is a link.

2. Another fossil record- timetables- we find many different fossils in many different layers- if evolution occred we should find:

----------(Top layer)
Latest forms of life
----------
Middle forms
----------
Early forms

However- the fossil layer is staggered- we find early forms in the top layer, and "later" forms in the early layer.

This, too, is entirely untrue. We find comparatively old fossils in comparatively old rocks and comparatively recent fossils in comparatively recent rocks, without exception. It is possible you're forgetting the fact that the earth is undergoing constant tectonic activity, so sometimes the rocks that are currently "on top" have been pushed upward, and vice versa.


More of my problems in evolution occur with how they talk about it- they describe it as fact- when it is just a theory.

The phrase "just a theory" is absurd. There is no status in science higher than "theory." You might as well say that a given nobleman is "just a king" - it makes precisely as much sense.

Another one- Spontaneous Generation- all scientists claim this is false- yet evolution calls for it to happen in its theory.

The origin of life has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolution concerns only how life develops from other life. (It should be noted, however, that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not synonymous, similar as they might sound.)

This is patently untrue. Scientists observe evolution in labs every single day.



This is even more patently untrue. Every single fossil in existence is a "link" of some sort. I've never understood what anti-evolutionists think they mean when making this argument. The "links" between you and your grandparents are your parents, yes? Your parents are not bizarre creatures whose top halves look exactly like you and whose bottom halves look exactly like their parents, yes? Every organism is descended from other organisms; most organisms are ancestors to other organisms. Every fossil is a link.



This, too, is entirely untrue. We find comparatively old fossils in comparatively old rocks and comparatively recent fossils in comparatively recent rocks, without exception. It is possible you're forgetting the fact that the earth is undergoing constant tectonic activity, so sometimes the rocks that are currently "on top" have been pushed upward, and vice versa.




The phrase "just a theory" is absurd. There is no status in science higher than "theory." You might as well say that a given nobleman is "just a king" - it makes precisely as much sense.



The origin of life has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolution concerns only how life develops from other life. (It should be noted, however, that spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are not synonymous, similar as they might sound.)

Nice job. Gets a bit tiresome, having to repeat that over and over and over, though, doesn't it?

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.Explain how the incredibly old (4800y/o) Bristlecone Pine trees in California are still alive if there was a such a flood. There is no major change in the year rings of these trees, and obviously if they were submerged 150+ days it would kill them. Have you a reasonable answer?

Explain how the incredibly old Bristlecone Pine trees in California are still alive if there was a such a flood. There is no major change in the year rings of these trees, and obviously if they were submerged 150+ days it would kill them. Have you a reasonable answer?

Uhm ... God kept them alive just to mess with you?

Uhm ... God kept them alive just to mess with you?Aha! Of course! I knew the answer was lurking around for me to see it eventually!

Seriously, if you try to check stories like the Flood against reality they become as leaky as Noah's boat would have been. Abandon the sinking ship, guys - not everything must be taken literally. Noah won favor because he listened to God, infidels get punished, we learned our lesson.

Explain how the incredibly old (4800y/o) Bristlecone Pine trees in California are still alive if there was a such a flood. There is no major change in the year rings of these trees, and obviously if they were submerged 150+ days it would kill them. Have you a reasonable answer?

Wood floats.

Wood floats.All of these trees floated to the same area of California, set up shop and had no major difference in tree growth rings during that period? Besides that, we're also talking about salt water. You're supposing that a tree can survive in salt water for a year while floating and not take some sort of hit on the growth rings... I agree wood floats, but showing that that particular bit of wood did is another matter.

All of these trees floated to the same area of California, set up shop and had no major difference in tree growth rings during that period? I agree wood floats, but showing that that particular bit of wood did is another matter.

You missed the point. Since wood floats, they held up the land so not everything was washed away.

It was a joke. ;)

All of these trees floated to the same area of California, set up shop and had no major difference in tree growth rings during that period? I agree wood floats, but showing that that particular bit of wood did is another matter.

I do think Black Forrest was pulling your leg just a little.

Your questions are perfectly reasonable and unanswerable from a Creationist POV, without falling back on a position of faith. And once the Creationists get to that last ditch, the discussion is over.

I imagine someone said this in the preceding seven pages, but "evolution is just a theory" is the most incorrect, misleading statement that can be made. A theory is simply an explanation of evidence. Evolution is the best one we have for the development of life on Earth. Creationism (= Intelligent Design) is not.

You missed the point. Since wood floats, they held up the land so not everything was washed away.

It was a joke. ;)Sorry. Thing is about this forum is I have no idea who is a little off their rocker and who is not (it's pretty hard to tell sometimes)... :p

Matter and energy are the same thing, just in different states.

Indeed, I thought that emphasizing "basically" would have shown that I didn't go into an indepth explanation, with long drawn out confusing explanations, that few would understand, but heh. I guess that's just me?

Where'd all the creationists go?

Where'd all the creationists go?

Well, usually you leave once you've gotten your ass handed to you on all sides. They've been owned on both the religious and the scientific side, so I guess they've got nothing left.

What's this?

A devout, cutting-edge Christian biologist who fully accepts macroevolution through random natural selection? Impossible! Or not, actually there are a good number of them...

Actually... only slightly true.

Matter is made up of Atoms. Atoms are made up of Protons and Electrons.

And neutrons, protons and neutrons are themselves made up of smaller particles.

Which are energy.

No, protons, neutrons, and electrons, are mass particles, they are not pure energy.

Basically, Matter is Energy, which is BASICALLY why when you split an atom, you release a great deal of energy.

Not really, there isn't much in the ways of matter to energy conversation in fission/fusion reactions. More like excess binding energy getting thrown out. matter/anti matter reactions are matter to energy conversions, but those are different.

Also, it is often confused that "Matter can neither be created nor destroyed", which is not true at all. In actuality, the statement was "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed in form."

So really, all that they did was they changed the form of energy from one form(particles), to another(matter).

particles are matter, with the exception of photons which are energy.

particles are matter, with the exception of photons which are energy.

Well, actually a photon is both a wave and a particle that shares properties of both.

You always hear about it. People don't like evolution in school. Now, I recognize people's rights to their faiths. But why not teach multiple theories in schools? Evolution is supposedly taught as a theory. But read the wording in the textbooks. Not much of how you'd word a "theory" if you ask me. They stae it as fact. You argue it's unconstitutional, "What about securalism?" The thing is the constitution also says the government won't favor any faith over another. "Faith" is the belief in something that can't 100% be proven. I also think, in textbooks and schools, that teachers and material should have an equal emphasis on "Creationism" (but in textbooks the same rules applies as evolution), exploring the sciences of various religions, and explaining how in this theory that a deity or several deities made the universe, etc. But I also think schools should continue to teach evolution. No holy books of religions would be discussed. Atheistic theories, and creationistic theories would recieve equal emphasis in schools. Now my question is: why can't we tune down the wording in textbooks, teach kids other theories, and let them choose for themselves what they believe? Why can't we stop these problems in a fair way, like this one? What happened to securalism? Really?

Because it's a science class and evolution is scientific in that it's falsifiable (testable) and that it doesn't make appeals to supernatural solutions. Because creationism isn't testable (how do you test a god that is beyond the forces of nature when nature is all that you have to observe?) it isn't science. It's religion and doesn't belong in the schools. You're free to believe it, but it's not science.

I am not excluding the possiblity, but I have seen more evidence against than for it.

Where did you find this evidence? Did it come from a preacher or from a science book?

No, protons, neutrons, and electrons, are mass particles, they are not pure energy.


This might be a hijack. It isn't really possible to say for sure that protons, neutrons and electrons are 'mass particles', because that phrasing doesn't really mean anything.

Most modern thinking suggests that electrons, protons and neutrons are themselves fromed of smaller 'entities' - and it is hard to say whether those entities have any 'mass'.

Indeed, once you get to a quantum scale, mass appears largely to be an 'effect' of something, rather than a quality of something.


As to whether they are 'pure energy' or not, again - it is hard to make a conclusive statement.... since the phrase is fairly nebulous. What is 'pure' energy? Any energy that is involved in any kind of interaction is affected by, and has an effect on, the interaction. As such - the concept of 'pure' energy is fairly meaningless, especially in context of something like atomic form, where energy is never static.

If one looks at the electron, photon, gamma particle... etc - one sees characteristics of 'matter' and of 'energy'. Is it a particle? Or is it 'pure' energy. There is really no logical reason to assume it isn't both. There is no logical reason to assume that both terms mean different things.

If one looks at the electron, photon, gamma particle... etc - one sees characteristics of 'matter' and of 'energy'. Is it a particle? Or is it 'pure' energy. There is really no logical reason to assume it isn't both. There is no logical reason to assume that both terms mean different things.

I'd say there's no logic whatsoever at the quantum level. It's the funhouse of the multiverse...

I'd say there's no logic whatsoever at the quantum level. It's the funhouse of the multiverse...

No no, my friend. There is definitely the appearance of logic, at least. It just doesn't always do what we think it should. :)

I am a creationist, and I believe there were dinosaurs. However-due to the climate change which would have occured after Noah's flood. That sucks for you since there is no evidence of a global flood. They could not survive in such an environment. As to the OP, I believe there are many problems with how we discuss the theorys and such.
"Science" is observable, recordable, and repeatable in a lab. Evolution and creation are not these and thus are outside the realms of science. Evolution has been observed. Ring species are in the process of speciation. Evolution has been recorded in the fossil record. Evolution has many problems with itself
1. Fossil record-no missing links- we should find ample supply of these "missing links" That old gag? We find hundreds of "missing links" like ambulocetus, archaopterix, and many many more. Of course you creationists just deny that they are transitions between two radically different creatures. You demand ever single stage in the transformation. I might as well demand you bring god to meet me. Fossilization is a rare event. It's quite a big deal to have as many transitional fossils as we have found.
2. Another fossil record- timetables- we find many different fossils in many different layers- if evolution occred we should find:[

----------(Top layer)
Latest forms of life
----------
Middle forms
----------
Early forms

However- the fossil layer is staggered- we find early forms in the top layer, and "later" forms in the early layer. Only where tectonic activity has flipped a segment of the earth's crust over. Where tectonic activity has been minimal we do find the order of fossils that evolution would predict. Your argument is like saying a cake was frosted on the bottom rather than on the top even though we know someone turned it upside down. Typical creationist lies.



More of my problems in evolution occur with how they talk about it- they describe it as fact- when it is just a theory. They declare creationism wrong just because it takes faith-when evolution takes as much faith as creationism.

Another one- Spontaneous Generation- all scientists claim this is false- yet evolution calls for it to happen in its theory.

Sorry if I'm not clear. Just hard to communicate through this.Evolution requires no more faith than trusting your senses and your instruments. Creationism requires a leap of faith that embraces a creator with no evidence.

Evolution is a scientific theory. That means it is supported by all the available evidence, it has explanatory power, and most of all, it's not an appeal to the supernatural (which science cannot test). Creationism is untestable, has no power to explain anything in nature. It can only say "god wanted it that way", and appeals to explanations beyond the realm of science. It's religious dogma, not science and doesn't belong in schools.

BTW, evolution has nothing to do with spontaneous generation. The catholic church, for example, allows it's followers to believe in evolution, but insists that god created life. Evolution deals only with the diversity of life, not the origin of the first living thing. If you don't even understand the theory why the fuck do you think you're qualified to argue against it?

There is a lot of it, but here are a few examples.

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

And there is more.

I think you'll find that everything you believe about evolution right now is stunningly wrong once you actually start reading science books that deal with the theory. I recognize the arguments you've made. They're common among anti-evolution preachers who rail against science from the pulpit. The only thing I wonder about is are the preachers really that ignorant or are they lying for a "higher" purpose?

No no, my friend. There is definitely the appearance of logic, at least. It just doesn't always do what we think it should. :)

Let's say it's a logic completely alien to the warm, fuzzy one that we use to perceive the thing we call "reality". It's so bizarre that it has a beauty of its own...

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

That's just laughable. No, I changed my mind. It's sad that someone could believe something that completely wrong.

Let's say it's a logic completely alien to the warm, fuzzy one that we use to perceive the thing we call "reality". It's so bizarre that it has a beauty of its own...

It is true that at a quantum level ideas of "mass" and "energy" become so blurred as to render them both largely meaningless. Protons and Neutrons are in general "solid enough" to be considered mass, quarks, neutrinos and electrons on the other hand run into more problems with the idea.

As for photons, it is acceptable to discuss them as particles, when one needs to discuss them as particles, and as waves when one needs to discuss them as waves.

The only thing I wonder about is are the preachers really that ignorant or are they lying for a "higher" purpose?

I truly hope they are deliberately lying. Many of those preachers are after all pretty intelligent people.

If they are merely lying, they are simply scumbags. I can deal with that.

If they truly believe what they say, the twistedness of their minds is scary - and that they are not only allowed, but encouraged to inflict the same mental damage to children abhorrent.

It is true that at a quantum level ideas of "mass" and "energy" become so blurred as to render them both largely meaningless. Protons and Neutrons are in general "solid enough" to be considered mass, quarks, neutrinos and electrons on the other hand run into more problems with the idea.

No, they're still very, very important. There's nothing meaningless in quantum theory; that blurring has some very important properties that determine the higher-level particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons. The quantum level uncertainty is important to understanding why things are the way they are at higher levels.

As for photons, it is acceptable to discuss them as particles, when one needs to discuss them as particles, and as waves when one needs to discuss them as waves.

It is, but that's not entirely correct.

No, they're still very, very important. There's nothing meaningless in quantum theory; that blurring has some very important properties that determine the higher-level particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons. The quantum level uncertainty is important to understanding why things are the way they are at higher levels.

Sorry, meaningless is perhaps too strong a word. Maybe...well...burred is probably better. The line betwen matter and energy certainly becomes fuzzy at a certain point.

Sorry, meaningless is perhaps too strong a word. Maybe...well...burred is probably better. The line betwen matter and energy certainly becomes fuzzy at a certain point.

No - I think you were right before. Looking at the entities in the sub-atomic state, mass becomes meaningless - indeed, it is far from certain it has any significance on the sub-atomic entity, and we are certainly far from realistically 'measuring' it.

We can be fairly certain there is energy at that level, but without 'mass' is there 'matter'? Or are we all just made of tiny bits of energy, that tends to group together for convenience?

'Mass' seems to be an effect, and it is a convenient illusion when dealing with large numbers of particles. But, it really is about meaningless at the sub-atomic level.

My belief is that evolution is how God created the world. he started the process and nudged things here and there.

Thats exactly what I think/believe :D

Nice job. Gets a bit tiresome, having to repeat that over and over and over, though, doesn't it?

Indeed. Possibly the most frustrating part of this whole mess is that the same crowd keeps repeating the same mistruths all the time, and act like they have "A-HAH!"ed the scientific community with some new revelation, when infact the same crap has been spewed so many times before, and has been refuted every single time.

Really, it does get tiresome, and I have found myself in many cases just saving many of my arguments, and copy and pasting them, as often times the same idiocy is repeating almost word for word. Hell, I've had times when I didn't even need to change a damn word in my rebuttle before. I have never figured out how people can continue to say some of this crap.