NationStates Jolt Archive

Is the film about a 'ship that sinks'... or is a snking ship just the framework in which a story is told?

I had a thought. I was watching a bit of footage on 9/11, and there is fire and crashy stuff, and burnination all around.

At a top window, a couple seems to hang indecisive for a few moments... watching the flames below them. Then it looks like they reach out and hold hands, and leap out into the ether. They fall, hands held, until they disappear from view. We can probably assume they didn't survive.

9/11 was 'what happened'. The 'stories' were people dying. People afraid to die, people afraid to lose each other. People deciding if they had to die, they were going to make it on their own terms, dying hand-in-hand with a loved one, rather than burning.

The film of "Titanic", though largely fictional, is more accurate than mere 'fact' can ever be. Because of the 'story'.How can a fictional story be more accurate that an account of the facts? And how does the story of that couple change what happened on 9/11 ? It only adds a facet to it, but it doesn't change the framework of the overall event.
And if you wrote the story down, how would a translation change someone's understanding of what happened on 9/11, just because they may not read it in the language who wrote it down in?

Too late now, because you have decided there is no significance. And - maybe, for you, there is none.None of significance. The overall story remains the same.

Why? Let's start simple. How long was it between when Adam was created and when he had his first child?

It doesn't mention when Adam gave birth to his first son, Cain, because it's not through Cain that the genealogy continues. It does say when he gave birth to his third son, Seth (through whom the genealogy continues): when he was 130 years old.

How can a fictional story be more accurate that an account of the facts? And how does the story of that couple change what happened on 9/11 ? It only adds a facet to it, but it doesn't change the framework of the overall event.
And if you wrote the story down, how would a translation change someone's understanding of what happened on 9/11, just because they may not read it in the language who wrote it down in?

None of significance. The overall story remains the same.

I don't see how proving you refuse to look at some aspects of the story can possibly help your case of attempting to appear educated on that story. Enlighten me.

If you are ignoring the importance of the way a story is being told then you are ignoring the ideas the authors intend for you to get. If you listen to the story just told by GnI and you come away with "well, I know they died on 9/11" then you've willfully chosen to be ignorant of the story that is actually being told.

You're welcome to do exactly that, but willful ignorance rarely lends credibility.

It doesn't mention when Adam gave birth to his first son, Cain, because it's not through Cain that the genealogy continues. It does say when he gave birth to his third son, Seth (through whom the genealogy continues): when he was 130 years old.

It certainly does say 130 years. It does not say if that is from creation or from when he became living (the opposite of dead). Prior to the fall from grace, Adam was no more aging than God is. It's perfectly reasonable to consider the age of Adam in the Bible to be measured from the moment he actually became human in the sense that we are.

It also ignores of course - 2 Peter 3:8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

And of course that is a warning against taking the timeframes in prophetic visions as being literal. And there are countless other examples where one time is equated to another. 1000 years in that culture was just like when we used to say a billion. It just represents a really big number.

It doesn't mention when Adam gave birth to his first son, Cain, because it's not through Cain that the genealogy continues. It does say when he gave birth to his third son, Seth (through whom the genealogy continues): when he was 130 years old.
If the Bible says that Adam gave birth, maybe that should tip you off that it's not entirely reliable when it comes to tracking human sexual reproduction. ;)

It certainly does say 130 years. It does not say if that is from creation or from when he became living (the opposite of dead). Prior to the fall from grace, Adam was no more aging than God is. It's perfectly reasonable to consider the age of Adam in the Bible to be measured from the moment he actually became human in the sense that we are.

And you're absolutely right when you say that's perfectly reasonable.

You could look at from one of two ways:

1. The dating of Adam's age goes from when he was first created; thus, 130 years means just that: 130 years.

or,

2. The dating of Adam's age goes from when the Fall happened; and because he theoretically could've lived for any number of years before then, 130 is a bit of a misnomer.

Anyone would be perfectly reasonable to believe either; but then again, if you believed #2, you would generally be seen as straying from Christianity's mainstream beliefs on the matter.

It doesn't mention when Adam gave birth to his first son, Cain, because it's not through Cain that the genealogy continues. It does say when he gave birth to his third son, Seth (through whom the genealogy continues): when he was 130 years old.Are you implying that Cain had no offspring?

Gosh that would be painful. ;):DThe birth or the lack of reliability?

If the Bible says that Adam gave birth, maybe that should tip you off that it's not entirely reliable when it comes to tracking human sexual reproduction. ;)

Gosh that would be painful. ;):D

And you're absolutely right when you say that's perfectly reasonable.

You could look at from one of two ways:

1. The dating of Adam's age goes from when he was first created; thus, 130 years means just that: 130 years.

or,

2. The dating of Adam's age goes from when the Fall happened; and because he theoretically could've lived for any number of years before then, 130 is a bit of a misnomer.

Anyone would be perfectly reasonable to believe either; but then again, if you believed #2, you would generally be seen as straying from Christianity's mainstream beliefs on the matter.

Given how Christianity started and that personal discernment was its message, I'll take that as compliment. Thank you for the kind words.

Let me list a couple of other things that differ from mainstream Christianity based on the actions of mainstream Christianity -

1. My relationship with God is personal and anyone, anyone who is not me or God is a commentator.

2. A place of worship should be plain. The idea that Jesus would live the life he did and think it was appropriate to create ornate and ridiculous churches is quite frankly harder to believe than turning staffs into snakes.

3. The words of Jesus can be amended by no man. Ever. No man. As He is the Christ.

4. Venerating any man is creating a false idol. Creating a hiearchy of human beings not limited to but including prophets and the mother of Jesus goes directly against the ideas preached by Jesus of equality and all of us being equal to God and each other.

5. Clearing that plank in my own eye. My eye. I am not in any position to tell anyone else how to be a good Christian nor am I going to try to force my beliefs on anyone else. That plank in my eye is taking up all my time, quite frankly.

6. Points like these are appropriate in terms of discussing mainstream Christianity but inappropriate to direct at individuals who wish to worship privately as the discern.

Yep, I'm pretty proud of keeping my religious beliefs and actions as seperated from the public actions of mainstream Christianity as humanly possible. I can't find a single verse of the Bible that would indicate I should do otherwise.

You have my commendation - I tried to respond to that post and (while I wasn't going to phrase anything as 'crackpot') I gave up - since I just couldn't make enough sense of it to build a coherent response.

I quite like the Japanese 'god shat the world' story. I also like the Egyptian one that has our little female deity masturbating our male deity until he ejaculates everything into existence. I like creativity in my creationism :D

Beats the pants off the "Vishnu's Drum" theory of Creation, I'll give you that.

The birth or the lack of reliability?

Well, since the Bible doesn't say that Adam gave birth, the lack of reliability doesn't exist.

Are you implying that Cain had no offspring?

No, I'm saying that Noah, Abraham, etc. were all tracked through Seth's genealogy, not Cain's.

The birth or the lack of reliability?

The birth.

As for the reliability, the text actually says "he had a son", not "he gave birth".
Hope that clears it up. :)

The birth.

As for the reliability, the text actually says "he had a son", not "he gave birth".
Hope that clears it up. :)

In one part, in another it specifically says it was Adam's wife who gave birth. Bottle was joking. Our friend, UB, would love to attribute your slip of the fingers to a reliability problem of the Bible. Anything to pretend he's got a better argument.

Given how Christianity started and that personal discernment was its message, I'll take that as compliment. Thank you for the kind words.

Let me list a couple of other things that differ from mainstream Christianity based on the actions of mainstream Christianity -

1. My relationship with God is personal and anyone, anyone who is not me or God is a commentator.

2. A place of worship should be plain. The idea that Jesus would live the life he did and think it was appropriate to create ornate and ridiculous churches is quite frankly harder to believe than turning staffs into snakes.

3. The words of Jesus can be amended by no man. Ever. No man. As He is the Christ.

4. Venerating any man is creating a false idol. Creating a hiearchy of human beings not limited to but including prophets and the mother of Jesus goes directly against the ideas preached by Jesus of equality and all of us being equal to God and each other.

5. Clearing that plank in my own eye. My eye. I am not in any position to tell anyone else how to be a good Christian nor am I going to try to force my beliefs on anyone else. That plank in my eye is taking up all my time, quite frankly.

6. Points like these are appropriate in terms of discussing mainstream Christianity but inappropriate to direct at individuals who wish to worship privately as the discern.

Yep, I'm pretty proud of keeping my religious beliefs and actions as seperated from the public actions of mainstream Christianity as humanly possible. I can't find a single verse of the Bible that would indicate I should do otherwise.

Couldn't have said it better myself...just as a personal opinion, I don't think the Christian Church as the masses know it does much justice to Christ or His teachings at all.


With that said, regarding point #2, I think that goes back to motive. If a church is blinging itself out because they want people to notice it and say "oh hey, wow, look at that one, it must be important", well then, I would say that's a pretty self-focused reason. However, if a stonemason or carpenter says "I honestly want to give my best work and craftsmanship as a gift to God", then I don't really see how that would be detrimental.

In regards to point #5, I would say there's a certainly a difference between hypocritically judging out of self-righteousness and guiding/advising out of love for the other person...it's just that a lot of people don't pay attention to it. Say my Christian friend is starting to get hooked to drugs. Well, if I tell them "Hey man, seriously, you need to stop that...that stuff will mess you up", I'm not judging them...I'm telling them out of love that they need to address that issue in their life. Whereas if someone's abusive to his wife and then goes and tells the next guy not to abuse his, all the while never making any attempt to stop being abusive to his own...well then, I would say the whole "plank in the eye" verse is certainly applicable.

But yeah, other than in the circumstances I just described, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

What aspect of creationism do you believe in?

I believe what science has told us(big bang, evolution, earth's path around sun, etc.) But I also believe all this happened through Allah as described in the Qur'an. For instance it describes an event very similar to the big bang, it tells us the earth is round long before people knew this through science and it also tells us life came out of the water, again long before science knew this.

I see where you are going, I just don't understand what creationism has anything to do with it.....I mean as long as they aren't trying to pull theocracy or control the science curriculum in school, why do you really care? I mean can't you leave people alone to have their beliefs as long as it's not directly affecting you (gay rights aside because that is directly affecting millions of people and deserves some major attention)

I think most people do not have a problem with someone following the teachings of one faith or another.

The problems start when someone says "well I don't agree with the theory of evolution because of what is said in the bible". Its the whole trying to refute science with religion thing.

If someone here has any doubts about the theory of evolution then that's fine, hell good on them for not taking it on blind faith as so many people do these days!

Couldn't have said it better myself...just as a personal opinion, I don't think the Christian Church as the masses know it does much justice to Christ or His teachings at all.


With that said, regarding point #2, I think that goes back to motive. If a church is blinging itself out because they want people to notice it and say "oh hey, wow, look at that one, it must be important", well then, I would say that's a pretty self-focused reason. However, if a stonemason or carpenter says "I honestly want to give my best work and craftsmanship as a gift to God", then I don't really see how that would be detrimental.

In regards to point #5, I would say there's a certainly a difference between hypocritically judging out of self-righteousness and guiding/advising out of love for the other person...it's just that a lot of people don't pay attention to it. Say my Christian friend is starting to get hooked to drugs. Well, if I tell them "Hey man, seriously, you need to stop that...that stuff will mess you up", I'm not judging them...I'm telling them out of love that they need to address that issue in their life. Whereas if someone's abusive to his wife and then goes and tells the next guy not to abuse his, all the while never making any attempt to stop being abusive to his own...well then, I would say the whole "plank in the eye" verse is certainly applicable.

But yeah, other than in the circumstances I just described, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I think there is a huge difference between looking out for the physical well-being of a person and interfering in their relationship with God.

"Hey, man, look at what this is doing to your life and family.", "Look at what harm it does.", etc.

versus

"If you do this, you'll go to hell like the dirty sinner you are." or even "you're sinning."

It's not my job to judge sin. Even reading the Bible it's clear that some acts are conducted by individuals that are explicitly listed as sins and yet those individuals are lauded in the Bible. It's clear that the I'm not privvy to the specific plan for any individual, nor should I pretend to be.

Are you implying that Cain had no offspring?

Ja, what about Grendel's Mom?:rolleyes:

"I just sit at home and read my bible" could mean that he just opens it and re-reads Gen 1 over and over again.

:confused:
don't think he got much further than the title myself;)

What makes you believe in the Bible? And have you read the Bible at all?

Of course I have read the Bible. What kind of question is that? My faith in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. I know Christ died on a cross for my sins.

Yes, it is. And? Is there more to it? Are there versions of the story where the ship doesn't sink?

Proably in some alternet History book.

:confused:
don't think he got much further than the title myself;)

Nope, I read alittle from each book every night. Gensis in my opinion is the most boring book. So no I don't just read Gensis.

Humans are not important. Only stupid religions tell them that they are.That's not strictly true.

In an absolute sense it is: Universe doesn't (AFAWK) care about humans, Earth or life in general.

In several senses it isn't: Humans are important to other humans and also to the ecology that is dependent of humans including but not limited to cattle, certain farmed plant species and human diseases.

The primary factor in human importance is that human individuals have strong subjective importance among other humans, that's why common human doesn't go on a killing spree because of social pressure & laws prohibiting it both stemming from the simple fact that human is a social animal whose survival depends/depended on the ability to co-operate and to get along with other humans*


*(to a degree, there are obviously also alternative "breeding" strategies within a human society).

Of course I have read the Bible. What kind of question is that? My faith in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. I know Christ died on a cross for my sins.

Well done my friend :)

Of course I have read the Bible. What kind of question is that? My faith in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. I know Christ died on a cross for my sins.What is that knowledge of yours based on? How do you make sure, Jesus is the Christ at all? According to Jesus' own religion he does not meet the requirements of Christ.

We used to have quite a lot of Young Earth Creationists, but I suspect that being consistently beaten in debate drove them away.

Nope, I read alittle from each book every night. Gensis in my opinion is the most boring book. So no I don't just read Gensis.

And yet you still get the name wrong....

And yet you still get the name wrong....

Seriously? Is this where you want the debate to be? About his typing skills?

And yet you still get the name wrong....

Some people on this forum speak English as a second or third language, others are dyslexic. Either way, it hardly seems fair to pick on his/her spelling until you know more about them

Seriously? Is this where you want the debate to be? About his typing skills?

no not really. just twice in the same bit. And I believe UB spelt it like that earlier as an example. just seems odd that in reply this person using the exact same spelling twice.

But i admit him just being a bit difficult

no not really. just twice in the same bit. And I believe UB spealt it like that earlier as an example. just seems odd that in reply this person using the exact same spelling twice.

But i admit him just being a bit difficultI spelled/spelt what how?

I spelled/spelt what how?

hey english is my second language!:p

hey english is my second language!:pAnd I spelled/spelt what how?

:p damn you

someone (i thought you) spelt genesis incorrectly earlier.
That poster used certain term that yourelf and another poster were using gen1, etc...

Personally I think that poster, macov is a troll. Based on the current posts

HEHE. YOU SPEALT "YOURELF" WRONG!!! LOLZ!!

I spelled/spelt what how?

:p damn you

someone (i thought you) spelt genesis incorrectly earlier.
That poster used certain term that yourelf and another poster were using gen1, etc...

Personally I think that poster, macov is a troll. Based on the current posts

That's not strictly true.

In an absolute sense it is: Universe doesn't (AFAWK) care about humans, Earth or life in general.

In several senses it isn't: Humans are important to other humans and also to the ecology that is dependent of humans including but not limited to cattle, certain farmed plant species and human diseases.

The primary factor in human importance is that human individuals have strong subjective importance among other humans, that's why common human doesn't go on a killing spree because of social pressure & laws prohibiting it both stemming from the simple fact that human is a social animal whose survival depends/depended on the ability to co-operate and to get along with other humans*

*(to a degree, there are obviously also alternative "breeding" strategies within a human society).So in fact importance is always entirely subjective?

Pony up.

I have a question for Creationists, a rather long winded one. It is on the matter of Biblical justification for certain things and while i am open to getting slammed for what I think I dont want to bother posting my opinion to be forced to listen to the Anti-religious(minority) around who just like to blather pointlessly about the stupidity of religion.

I do however have bone to pick with Creationism, and I am sincerely hoping there is indeed someone here who can earnestly represent that particular group.

So if you are a Creationist(In the Christian Fundamentalist sense--for clearification) please step up and have a dialogue with me for a tic or two.

If I cant find any...I will give it a day bump the thread and place my question for people in general to discuss...though it will be pointless without the opposition's point of veiw.

EDIT:
Since there are indeed interested parties.

I am Believer.
I believe in Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the world.
I believe he is the Messiah.
I believe in the trinity.

I am believer who submits himself to the bible, as best as I can...and I often fall short.

There is the qualifier.
Now, on the matter of creation.
In genisis we are all familiar witht he six days of work and the seventh day of rest.

I would like to know why this is taken literally when the bible clearly states man can not know Gods time.

Or to clearify.
I believe that the Big Bang, is perfectly acceptable theory to walk hand in hand with genisis---first there was the void.

I also believe that genisis is practically describing evolution.
the sea, the earth, the crawling, the larger animals, then finally--Man form the earth. From the dirt.
Evolution doesnt even contradict a First Man First Woman theory.

So, what I want to know why in the creation of earht and man are the scientific theories of the Big Bang, and Evolution so tabboo? SO wrong?

Why are not the Seven Days alagory, or man being fashioned from dirt alagory...if truly genisis was delivered in a vision how could a man of the period hope to describe the information he was imparting?

Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?

And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?

And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?

And be even less certain of the creation of the universe?

Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?

What biblical justification is there for taking Genisis descriptions and designations of time literally?

Hi. I think I am qualified to help you. I am a student of theology at Liberty University in Linchberg Virginia. I am in my fourth year of school.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that every word in it is the truth.

This question isn't a new one. It's been asked before.

Evolution can not go hand in hand with creation. If God says the world was created in six days, then it was created in six days. Remember in the first chapter of Genesis where the Bible says that God created "day" and "night"? He didn't say that it took millions of years to create day and night, nor did He say that it took millions of years for the Earth to evolve into what it is today. The animals were formed by Him, and then Adam and Eve, who He in turn told to be fruitful and multiply upon the Earth. If the "Big Bang" really happened, God would have said so. He would've told us that it took millions of years for the creation process to come about.

I hope that helps you. If you ever need help with anything else, feel free to post it or you can telegram me if you like. I don't mind, and will be glad to help if I can.

HEHE. YOU SPEALT "YOURELF" WRONG!!! LOLZ!!

ah hypocrisy

or if it is sarcasm should you have spelt yourself correctly?

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that every word in it is the truth.So we know what you believe. But what about the Bible's actual trustworthiness?

If God says the world was created in six days, then it was created in six days. ... If the "Big Bang" really happened, God would have said so....And I always thought that studying theology would require the ability of keeping critical distance...

ah hypocrisy

or if it is sarcasm should you have spelt yourself correctly?

Um, I spealt it the same way you spealt it.

"And I believe UB spealt it like that earlier as an example."

It was sarcasm and it was to point out how nonsensical a conversation becomes when we start making entire posts dedicated to spelling errors instead of content. I think you'd agree, no?

Um, I spealt it the same way you spealt it.

"And I believe UB spealt it like that earlier as an example."

It was sarcasm and it was to point out how nonsensical a conversation becomes when we start making entire posts dedicated to spelling errors instead of content. I think you'd agree, no?

no he actually corrected the mistake.
Yes I would agree, but after Bottles post asking for any sort of evidence of the validity of creationism over Evolution, most of this thread has been devoid of content.
Still waiting for someone who believe that creationism is correct to show they're evidence.

no he actually corrected the mistake.
Yes I would agree, but after Bottles post asking for any sort of evidence of the validity of creationism over Evolution, most of this thread has been devoid of content.
Still waiting for someone who believe that creationism is correct to show they're evidence.There is no evidence for creationism. Creationism is entirely based on interpretation of the bible. Subsequently it is a matter of faith, not of facts.

no he actually corrected the mistake.
Yes I would agree, but after Bottles post asking for any sort of evidence of the validity of creationism over Evolution, most of this thread has been devoid of content.
Still waiting for someone who believe that creationism is correct to show they're evidence.

It really depends on your criteria for evidence. I mean the fundamental problem with the debate is that both sides are talking on two different levels.
Science seeks to determine the best, at present, theory regarding how we came into existence through a naturalistic view on things. Observational data gleaned from our senses, often with the aid of equipment (microscopes, etc.) is cataloged and used to obtain support for or against a hypothesis typically fitting some theoretical model. It doesn't seek to answer all the questions about existence in a universal and definitive answer, but rather the "this is what we've got, this is what we think it means, we're going to try and use it to predict stuff."

Religion on the other hand, typically deals with, necessarily, the supernatural. Something we can't test, something that is often purely subjective. The "evidence" in religion is typically self-referencing, often because there are no external sources of "evidence" available.

So when asking for evidence on the topic, you could get physical evidence for evolution and a theory tested in the scientific model, or subjective evidence for Creationism that tends to reference itself.

There is no evidence for creationism. Creationism is entirely based on interpretation of the bible. Subsequently it is a matter of faith, not of facts.

faith trumps facts. got it.

In the Hewbrew text it says 'yom', which means 'day'. I am not sure what other meaning yom could have.
But which 'original' text? The Septuagint?

It deos mean "day" but, it means "day" as in from sun up to sun down, it is also used to mean "day" as in however long it takes you to accomplish a task as in your "work day".

Yom, much like the english word Day has many meanings.

If the "Big Bang" really happened, God would have said so. He would've told us that it took millions of years for the creation process to come about.

Given that the majority of adults in the world today don't understand Evolution or the Big Bang, what makes you think that a bunch of bronze-age goat herds would have understood it? How would you go about explaining complicated astrophysics and biology to a group who lived thousands of years before the discovery of Newtonian gravity or elementary genetics?

Given that the majority of adults in the world today don't understand Evolution or the Big Bang, what makes you think that a bunch of bronze-age goat herds would have understood it? How would you go about explaining complicated astrophysics and biology to a group who lived thousands of years before the discovery of Newtonian gravity or elementary genetics?Surely God could have made them understand ...

Hi. I think I am qualified to help you. I am a student of theology at Liberty University in Linchberg Virginia. I am in my fourth year of school.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that every word in it is the truth.

This question isn't a new one. It's been asked before.

Evolution can not go hand in hand with creation. If God says the world was created in six days, then it was created in six days. Remember in the first chapter of Genesis where the Bible says that God created "day" and "night"? He didn't say that it took millions of years to create day and night, nor did He say that it took millions of years for the Earth to evolve into what it is today. The animals were formed by Him, and then Adam and Eve, who He in turn told to be fruitful and multiply upon the Earth. If the "Big Bang" really happened, God would have said so. He would've told us that it took millions of years for the creation process to come about.

I hope that helps you. If you ever need help with anything else, feel free to post it or you can telegram me if you like. I don't mind, and will be glad to help if I can.

Your theology is bankrupt of you do not take into account that

1. God didnt say, as it is merely accepted that Genesis was written by Moses, no Theologian worth his salt would suggest the Book is a direct work of the God. Inspired just as you say.

2. The word used in the text is not used soley for the 12 hour(sun up to sun down) day, or the 24 hour(Light-Night) day...that the word also was EQUALLY used to mean the abscure "Task Day" (your day is done when the work is done) day. This point should be discussed ina Theological College, I am shocked that Hebrew usage isnt...I mean you dont study Theology in english do you?

Also Psalm 90 clearly explains that man does not understand time as God does, 1000 years is like yesterday, or as a watch in the night---Yesterday and a watch in the night are two seperate spans of time...one is roughly a Day-Night the other is only a single hour yet to God both are the same as 1000 years and a 1000 years the same as both of those...so my question stands.

It really depends on your criteria for evidence. I mean the fundamental problem with the debate is that both sides are talking on two different levels.
Science seeks to determine the best, at present, theory regarding how we came into existence through a naturalistic view on things. Observational data gleaned from our senses, often with the aid of equipment (microscopes, etc.) is cataloged and used to obtain support for or against a hypothesis typically fitting some theoretical model. It doesn't seek to answer all the questions about existence in a universal and definitive answer, but rather the "this is what we've got, this is what we think it means, we're going to try and use it to predict stuff."

Religion on the other hand, typically deals with, necessarily, the supernatural. Something we can't test, something that is often purely subjective. The "evidence" in religion is typically self-referencing, often because there are no external sources of "evidence" available.

So when asking for evidence on the topic, you could get physical evidence for evolution and a theory tested in the scientific model, or subjective evidence for Creationism that tends to reference itself.

Parts of Creationism can (and have been) tested scientifically:

-The claim that a global flood occured can be tested and disproved using geology.

-The claim that all creatures came into existence at the same time can be tested and disproved using the fossil record.

-The claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old can be tested and disproved using radiometric decay, tree-rings, lake varves, ice-cores, and ancient coral.

Other parts of Creationism could be disproved if the YECs had the guts to present a coherent, testable model of their own rather than trying to pick holes in Evolution; they could start by telling us which geological-strata were laid down by the flood, which are pre-flood, and which are post-flood.

Surely God could have made them understand ...

See, this is a fair and reasonble point.

But understanding Creation is not a requirement of Salvation.
So why bother? Besides God did make us able to understand, it just took a few thousand years for us to catch up and we are still arguing over it.

Surely God could have made them understand ...

Without interfering with their free will? I'm not sure, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate until some YECs turn up. ;)

Parts of Creationism can (and have been) tested scientifically:

-The claim that a global flood occured can be tested and disproved using geology.

-The claim that all creatures came into existence at the same time can be tested and disproved using the fossil record.

-The claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old can be tested and disproved using radiometric decay, tree-rings, lake varves, ice-cores, and ancient coral.

Other parts of Creationism could be disproved if the YECs had the guts to present a coherent, testable model of their own rather than trying to pick holes in Evolution; they could start by telling us which geological-strata were laid down by the flood, which are pre-flood, and which are post-flood.

What do you mean by "could be proved" ?
All these issues have already been looked into very thoroughly and the Creationist positions have been dismissed by all serious researchers.

Without interfering with their free will? I'm not sure, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate until some YECs turn up. ;)Don't you know that God can accomplish the illogical things, too? He can create knowledge and not create it at the same time, after all there is allegedly nothing he can't do....:rolleyes:

Parts of Creationism can (and have been) tested scientifically:

-The claim that a global flood occured can be tested and disproved using geology.

-The claim that all creatures came into existence at the same time can be tested and disproved using the fossil record.

-The claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old can be tested and disproved using radiometric decay, tree-rings, lake varves, ice-cores, and ancient coral.

The problem with this is that the response is always to attack the science. An argument that usually sounds something like:
"Well, see we have these fossil records, and these dinosaur bones are dated to be 75 million years old, whereas these human fossils only go back to a couple hundred thousand, if that."
Response: "Graaaa, carbon dating is wrong! *froth*"

I also assume, given the scientifically determined time and pressure required to make fossil fuels that Jesus put the oil in the ground just before Scotty beamed him down from heaven.

Other parts of Creationism could be disproved if the YECs had the guts to present a coherent, testable model of their own rather than trying to pick holes in Evolution; they could start by telling us which geological-strata were laid down by the flood, which are pre-flood, and which are post-flood.

But that's never going to happen, because they don't have the ability to come up with a coherent model.

... that Jesus put the oil in the ground just before Scotty beamed him down from heaven.Hey!!! Watch your words! You are making fun of something holy here !!!

Oh my well all I can say is that it is down to personal belief and faith, and that for what you believe you should pray and simply ask God for the answer. However the fact that the translation is in days, is the hook here. But the point well one of the points of the thread was, why do some Christians choose to believe in the literal translation of Genesis. I put that 1) We see that the other theories really have no basis today, and are just gigantic guestimations really.

2) It casts other books of the bible into doubt in what they really mean. Or, if they choose not to accept literal or metaphorical translation, their actual validity.

Thank you for your response.

Sorry I missed it. I had to go to bed.

To be frank I will will have to consult the Hebrew text to see which word for day is used regarding the ressurection, because the word used in genesis has an abundance of meanings beyond merely a day(sun up to sun down) or a day(24 hours-day and night). Of course, since we are speaking if literal interpretation if you read the gospels ...after Jesus is risen how many days is it until he ascends? Since the Bible is literal Fact? Because someone is obviously being deceptive.

Only with Allegory is there no doubt, if one takes the Bible literally...we are left with a contradictory mess that leaves a schism between interpretors who believe the book cant be interpreted.

A matter of Faith it is indeed.

Actually, to be really accurate here, first there was the "We have honestly no idea what the hell this is." This is because, we have honestly no idea what the hell existed before our universe came into being.



Big Bang is something of a misnomer. What is a more realistic labeling is "Rapid expansion of energy outward from a single point to create the finite and expanding boundaries of the universe, during which several stages of energy state change resulted in the forms of matter we are familiar with today." But that doesn't sound nearly as cool as "The Big Bang."



Irrelevant. Just because an omnipotent deity, for instance, Bramha, could do something, it doesn't mean he did do that thing. Brahma could easily also have directed us to have this conversation by the subtle hand of that almighty being. However, to suggest that that has any relevance to this discussion is, well, ludicrous.



This is a completely unsupported paragraph that as no relevance to the discussion. And also makes no sense whatsoever.



Depends, really, on your definition of dirt, and your definition of "came from." More properly, man came from a common ancestor he shares with the other large primates, and in fact a common genetic ancestor is necessarily shared by all living things somewhere down the line. Also, inorganic matter doesn't necessarily mean dirt.



Once again, no. Dirt didn't swirl together in some random evolutionary storm and create man as he is now. It was a lengthy, multi-million year process that resulted in what we are today. To suggest that this and the "God shat us" theory of Creation are in some way equivalent is, yes, ludicrous.



Once again, just because something is within Brahma's power, doesn't necessarily mean he did it. In fact, FSM could just as easily have done it.



Science is hardly a religion. Evolution has a considerable amount of evidence (though your definition of proof doesn't probably include something as mundane as evidence) to support it.

Creationism, on the other hand, has a single, musty book and a whole lot of witty remarks and ideas from people down the years to "support" it.

Gee, wonder which one I'm going to go with.

Gee, the most you have done so far is try and put me down. Evolution's "evidence," as you say, is still trying to prove it. As my biology teacher said "evolution is a theory, in which a theory must be proved." However, it has not been.

Fossil record? You found a bunch of bones in the dirt... wow, you are a scientist now.

Almost exact DNA? The closest thing to our DNA is a monkey. 95% closeness (which keeps getting further apart everytime we examen it)... Did you know a simple .5% change can kill an animal, or in this case, a specie?

Geologic time column? This does not prove a thing. For one, where did the dirt come from to make those layers? I mean, dirt does not just come from no where. I guess you could say that meteor hit Earth and then put all those layers in that form, but then that would mean that the dinosaurs are really not evolving. Two, how do you date it? Most scientist date it by either carbon dating or using the 'index fossils.' This is 100% ludicriss! The fossils are either dated by carbon dating or the geologic time column... Circular reasoning...

Carbon dating? Well sheesh, they carbon dated a living molusk to be over 10,000 years old...

Another way they can 'prove' Evolution is by embryonic stages of developement. If you still think this is true, then you are a few decades over date. Heckel who created these fake drawing was tried by his own University a few years after he came out with them, and yet they still use it today...

Another thing,how come we are increasing our age by approx. 60 years per second (I have to do the math again, but I am pretty sure that is accurate). First, the earth was 10 million years old (thanks to Charles Lyle), then a few hundred million, then 2 billion (about 40 or 50 years ago) and now it is 4.5 billion years old. Of course, we could go with Darwins age. He probably would have thought it to be 4,576,236,899 years old (As he said in his book, [forgive my unintelligence in spelling here] the weldium desposites are 662, 409 years old). Do the math. Approx. 180 years and an overall change of 4.49 billion years.

I wouldlike to say something about the 7 day creation also. If God is outside the realm of time, then there are no days so therefore being that is was man being influenced by God to write genesis it would be a literal 7 day creation.

The Bible actually teaches against Evolution. Well, sciences falsely so called.

Evolution can survive only by tax dollars. I can't stand it. If this is such a big issue, then why not make private schools for Evolution? I could careless if my religion is not tax supported, but why should I pay to teach kids a theory that is based off of non-science?

Furthermore, if it meant millions of years there instead of days, then how did the plants survive as they were created before insects? Kind of hard to polinate without insects is it not? If it meant 7 million years there, then why not make Jesus in the cave for 3 million years instead of 3 days?

The Evolution theory should have been put-down years ago while it was still started.

If you think you can 'prove' Evolution, or have some-sort of "evidence," then send it to my nation 'Indoslavokia' as this will be my last post.

Once, again, I love how people can attack me, my life and what I write down, and yet when I ask for something as simple as "evidence" I never receive it.

Actually, to be really accurate here, first there was the "We have honestly no idea what the hell this is." This is because, we have honestly no idea what the hell existed before our universe came into being.



Big Bang is something of a misnomer. What is a more realistic labeling is "Rapid expansion of energy outward from a single point to create the finite and expanding boundaries of the universe, during which several stages of energy state change resulted in the forms of matter we are familiar with today." But that doesn't sound nearly as cool as "The Big Bang."



Irrelevant. Just because an omnipotent deity, for instance, Bramha, could do something, it doesn't mean he did do that thing. Brahma could easily also have directed us to have this conversation by the subtle hand of that almighty being. However, to suggest that that has any relevance to this discussion is, well, ludicrous.



This is a completely unsupported paragraph that as no relevance to the discussion. And also makes no sense whatsoever.



Depends, really, on your definition of dirt, and your definition of "came from." More properly, man came from a common ancestor he shares with the other large primates, and in fact a common genetic ancestor is necessarily shared by all living things somewhere down the line. Also, inorganic matter doesn't necessarily mean dirt.



Once again, no. Dirt didn't swirl together in some random evolutionary storm and create man as he is now. It was a lengthy, multi-million year process that resulted in what we are today. To suggest that this and the "God shat us" theory of Creation are in some way equivalent is, yes, ludicrous.



Once again, just because something is within Brahma's power, doesn't necessarily mean he did it. In fact, FSM could just as easily have done it.



Science is hardly a religion. Evolution has a considerable amount of evidence (though your definition of proof doesn't probably include something as mundane as evidence) to support it.

Creationism, on the other hand, has a single, musty book and a whole lot of witty remarks and ideas from people down the years to "support" it.

Gee, wonder which one I'm going to go with.

Gee, the most you have done so far is try and put me down. Evolution's "evidence," as you say, is still trying to prove it. As my biology teacher said "evolution is a theory, in which a theory must be proved." However, it has not been.

Fossil record? You found a bunch of bones in the dirt... wow, you are a scientist now.

Almost exact DNA? The closest thing to our DNA is a monkey. 95% closeness (which keeps getting further apart everytime we examen it)... Did you know a simple .5% change can kill an animal, or in this case, a specie?

Geologic time column? This does not prove a thing. For one, where did the dirt come from to make those layers? I mean, dirt does not just come from no where. I guess you could say that meteor hit Earth and then put all those layers in that form, but then that would mean that the dinosaurs are really not evolving. Two, how do you date it? Most scientist date it by either carbon dating or using the 'index fossils.' This is 100% ludicriss! The fossils are either dated by carbon dating or the geologic time column... Circular reasoning...

Carbon dating? Well sheesh, they carbon dated a living molusk to be over 10,000 years old...

Another way they can 'prove' Evolution is by embryonic stages of developement. If you still think this is true, then you are a few decades over date. Heckel who created these fake drawing was tried by his own University a few years after he came out with them, and yet they still use it today...

Another thing,how come we are increasing our age by approx. 60 years per second (I have to do the math again, but I am pretty sure that is accurate). First, the earth was 10 million years old (thanks to Charles Lyle), then a few hundred million, then 2 billion (about 40 or 50 years ago) and now it is 4.5 billion years old. Of course, we could go with Darwins age. He probably would have thought it to be 4,576,236,899 years old (As he said in his book, [forgive my unintelligence in spelling here] the weldium desposites are 662, 409 years old). Do the math. Approx. 180 years and an overall change of 4.49 billion years.

I wouldlike to say something about the 7 day creation also. If God is outside the realm of time, then there are no days so therefore being that is was man being influenced by God to write genesis it would be a literal 7 day creation.

The Bible actually teaches against Evolution. Well, sciences falsely so called.

Evolution can survive only by tax dollars. I can't stand it. If this is such a big issue, then why not make private schools for Evolution? I could careless if my religion is not tax supported, but why should I pay to teach kids a theory that is based off of non-science?

Furthermore, if it meant millions of years there instead of days, then how did the plants survive as they were created before insects? Kind of hard to polinate without insects is it not? If it meant 7 million years there, then why not make Jesus in the cave for 3 million years instead of 3 days?

The Evolution theory should have been put-down years ago while it was still started.

If you think you can 'prove' Evolution, or have some-sort of "evidence," then send it to my nation 'Indoslavokia' as this will be my last post.

Once, again, I love how people can attack me, my life and what I write down, and yet when I ask for something as simple as "evidence" I never receive it.

Actually, to be really accurate here, first there was the "We have honestly no idea what the hell this is." This is because, we have honestly no idea what the hell existed before our universe came into being.



Big Bang is something of a misnomer. What is a more realistic labeling is "Rapid expansion of energy outward from a single point to create the finite and expanding boundaries of the universe, during which several stages of energy state change resulted in the forms of matter we are familiar with today." But that doesn't sound nearly as cool as "The Big Bang."



Irrelevant. Just because an omnipotent deity, for instance, Bramha, could do something, it doesn't mean he did do that thing. Brahma could easily also have directed us to have this conversation by the subtle hand of that almighty being. However, to suggest that that has any relevance to this discussion is, well, ludicrous.



This is a completely unsupported paragraph that as no relevance to the discussion. And also makes no sense whatsoever.



Depends, really, on your definition of dirt, and your definition of "came from." More properly, man came from a common ancestor he shares with the other large primates, and in fact a common genetic ancestor is necessarily shared by all living things somewhere down the line. Also, inorganic matter doesn't necessarily mean dirt.



Once again, no. Dirt didn't swirl together in some random evolutionary storm and create man as he is now. It was a lengthy, multi-million year process that resulted in what we are today. To suggest that this and the "God shat us" theory of Creation are in some way equivalent is, yes, ludicrous.



Once again, just because something is within Brahma's power, doesn't necessarily mean he did it. In fact, FSM could just as easily have done it.



Science is hardly a religion. Evolution has a considerable amount of evidence (though your definition of proof doesn't probably include something as mundane as evidence) to support it.

Creationism, on the other hand, has a single, musty book and a whole lot of witty remarks and ideas from people down the years to "support" it.

Gee, wonder which one I'm going to go with.

Gee, the most you have done so far is try and put me down. Evolution's "evidence," as you say, is still trying to prove it. As my biology teacher said "evolution is a theory, in which a theory must be proved." However, it has not been.

Fossil record? You found a bunch of bones in the dirt... wow, you are a scientist now.

Almost exact DNA? The closest thing to our DNA is a monkey. 95% closeness (which keeps getting further apart everytime we examen it)... Did you know a simple .5% change can kill an animal, or in this case, a specie?

Geologic time column? This does not prove a thing. For one, where did the dirt come from to make those layers? I mean, dirt does not just come from no where. I guess you could say that meteor hit Earth and then put all those layers in that form, but then that would mean that the dinosaurs are really not evolving. Two, how do you date it? Most scientist date it by either carbon dating or using the 'index fossils.' This is 100% ludicriss! The fossils are either dated by carbon dating or the geologic time column... Circular reasoning...

Carbon dating? Well sheesh, they carbon dated a living molusk to be over 10,000 years old...

Another way they can 'prove' Evolution is by embryonic stages of developement. If you still think this is true, then you are a few decades over date. Heckel who created these fake drawing was tried by his own University a few years after he came out with them, and yet they still use it today...

Another thing,how come we are increasing our age by approx. 60 years per second (I have to do the math again, but I am pretty sure that is accurate). First, the earth was 10 million years old (thanks to Charles Lyle), then a few hundred million, then 2 billion (about 40 or 50 years ago) and now it is 4.5 billion years old. Of course, we could go with Darwins age. He probably would have thought it to be 4,576,236,899 years old (As he said in his book, [forgive my unintelligence in spelling here] the weldium desposites are 662, 409 years old). Do the math. Approx. 180 years and an overall change of 4.49 billion years.

I wouldlike to say something about the 7 day creation also. If God is outside the realm of time, then there are no days so therefore being that is was man being influenced by God to write genesis it would be a literal 7 day creation.

The Bible actually teaches against Evolution. Well, sciences falsely so called.

Evolution can survive only by tax dollars. I can't stand it. If this is such a big issue, then why not make private schools for Evolution? I could careless if my religion is not tax supported, but why should I pay to teach kids a theory that is based off of non-science?

Furthermore, if it meant millions of years there instead of days, then how did the plants survive as they were created before insects? Kind of hard to polinate without insects is it not? If it meant 7 million years there, then why not make Jesus in the cave for 3 million years instead of 3 days?

The Evolution theory should have been put-down years ago while it was still started.

If you think you can 'prove' Evolution, or have some-sort of "evidence," then send it to my nation 'Indoslavokia' as this will be my last post.

Once, again, I love how people can attack me, my life and what I write down, and yet when I ask for something as simple as "evidence" I never receive it.

Wouldn't Adam have been something akin to Angel or demi-god, anyway? (I mean, looking at his 'punishments', like having to work, and eat, and die)

If Adam is Angelic and eternal, there is no conflict between the two ideas unless you assume Adam immediately started fathering (mortal, human) children. I'm not sure the scripture ever explicitly states how long the interval was between Adam getting 'busted' in the garden, and the actual 'fall from grace'. (There could be millions of years between Genesis 3:21 and Genesis 3:22).

It is kind of like I said, if you use millions of years in one place, then you use it in the rest.

Thus, you are saying that Jesus was in the tomb for 3 million years?

The apocalypse is actually 2.555 billion years? You can not replace one thing with another. The Bible is Godly inspired and therefore is what is says.

I am sick of repeating this.

The word used in genesis does NOT literally mean DAY exclusively--The Bible wasnt written in English...if all you have ever read is the english Bible dont comment on the language...dont. Because you are wrong, or at best grossly uninformed.

The Geneva translation which predates the KJ uses the word Tyrant for nearly every place the KJV uses the word KING...take a guess why?

NEXT.

Indoslavokia
Delete all those damned duplicate posts and only hit the button one time, for future reference ok. Thanks.

It is kind of like I said, if you use millions of years in one place, then you use it in the rest.

Thus, you are saying that Jesus was in the tomb for 3 million years?

The apocalypse is actually 2.555 billion years? You can not replace one thing with another. The Bible is Godly inspired and therefore is what is says.

If you're serious then you're grossly misinformed. Have you actually read the Bible or do you just say you have? Even in English the Bible makes it clear that taking time frames literally is misinformed. So are you being obtuse on purpose or is it an accident?

I am sick of repeating this.

The word used in genesis does NOT literally mean DAY exclusively--The Bible wasnt written in English...if all you have ever read is the english Bible dont comment on the language...dont. Because you are wrong, or at best grossly uninformed.

The Geneva translation which predates the KJ uses the word Tyrant for nearly every place the KJV uses the word KING...take a guess why?


curious.

This might be a stupid question but here goes.

If there word used is incorrect, why not simply correct it?
I'm assuming your refering to the word Yom? is that correct?

Gee, the most you have done so far is try and put me down. Evolution's "evidence," as you say, is still trying to prove it. As my biology teacher said "evolution is a theory, in which a theory must be proved." However, it has not been.

Incorrect. The concept of a scientific theory, and the understanding of the word theory by most people differ greatly. The fact of the matter is that Very Very few things in science are ever "proven." We amass a large amount of data in favor of them, we make predictions based on them that are often found to be true, but they are rarely "prove," largely because it is impossible to definitely prove something for ALL POSSIBLE CASES.

Take Quantum Mechanics, for instance. Most of the scientific community accepts QM as a viable theory for use in examining molecular, atomic, and subatomic particles. It has made predictions and observations, many of which form the backbone of the technology we all take for granted these days. However, that isn't to say that QM has been "proven," because it has not. It only takes one situation where the science and math breaks down for it to be unproven, and though that hasn't been found yet, it doesn't mean it's not out there.

People acceptable Newton's "Laws" of gravity and Classical Mechanics as "proven" until QM came along, and it was shown that CM didn't work in examining atoms, specifically the orbit of electrons around the center of nuclei. So while CM is still taught, since it can still make accurate predictions about things on a macroscopic scale, and because the math is infinitely easier for it at this scale than for QM, it has, in fact, been proven to be "wrong" in regard to subatomic and atomic mechanics.

Fossil record? You found a bunch of bones in the dirt... wow, you are a scientist now.

Bwuuuuh? Ever heard of carbon dating?

Almost exact DNA? The closest thing to our DNA is a monkey. 95% closeness (which keeps getting further apart everytime we examen it)... Did you know a simple .5% change can kill an animal, or in this case, a specie?

Depends on what you mean by "kill a specie," really. We know that dogs are a sub-species domesticated from wolves, we know that there is a percent difference between the DNA of domesticated dogs and wolves, so what about this is so hard to grasp?

Geologic time column? This does not prove a thing. For one, where did the dirt come from to make those layers? I mean, dirt does not just come from no where. I guess you could say that meteor hit Earth and then put all those layers in that form, but then that would mean that the dinosaurs are really not evolving. Two, how do you date it? Most scientist date it by either carbon dating or using the 'index fossils.' This is 100% ludicriss! The fossils are either dated by carbon dating or the geologic time column... Circular reasoning...[quote]

Bwuuuh? Explain how it is circular reasoning.

[quote]Carbon dating? Well sheesh, they carbon dated a living molusk to be over 10,000 years old...

Do you have a source for this? Some "proof" as it were? Or this something your friend Christy McChristypants told you at the last Crazy Mother Church Revival?

Another way they can 'prove' Evolution is by embryonic stages of developement. If you still think this is true, then you are a few decades over date. Heckel who created these fake drawing was tried by his own University a few years after he came out with them, and yet they still use it today...

And this is relevant, why?

Another thing,how come we are increasing our age by approx. 60 years per second (I have to do the math again, but I am pretty sure that is accurate). First, the earth was 10 million years old (thanks to Charles Lyle), then a few hundred million, then 2 billion (about 40 or 50 years ago) and now it is 4.5 billion years old. Of course, we could go with Darwins age. He probably would have thought it to be 4,576,236,899 years old (As he said in his book, [forgive my unintelligence in spelling here] the weldium desposites are 662, 409 years old). Do the math. Approx. 180 years and an overall change of 4.49 billion years.

By your logic, if you compare the size of the earth on maps in Columbus' time to the size of the earth we know today, the earth apparently expanded drastically during the past 600 years. Our understanding of something and our belief on that thing do not affect the reality of the situation.

I wouldlike to say something about the 7 day creation also. If God is outside the realm of time, then there are no days so therefore being that is was man being influenced by God to write genesis it would be a literal 7 day creation.

Assuming that god influenced Moses in the writing of Genesis, which you can't prove. Assuming Genesis is accurate, which you can't prove without circular reasoning of your own. Assuming god exists, which you can't prove.

And you say evolution is on shake ground? :rolleyes:

The Bible actually teaches against Evolution. Well, sciences falsely so called.

:confused: Where in the bible does it actually speak out against evolution?

Evolution can survive only by tax dollars. I can't stand it. If this is such a big issue, then why not make private schools for Evolution? I could careless if my religion is not tax supported, but why should I pay to teach kids a theory that is based off of non-science?

The Evolution theory should have been put-down years ago while it was still started.

Right, because only American tax dollars and the ZOMG EVOLUTIONIST ATHEIST CONSPIRACY!!!!!!111111 could have kept evolution afloat.
Amusing, considering this debate isn't even an issue in Europe, where evolution is taught without all this Intelligent Design bullshit.

Once, again, I love how people can attack me, my life and what I write down, and yet when I ask for something as simple as "evidence" I never receive it.

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/330/oppressedchristiansea3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/330/oppressedchristiansea3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

While I havn't been following the debate I will comment on that picture. It is completely flawed. It's a fake pie chart for one thing (I saw the original somewhere, something to do with the population of blacks against whites in some area).

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why a minority can't oppress a majority when the minority have more power.

Though i'll admit there is no christian oppression in the USA in genera.

While I havn't been following the debate I will comment on that picture. It is completely flawed. It's a fake pie chart for one thing (I saw the original somewhere, something to do with the population of blacks against whites in some area).

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why a minority can't oppress a majority when the minority have more power.

Though i'll admit there is no christian oppression in the USA in genera.

I'll admit, it is a bit over the top, but I think in this situation it is called for.

Another way they can 'prove' Evolution is by embryonic stages of developement. If you still think this is true, then you are a few decades over date. Heckel who created these fake drawing was tried by his own University a few years after he came out with them, and yet they still use it today...

Uhh, no, that's still valid. Haeckel's drawings are irrelevant to the process itself, which when observed shows developmental similarities between embryos of different species and which indicate common ancestry. And, of course, Haeckel's drawings were replaced with more accurate ones when the flaws in his were discovered. Science is self correcting, unlike creationism which parrots the same flawed arguments, outright lies and distortions against evolution, decade after decade, without providing anything of its own to explain the questions that evolution does.

There is no evidence for creationism.

Prove it.

I'm a scientist. I observe the scientific method, and allow that we will, in all probability, never come close to knowing 'everything'. That is what 'it is now'.

What you are talking about is nothing to do with 'science'... it is to do with non-scientists misunderstanding what science is.

I disagree. You're stating what science should be, not what it is.

Prove it.

Well, seeing as how no creationist has ever offered any evidence whatsoever, I'm inclined to say there is no evidence for it. There might be, but if there is it apparently hasn't been found yet.

I disagree. You're stating what science should be, not what it is.Science is the term for "finding out and making sure". That's all it is and should be. It's the constantly refined progressive method used to gain and secure knowledge. And that's the exact opposite to the whole creationism-thing: in creationism there are no methods to find out and make sure. And creationism is always starting from scratch (or rather, from the bible). There is no progress in creationism, it's just endlessly repeated insubstantial circular reasoning.

except for there isn't any "secure knowledge" in science at all, there are models and hypothesis that we use to decide how we *think* things work, anyone who says otherwise is imho delusional.

There's "more secure" knowledge, but ultimately science tells us how things work from our frame of reference.

A different species with different chemistry or mental processes might have a very different interpretation of the way things work, and even though they might have similar outcomes the inherent mechanics of the two systems are vastly apart from one another.

Science is the term for "finding out and making sure". That's all it is and should be. It's the constantly refined method used to gain and secure knowledge. And that's the exact opposite to the whole creationism-thing: in creationism there are no methods to find out and make sure. And creationism is always starting from scratch (or rather, from the bible). There is no progress in creationism, it's just endlessly repeated insubstantial circular reasoning.

except for there isn't any "secure knowledge" in science at all, there are models and hypothesis that we use to decide how we *think* things work, anyone who says otherwise is imho delusional.

There's "more secure" knowledge, but ultimately science tells us how things work from our frame of reference.

A different species with different chemistry or mental processes might have a very different interpretation of the way things work, and even though they might have similar outcomes the inherent mechanics of the two systems are vastly apart from one another.

well, yeah, but as our frame of reference changes so do our models and hypotheses, that was my point.

There's "more secure" knowledge, but ultimately science tells us how things work from our frame of reference.

A different species with different chemistry or mental processes might have a very different interpretation of the way things work, and even though they might have similar outcomes the inherent mechanics of the two systems are vastly apart from one another.Well at least science is producing some knowledge. Faith on the other hand never does, it always remains in its surreal state.

Well at least science is producing some knowledge. Faith on the other hand never does, it always remains in its surreal state.

In my opinion, when science and faith conflict, science should win out. That doesn't mean faith is bad, just that it has its own place and society and its place is not the realm of scientific inquiry.

While I havn't been following the debate I will comment on that picture. It is completely flawed. It's a fake pie chart for one thing (I saw the original somewhere, something to do with the population of blacks against whites in some area).

Secondly, there is absolutely no reason why a minority can't oppress a majority when the minority have more power.

Though i'll admit there is no christian oppression in the USA in genera.

I don't know, maybe if the Christian section was bright yellow like Pacman...;)

I'm assuming you're referring to Yom?

It's not the word itself, really, but how it is used and context(It's amazing how meanings of how a word is used gets all fuddled up between translations). Yom does infact mean day. However, the problem rises once you realize that there are varying ways to use the word, changing the meaning. In genesis although the term literally means "The First Day", the meaning of the original phrase and how it was written appears to have a meaning more akin to "the first period", so to speak. Thus, a literally translation of the phrase used would make it appear to be "The First Day", when infact, that is not necessarily what the cultural meaning of how the exact phrase is written.

It is really funny, to me, how people seem to think that language are easily transcribed, and that phrases and words mean the same thing in the varying language, when infact this is most assuredly not true.

well, yeah, but as our frame of reference changes so do our models and hypotheses, that was my point.

Yes. Of course, that's also a good thing because it means our models have gotten more and more correct, but it does change over time.

In my opinion, when science and faith conflict, science should win out. That doesn't mean faith is bad, just that it has its own place and society and its place is not the realm of scientific inquiry.It's realm is mental convenience. It's the easy way.

As was said before a couple of pages ago, science is an area of study that deals specifically under a naturalist mindset...to think otherwise would simply be illogical. Scientific fact is cemented with observable, repeatable experiments. I let go of a rock, it falls. I do it again, and the same thing happens. In fact, every single time I let go of a rock on this planet, it falls. Observable, repeatable experiments.

Faith, on the other hand, deals with things that either can't be observed by the five senses, or can't be repeated, or both: motives, miracles, codes of morals and ethics, "why" questions, God. With science I certainly can't repeat the resurrection to determine its cause, nor observe solely through my five senses that murder is wrong, nor even give empirical proof that "wrong" exists. That is because faith does not deal with empirical proof. It deals with the supernatural, and the supernatural is not empirical.

It only makes logical sense that the schools of faith and science would deal with two separate worlds: science with the natural, faith with the supernatural.

If that's the case, then pure science could have nothing to say about faith, and pure faith could have nothing to say about science. Notice I use the word "pure" - because if either were 100% pure, then the above statement would be true. However, as is evidenced by the grand swath of posts in this thread, most people are in the "a little of column A, a little of column B" camp. While they mostly rely on faith, some things they relegate to science. Or if they mostly rely on science, sometimes they have to rely on faith.

Can the Bible explain the natural world? To some extent, yes; but certainly not as well as a scientific textbook, because the Bible wasn't written to describe the natural, but the textbook was. Can a science textbook explain the supernatural world? To some extent, yes; but certainly not as well as the Bible, because the textbook wasn't written to describe the supernatural, but the Bible was.

Simply because something natural can't be explained by faith doesn't mean that faith is useless; faith is based on a supernaturalist mindset. Simply because something supernatural can't be explained by science doesn't mean that science is useless; science is based on a naturalist mindset.

Science can explain what the universe is, but it can't explain why it is, nor it's purpose; that doesn't mean it doesn't have one, it just means that if you wanted an answer to that question, you couldn't get one from science. Faith can explain why a universe would exist, and what it's purpose would be; but if I wanted to know if a universe actually did exist, that question could not be answered through faith.

I would venture to say that if anyone wanted a complete explanation of the universe, they would have to draw from both schools of thought; if a person drew from just one or the other, not only does that rob them of some of the answers they'd be looking for, it would also rob them of the only way to find those answers.

I am a Jew, and I believe that the Torah (the five books of Moses) were written by G-d Himself (well, Moses wrote him down, but G-d was effectively dictating). That said, I see no reason why G-d could not use allegory if He so chose. I believe that most of Genesis prior to Abraham is somewhat allegorical - though the Torah was written for all generations, the priority was on the Hebrews who had just gotten out of Egypt, and who knew squat about science. As Bottle said:
Huh? No, I was saying that the people who wrote the Bible had a vested interest in convincing people.
Well, G-d wrote the Bible (the first five books - the rest was written by mortals, many of whom were prophets) and He had a vested interest in convincing the Hebrews that this book was worth following. Having a single G-d who was invisible and immaterial was weird enough, so He, in His infinite intelligence, used allegories.

As for creationism, I believe that G-d wrote the laws of science, including evolution. It seems that He would be more likely to develop a system that allows creatures to adapt to their environment, rather than simply create all things in their current forms. There are many flaws in plants and animals, that would indicate a poor designer, unless G-d did not directly design them.

As for 'day' that could mean 'stage'. Alternatively, the Jewish scientist Gerald Schroeder wrote in his book Genesis & the Big Bang that since the universe was smaller back then, time would have speeded up, so that what would have taken 13 billion years, in fact only took 5.8 days, according to his calculations. As for the .2 discrepancy between Schroeder and Genesis, I have a simple answer: G-d rounded.

Science can explain what the universe is, but it can't explain why it is, nor it's purpose; that doesn't mean it doesn't have one, it just means that if you wanted an answer to that question, you couldn't get one from science. Faith can explain why a universe would exist, and what it's purpose would be; but if I wanted to know if a universe actually did exist, that question could not be answered through faith.

Please explain: What is the purpose of the universe through Faith then?

As far as I can see, and I'm happy to be corrected on this point, but the purpose according to faith is that God created man merely so that they may love Him.

Otherwise they can go to hell.

Reminds me of a spoilt brat kid.

And how big, or how small, or how different, does it get before you stop calling it a hippo?



The fact the 'day' is not what it says in the Hebrew.


First and foremorest let me apologise for not replying sooner.

I have no idea, but I suppose that is not the real question. From my point of view the real question is "Has there ever been a time when that question had been asked about a Hippo, or any other animal?"

And to my knowledge, the answer is no, I'm sure the media would have lapped up a big dramatic announcement in that should there have been any sort of thing like that.

As for the day, I'm not a Hebrew schollar and like most I have use information from sources that I trust. But let's assume for the sake that you are right, if "day" doesn't mean "24 hour period" what does it mean?

Sources please.

Bazalonia;12585507']As for the day, I'm not a Hebrew schollar and like most I have use information from sources that I trust. But let's assume for the sake that you are right, if "day" doesn't mean "24 hour period" what does it mean?

Sources please.

It means whatever you want it to mean if it backs up your case. Of course, if a fallacy is proved according to that meaning then it must mean something else and so the logical twisting and turning continues ad finitum ad nauseum

The way I look at it, God created the heavens and the earth, period. That being said, there is no way for any of us to know what the exact mechanism of that creation was, nor of its' duration. None of us were there. Any opinions I may offer, or you may offer are in the final analysis, irrelevent. So, perhaps it WAS the Big Bang. So who's to say that was not how God chose to do it? The Bible overall does not fill in the blanks very well, and a good part of it is ultimately left up to faith of the reader, whether you choose to believe or not. Also, most of the Bible is meant to not be taken literally word for word as much of it was passed on from person to person over literally hundreds of years, and much of the rest is couched in symbolism. It's a pretty mixed bag. Some of it is obviously first person rendered accounts, and those I tend to give more credence to. Other areas leave little doubt as to what message is trying to be put across. In reading it, I then listen to my heart, and go from there.

I am a Jew, and I believe that the Torah (the five books of Moses) were written by G-d Himself (well, Moses wrote him down, but G-d was effectively dictating). That said, I see no reason why G-d could not use allegory if He so chose. I believe that most of Genesis prior to Abraham is somewhat allegorical - though the Torah was written for all generations, the priority was on the Hebrews who had just gotten out of Egypt, and who knew squat about science. As Bottle said:

Well, G-d wrote the Bible (the first five books - the rest was written by mortals, many of whom were prophets) and He had a vested interest in convincing the Hebrews that this book was worth following. Having a single G-d who was invisible and immaterial was weird enough, so He, in His infinite intelligence, used allegories.

As for creationism, I believe that G-d wrote the laws of science, including evolution. It seems that He would be more likely to develop a system that allows creatures to adapt to their environment, rather than simply create all things in their current forms. There are many flaws in plants and animals, that would indicate a poor designer, unless G-d did not directly design them.

As for 'day' that could mean 'stage'. Alternatively, the Jewish scientist Gerald Schroeder wrote in his book Genesis & the Big Bang that since the universe was smaller back then, time would have speeded up, so that what would have taken 13 billion years, in fact only took 5.8 days, according to his calculations. As for the .2 discrepancy between Schroeder and Genesis, I have a simple answer: G-d rounded.OK, again. Now we know what you believe. What are the grounds for your belief? Your study of history, physics, chemistry, biology, or your study of the Tanakh, or just your arbitrary acceptance of what others have told you?

Science is the term for "finding out and making sure". That's all it is and should be. It's the constantly refined progressive method used to gain and secure knowledge. And that's the exact opposite to the whole creationism-thing: in creationism there are no methods to find out and make sure. And creationism is always starting from scratch (or rather, from the bible). There is no progress in creationism, it's just endlessly repeated insubstantial circular reasoning.

Sounds like many scientific creation theories as well. But hey, if you think this stuff called Dark Matter exists, because it has to, to make a theory work, or this stuff called dark energy which has prompty been pulled out a scientists ass, to make another theory work. EVEN though, there is really no credible basis to do it, and we say it must be threre because otherwise our theory is wrong....

Yes, that sounds like endlessly repeated insubstantial circular reasoning. And that's what you call science.

Sounds like many scientific creation theories as well. But hey, if you think this stuff called Dark Matter exists, because it has to, to make a theory work, or this stuff called dark energy which has prompty been pulled out a scientists ass, to make another theory work. EVEN though, there is really no credible basis to do it, and we say it must be threre because otherwise our theory is wrong....There is a lot of credible basis to it. Predictions made by scientific models do in no way make the model wrong just because the predictions have not yet be confirmed. You just know jack shit how scientific research works.

Sounds like many scientific creation theories as well. But hey, if you think this stuff called Dark Matter exists, because it has to, to make a theory work, or this stuff called dark energy which has prompty been pulled out a scientists ass, to make another theory work. EVEN though, there is really no credible basis to do it, and we say it must be threre because otherwise our theory is wrong....

Yes, that sounds like endlessly repeated insubstantial circular reasoning. And that's what you call science.

Eh, nobody knows if dark matter exists. It is suspected to exist, because the universe, given our current understanding of it, would be massively different without that unknown something called dark matter. If some dark amtter gets detected, somehow, then it will validate a lot of what we know about the universe. So people are going to keep looking for it until it is found or our we discover that we are wrong in some part of our understanding of the universe.

Nobody's saying "I think things are like this, and to be like this they need dark matter, so there is dark matter."

Sounds like many scientific creation theories as well. But hey, if you think this stuff called Dark Matter exists, because it has to, to make a theory work, or this stuff called dark energy which has prompty been pulled out a scientists ass, to make another theory work. EVEN though, there is really no credible basis to do it, and we say it must be threre because otherwise our theory is wrong....

Yes, that sounds like endlessly repeated insubstantial circular reasoning. And that's what you call science.

I thought Dark Matter was based on the current observational data availalbe?
At the end of the day, its based on the current evidence available. I believe there are also alternate theories trying to explain the current 'evidence'.
But at least they are trying to find answers

I thought Dark Matter was based on the current observational data availalbe?
At the end of the day, its based on the current evidence available. I believe there are also alternate theories trying to explain the current 'evidence'.
But at least they are trying to find answers

Exactly. You win a fluffle.
:fluffle:

Gee, the most you have done so far is try and put me down. Evolution's "evidence," as you say, is still trying to prove it. As my biology teacher said "evolution is a theory, in which a theory must be proved." However, it has not been.

Your biology teacher should be fired. He/she clearly has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of the most fundamental basic concepts in science.

Not only is it completely and totally 100% FALSE to say that "a theory must be proved" in science, but it is NOT POSSILBE.

A theory can be disproven, or it can be supported by evidence.

Fossil record? You found a bunch of bones in the dirt... wow, you are a scientist now.

I love how people who know fuckall about geology and paleantology feel comfortable insulting the life's work of thousands of researchers.


Almost exact DNA? The closest thing to our DNA is a monkey. 95% closeness (which keeps getting further apart everytime we examen it)... Did you know a simple .5% change can kill an animal, or in this case, a specie?

Yes. Of course, depending on how you count it, male human beings and female human beings are about 5% dissimilar. What point do you think you're making, here?


Geologic time column? This does not prove a thing. For one, where did the dirt come from to make those layers? I mean, dirt does not just come from no where.

...

Really?

REALLY?!

Oy. My head hurts.


I guess you could say that meteor hit Earth and then put all those layers in that form, but then that would mean that the dinosaurs are really not evolving. Two, how do you date it? Most scientist date it by either carbon dating or using the 'index fossils.' This is 100% ludicriss! The fossils are either dated by carbon dating or the geologic time column... Circular reasoning...

Not really, but nice try.


Carbon dating? Well sheesh, they carbon dated a living molusk to be over 10,000 years old...

Source please.


Another way they can 'prove' Evolution is by embryonic stages of developement. If you still think this is true, then you are a few decades over date. Heckel who created these fake drawing was tried by his own University a few years after he came out with them, and yet they still use it today...

This is a Creationist lie that is particularly near and dear to me, since I study embryonic development.

Haeckel's fraud was debunked a long way back. You know who debunked it? SCIENTISTS.

Yes, his images still appear in lots of educational texts...ALONG WITH AN ACCOUNT OF HIS FRAUD, AND HOW IT HAS BEEN DISPROVEN. It's a great way to illustrate what we know about embryonic development, and how we know that his claims were wrong.

Plus, the images themselves are pretty nice illustrations.


Another thing,how come we are increasing our age by approx. 60 years per second (I have to do the math again, but I am pretty sure that is accurate). First, the earth was 10 million years old (thanks to Charles Lyle), then a few hundred million, then 2 billion (about 40 or 50 years ago) and now it is 4.5 billion years old. Of course, we could go with Darwins age. He probably would have thought it to be 4,576,236,899 years old (As he said in his book, [forgive my unintelligence in spelling here] the weldium desposites are 662, 409 years old). Do the math. Approx. 180 years and an overall change of 4.49 billion years.

Science isn't static. We revise our theories as we gather new data.

What would you prefer? That we continue claiming the world is 6000 years old simply because that's what our grandparents said?


The Bible actually teaches against Evolution. Well, sciences falsely so called.

I can't figure out what this means.


Evolution can survive only by tax dollars. I can't stand it. If this is such a big issue, then why not make private schools for Evolution? I could careless if my religion is not tax supported, but why should I pay to teach kids a theory that is based off of non-science?

Evolution is science. There is absolutely no significant dispute about this in the scientific community. You are flat-out lying if you claim evolution is not science. I'm sure God will be proud of you.


Furthermore, if it meant millions of years there instead of days, then how did the plants survive as they were created before insects? Kind of hard to polinate without insects is it not?

Not really.

Ever heard of hay fever? It's usually caused by the efforts of wind-polinating plants. Plants which polinate without insects.

Read a book.


The Evolution theory should have been put-down years ago while it was still started.

Why?


If you think you can 'prove' Evolution, or have some-sort of "evidence," then send it to my nation 'Indoslavokia' as this will be my last post.

I usually try to avoid personal attacks, but this is just so cowardly and insulting a post that it boggles my mind.

"I'm going to insult lifetimes of hard work and directly insult thousands and thousands of my fellow humans, and then I'm going to slink away and refuse to confront any of the evidence that I'm full of shite."

Pathetic.


Once, again, I love how people can attack me, my life and what I write down, and yet when I ask for something as simple as "evidence" I never receive it.
You've lied and made completely baseless attacks against me and my life's work. You are living in a glass house, and appear to be seeking employment as a professional stone thrower. Get over yourself.

There is a lot of credible basis to it. Predictions made by scientific models do in no way make the model wrong just because the predictions have not yet be confirmed. You just know jack shit how scientific research works.

What can I say other than I disagree with you entirely.

You just know jack shit how scientific research works.

I only have this to say. "A man shall be known by his learning: but he that is vain and foolish, shall be exposed to contempt. "

Eh, nobody knows if dark matter exists. It is suspected to exist, because the universe, given our current understanding of it, would be massively different without that unknown something called dark matter. If some dark amtter gets detected, somehow, then it will validate a lot of what we know about the universe. So people are going to keep looking for it until it is found or our we discover that we are wrong in some part of our understanding of the universe.

Nobody's saying "I think things are like this, and to be like this they need dark matter, so there is dark matter."

What I would say to you, is that in culture and civilisation theory is being taught as fact. Theory is being accepted as fact. And science is walking away from prove it wrong premise to the prove it right pit.

Science makes vast and uneducated guesses - (You may call them educated, I say they're not given our limited understanding of our own planet, let alone the universe.) A theory is just a theory yes, to the select few, but to the masses it is in fact hard fact.

*snip*

Although I applaud your response Bottle, I'm not sure why you bother on these kinds of posts. They're so far removed from discussing this rationally that it's rather like trying to explain complex algorithms to someone who's having trouble counting to 10.

Edit: Replaced 'effort' - I also would like to take out 'complex' as it's not like anything difficult to grasp is being discussed

What I would say to you, is that in culture and civilisation theory is being taught as fact.

Indeed, religion should be removed from education

What can I say other than I disagree with you entirely.

When two people disagree over a matter of opinion, they can simply agree to disagree.

However, you appear to be disagreeing over a matter of fact. This means that one of you must be (though both of you may be) wrong.


What I would say to you, is that in culture and civilisation theory is being taught as fact. Theory is being accepted as fact. And science is walking away from prove it wrong premise to the prove it right pit.

No, science isn't. I'm a scientist. Have been for years. Was reared by scientists. Science is not now, nor has it been, moving away from the scientific method.

What has been happening is that popular culture and laypeople's misinterpretations are being spread around much more. This is due largely to the explosion of information technology, which allows non-experts to distribute information very very quickly. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing! But it does have the unfortunate side effect that you have lots of non-scientists spreading flawed or misleading information about science.

This is just a great argument for improving science education! If lots of people don't understand science, but seem to really want to talk about it, then that's awesome! We can have more science classes!


Science makes vast and uneducated guesses - (You may call them educated, I say they're not given our limited understanding of our own planet, let alone the universe.)

Then you're either lying or intentionally choosing to be insulting.

Scientific theories take years, sometimes entire lifetimes, to develop and test. The fact that you would refer to them as "uneducated guesses" only highlights the fact that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Come work with me for a day. Seriously. I'll introduce you to my boss, who's been developing a theory of vestibular neuron function for the last 25 years. Please explain to her how her work is simply an "uneducated guess," despite the fact that she has been performing research and studying and investigating for a quarter of a century.


A theory is just a theory yes, to the select few, but to the masses it is in fact hard fact.
Then the masses need to be educated. I've got no problem with that.

Although I applaud your response Bottle, I'm not sure why you bother on these kinds of posts. They're so far removed from discussing this rationally that it's rather like trying to explain complex algorithms to someone who's having trouble counting to 10.

Edit: Replaced 'effort' - I also would like to take out 'complex' as it's not like anything difficult to grasp is being discussed
It's not a noble impulse, if that's what you're thinking. I'm simply ticked off by ignorant, lazy people who choose to try to tear down the hard work of others instead of doing any work of their own. They're rude, they're disrespectful, and I consider it a personal pleasure to highlight their ignorance and lies.

Remember, all these bold Creationists who are tearing down worthless scientific theories are currently doing so by using technology that only exists BECAUSE OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. They are happy to reap the benefits of the hard work of countless scientists, but they can't even be bothered to acknowledge it. Instead, they enjoy spitting in the faces of the very people who make their lifestyle possible.

What I would say to you, is that in culture and civilisation theory is being taught as fact. Theory is being accepted as fact. And science is walking away from prove it wrong premise to the prove it right pit.
Anyone teaching a theory as though it were fact is wrong. Anyone who thinks a theory is fact is wrong.

And scientists don't set out to prove a theory either way, they test a theory, over and over and over. It has to be tested for years before it even is a theory, and even then people keep testing it.

Science makes vast and uneducated guesses - (You may call them educated, I say they're not given our limited understanding of our own planet, let alone the universe.)
They are educated guesses. The fact that there is more we are ignorant about in the universe than we are even close to realising does not mean that scientists are just making random guess work, and your claiming it does insults the thousands upon thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to furthering our understanding, instead of just burying their heads in the sands of ignorance and claiming that a magic sky fairy is resbonsible for everything we don't understand.
A theory is just a theory yes, to the select few, but to the masses it is in fact hard fact.

Then the masses are wrong. What's your point?

It's not a noble impulse, if that's what you're thinking. I'm simply ticked off by ignorant, lazy people who choose to try to tear down the hard work of others instead of doing any work of their own. They're rude, they're disrespectful, and I consider it a personal pleasure to highlight their ignorance and lies.

Meh, they don't really need highlighting, they beam with an intense light of ignorance all on their own.

Still, carry on :)

It's not a noble impulse, if that's what you're thinking. I'm simply ticked off by ignorant, lazy people who choose to try to tear down the hard work of others instead of doing any work of their own. They're rude, they're disrespectful, and I consider it a personal pleasure to highlight their ignorance and lies.

Remember, all these bold Creationists who are tearing down worthless scientific theories are currently doing so by using technology that only exists BECAUSE OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES. They are happy to reap the benefits of the hard work of countless scientists, but they can't even be bothered to acknowledge it. Instead, they enjoy spitting in the faces of the very people who make their lifestyle possible.

My admiration for you grows everytime I see your patient, logical arguments with creationists. I just give up and start taking the piss.

My admiration for you grows everytime I see your patient, logical arguments with creationists. I just give up and start taking the piss.

*grumbles something about his response to Indo two pages back*

*grumbles something about his response to Indo two pages back*

Oops - you manage to do the same as Bottle - more power to both of you (and anyone else I have missed).

My admiration for you grows everytime I see your patient, logical arguments with creationists. I just give up and start taking the piss.
Thanks! Though I have to say, I kind of think you can see my patience slipping a bit. It is very hard to hold my temper when people lie and smear my profession while gleefully enjoying all the perks that have been made possible by the work of scientists just like me. It's hard for me to speak calmly and politely to people who show such disrespect and utter contempt for the truth.

I'm very glad to have other science-minded, reasonable people around these parts, because their posts give me the chance to step back and take a deep breath while somebody else plays Voice Of Reason for a while!

I only have this to say. "A man shall be known by his learning: but he that is vain and foolish, shall be exposed to contempt. "

That fits him! :D

What I would say to you, is that in culture and civilisation theory is being taught as fact. Theory is being accepted as fact. And science is walking away from prove it wrong premise to the prove it right pit.

Regrettably. Science has been trumped by politics :(

Science makes vast and uneducated guesses - (You may call them educated, I say they're not given our limited understanding of our own planet, let alone the universe.) A theory is just a theory yes, to the select few, but to the masses it is in fact hard fact.

Well said.

Indeed, religion should be removed from education

Oh brother :rolleyes:

Well said.

No, it's not.

Isn't it cute when you have somebody's post is torn apart for a page, but then somebody else comes in and says the original post was "well said"?

Different standards of "wellness," I guess...;)

Maybe he was admiring the grammar?

No, it's not.
Isn't it cute when you have somebody's post is torn apart for a page, but then somebody else comes in and says the original post was "well said"?

Different standards of "wellness," I guess...;)

Maybe he was admiring the grammar?

Since he declines to contribute anything beyond head-nodding along with the posts he quotes, I guess we'll never know.

Since he declines to contribute anything beyond head-nodding along with the posts he quotes, I guess we'll never know.Well, I suppose he's too young or too religious to hold opinions independent of mental leadership by others.

Well, I suppose he's too young or too religious to hold opinions independent of mental leadership by others.

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.

I think I see the source of the miscommunication here. Bottle and co. are arguing a position of Science from the perspective of what the Scientific method is, whereas Sith et al. are arguing based on an understanding of what Science is that is derived from the popular model of what the scientific method has so far supposed. Both are correct given their understandings, and perhaps even their understandings have sufficient basis in conventional language to give them the appropriate credibility.

Science, as taught as a collective subject in schools, is about gaining an understanding of the current model of how the world works. The laws of chemical property, physical interaction and biological structure are all part of what has been called the Scientific model.

Science in academia, however, is not learning these laws: it is about the process of skeptical analysis of these laws and models. Relativity, for instance, is not itself science in this respect. Relativity is a series of physical models of dimension and energy. The Science of relativity occurs when we start thinking up tests for that model, such as the use of particle accelerators to explore high-energy behaviour.

Is there a need to semantically divide the two concepts; namely, the learning of current models of reality and the criticism and generation of such models by means of hypothesis and empirical observation? Perhaps so, but the techniques of acquiring knowledge are so closely tied to both approaches that it will be incredibly difficult to do so without creating dependency issues.

I suspect that the best we can do for the moment is ensure that the knowledge that Science has a sort of duality in meaning is made widespread, and to bear this duality in mind every time someone appears wishing to talk about "Sciencey stuff".

Ad hominem attacks will get you nowhere.Oh, it's no attack. It's just the conclusion I have to draw out of his behavior. He started out by wanting to explain how evolution, which he rejects, works, but then he decided to just demonstrate his support for other poster's writings. So far nothing has come out of himself.

I think I see the source of the miscommunication here. Bottle and co. are arguing a position of Science from the perspective of what the Scientific method is, whereas Sith et al. are arguing based on an understanding of what Science is that is derived from the popular model of what the scientific method has so far supposed. Both are correct given their understandings, and perhaps even their understandings have sufficient basis in conventional language to give them the appropriate credibility.

Science, as taught as a collective subject in schools, is about gaining an understanding of the current model of how the world works. The laws of chemical property, physical interaction and biological structure are all part of what has been called the Scientific model.

Science in academia, however, is not learning these laws: it is about the process of skeptical analysis of these laws and models. Relativity, for instance, is not itself science in this respect. Relativity is a series of physical models of dimension and energy. The Science of relativity occurs when we start thinking up tests for that model, such as the use of particle accelerators to explore high-energy behaviour.

Is there a need to semantically divide the two concepts; namely, the learning of current models of reality and the criticism and generation of such models by means of hypothesis and empirical observation? Perhaps so, but the techniques of acquiring knowledge are so closely tied to both approaches that it will be incredibly difficult to do so without creating dependency issues.

I suspect that the best we can do for the moment is ensure that the knowledge that Science has a sort of duality in meaning is made widespread, and to bear this duality in mind every time someone appears wishing to talk about "Sciencey stuff".

The problem is rather that in some folks' understanding models like those explaining evolution are made up or lack credibility due to the fact that evolution cannot necessarily be observed in the short time frame that these folks expect instantly observable phenomena. Some folks reject evolution as a concept because they were taught that humans evolved out of apes and yet they have never seen apes giving birth to humans. It's the same with the big bang or relativity, just because it's beyond what's easily observable. This "sciencey stuff" is beyond their comprehension not because they could not understand it, but because they often willfully re-interpret scientific models by their own terms (often by simplifying them). It's not just a matter of using a different language, it's a matter of having a different expectancy.

Well, I suppose he's too young or too religious to hold opinions independent of mental leadership by others.

I see your mom did not tell you that if you do not have anything nice to say, do not say it at all.

I see your mom did not tell you that if you do not have anything nice to say, do not say it at all.

Your post isn't nice, so can we assume that your mother didn't tell you that either?

Oh, it's no attack. It's just the conclusion I have to draw out of his behavior.

That you have to draw out? No one has to do anything. Then again, you think you know all about me because of what I type here but you know next to nothing about me except that I am a religious person.

He started out by wanting to explain how evolution, which he rejects,

Care to prove that with actual quotes please since I know that I have not stated that I have rejected.

but then he decided to just demonstrate his support for other poster's writings. So far nothing has come out of himself.

And then I will refer you to Myu in the Middle post about both sides being correct when it comes to science.

I think I see the source of the miscommunication here. Bottle and co. are arguing a position of Science from the perspective of what the Scientific method is, whereas Sith et al. are arguing based on an understanding of what Science is that is derived from the popular model of what the scientific method has so far supposed. Both are correct given their understandings, and perhaps even their understandings have sufficient basis in conventional language to give them the appropriate credibility.

Wrong.

We have one side arguing based on what science actually is. We have another side arguing that misinterpretations of what science actually is should be used to define what science actually is.

They are not "correct given their understandings." They are simply wrong. They are mistaken.

They may be very nice people who have been fed some bad information. They may be well-meaning folks who have simply been led astray by cheap media soundbites which don't accurately reflect science. It is entirely possible for a person to be mistaken about science and yet still be a good person at heart.

But they're still wrong.


Science, as taught as a collective subject in schools, is about gaining an understanding of the current model of how the world works. The laws of chemical property, physical interaction and biological structure are all part of what has been called the Scientific model.

Science in academia, however, is not learning these laws: it is about the process of skeptical analysis of these laws and models. Relativity, for instance, is not itself science in this respect. Relativity is a series of physical models of dimension and energy. The Science of relativity occurs when we start thinking up tests for that model, such as the use of particle accelerators to explore high-energy behaviour.

Science is both. Science is both learning AND testing. Any scientists who says they're done learning is either lying or nuts.


Is there a need to semantically divide the two concepts; namely, the learning of current models of reality and the criticism and generation of such models by means of hypothesis and empirical observation?

Hell no.


Perhaps so, but the techniques of acquiring knowledge are so closely tied to both approaches that it will be incredibly difficult to do so without creating dependency issues.

More importantly, why bother?


I suspect that the best we can do for the moment is ensure that the knowledge that Science has a sort of duality in meaning is made widespread, and to bear this duality in mind every time someone appears wishing to talk about "Sciencey stuff".
I suspect that the people who have been insulting evolutionary biology on this thread have not even attempted to gain a rudimentary understanding of what evolutionary theory IS, and therefore are not even slightly interested in honest, thoughtful, meaningful debate.

If they'd like to prove me wrong by presenting cogent SCIENTIFIC arguments, they are welcome to do so.

The problem is rather that in some folks' understanding models like those explaining evolution are made up or lack credibility due to the fact that evolution cannot necessarily be observed in the short time frame that these folks expect instantly observable phenomena.

Most of us do not expect instant observable phenomena. Some do but most of us do not. I know I do not expect it.

Some folks reject evolution as a concept because they were taught that humans evolved out of apes and yet they have never seen apes giving birth to humans.

And when one looks at genetics, we have similar qualities. Indisputable fact. Did apes evolve into humans? That I do not believe.

It's the same with the big bang or relativity, just because it's beyond what's easily observable.

And there has been no way to test Einstien's theory of Relativity until now. What if that is proven wrong? It will be big headline news.

This "sciencey stuff" is beyond their comprehension not because they could not understand it, but because they often willfully re-interpret scientific models by their own terms (often by simplifying them).

Beyond whose comprehension? Mine? I love science. I get excellent science scores so how is it beyond me? Oh wait, I forgot. It is beyond me because I am a born again Christian. :rolleyes:

Your post isn't nice, so can we assume that your mother didn't tell you that either?

Actually it is as polite as I can make it.

And when one looks at genetics, we have similar qualities. Indisputable fact.
I don't think there are any indiputable facts in science.
Did apes evolve into humans? That I do not believe.
Nor is anyone suggesting they did. Modern primates all share a common ancestor. Humans are primates. Apes are primates.


And there has been no way to test Einstien's theory of Relativity until now. What if that is proven wrong? It will be big headline news.
What's your point?


Beyond whose comprehension? Mine? I love science. I get excellent science scores so how is it beyond me? Oh wait, I forgot. It is beyond me because I am a born again Christian. :rolleyes:
If you comprehend it then it's clearly not beyond your comprehension. Surely that's obvious to someone who can get excellent science scores.
Actually it is as polite as I can make it.
Polite and nice aren't the same thing. But enough of this.

"His tail sways like a cedar"? I think not.

Tail is a euphemism for penis.

Edit: Besides, Sauropods were about as aquatic as a cactus. It's been known for years that they avoided water whenever possible. However, since creationists get their knowledge about dinosaurs from kids' books dating from the fifties, they continue to not know this and embarass themselves.

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu Fhtagn!

And when one looks at genetics, we have similar qualities. Indisputable fact. Did apes evolve into humans? That I do not believe.

Happily, evolutionary theory agrees with you! Modern apes and humans SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR.

This is like how you and your cousin share common grandparents, but your cousins did not evolve into you.


Beyond whose comprehension? Mine? I love science. I get excellent science scores so how is it beyond me? Oh wait, I forgot. It is beyond me because I am a born again Christian. :rolleyes:
If you have "excellent science scores" without understanding the concept of common ancestors, then I have to wonder who is testing you.

I can only judge your comprehension of science based on what you post here. Your posts, thus far, have shown that you are largely ignorant about fundamentals. The fact that you are Christian is irrelevant. Several of the most informed scientific posters around these forums are Christians. Don't bother trying to use some imagined religious persecution as an excuse for your own shortcomings.

I see your mom did not tell you that if you do not have anything nice to say, do not say it at all.
"Nice" is irrelevant in this discussion.

If you're wrong, and I point it out by saying "You're wrong, fuckhead," then I have chosen to be rude in how I express the fact that you are wrong. But my rudeness doesn't impact how wrong you were. You'd have been just as wrong if I politely informed you, "I beg your pardon, sir, but I believe you may be mistaken."

Several of the most informed scientific posters around these forums are Christians. Don't bother trying to use some imagined religious persecution as an excuse for your own shortcomings.

Maybe I need to explain to him that I can be an excellent Christian, and still believe that science is right about evolution and the creation of the universe...

Source please.
It's a beauty. See, you can't carbon-date living marine organisms. I don't know the details, but anyone involved in radiometric dating knows that, and knows why. So AiG, fully aware of this, decides to carbon-date a living marine organism.

The creation story found in the Torah is more or less oral tradition. Look to the Qur'an for creation story. The Qur'an introduced the idea of a "Big Bang" as well as many other nuggets of scientific knowledge we have only recently discovered. Qur'an is the purification of the religion of Abraham that has been corrupted throughout time just as the muslim world has been corrupted since the revealing of the Qur'an 1400 years ago.

www.submission.org

look under the Qur'an and science tabs

The creation story found in the Torah is more or less oral tradition. Look to the Qur'an for creation story. The Qur'an introduced the idea of a "Big Bang" as well as many other nuggets of scientific knowledge we have only recently discovered. Qur'an is the purification of the religion of Abraham that has been corrupted throughout time just as the muslim world has been corrupted since the revealing of the Qur'an 1400 years ago.

www.submission.org

look under the Qur'an and science tabs

Sovie, is that you?

It's a beauty. See, you can't carbon-date living marine organisms. I don't know the details, but anyone involved in radiometric dating knows that, and knows why. So AiG, fully aware of this, decides to carbon-date a living marine organism.Just let Indoslavokia explain how carbon-dating works, and maybe (s)he'll find out herself pretty quick why it is somewhat pointless to try to carbon-date living organisms. Even with long dead organisms carbon-dating never produces absolute dates. However, carbon-dating as such works just fine.
Isn't it funny that god would have created radioactive decay in a way that it proves his creationist followers wrong?

Sounds like many scientific creation theories as well. But hey, if you think this stuff called Dark Matter exists, because it has to, to make a theory work, or this stuff called dark energy which has prompty been pulled out a scientists ass, to make another theory work. EVEN though, there is really no credible basis to do it, and we say it must be threre because otherwise our theory is wrong....

Yes, that sounds like endlessly repeated insubstantial circular reasoning. And that's what you call science.

Uh... there is more to "Dark Matter" than merely it having to exist or else the Theory fails.

What "Dark Matter" is, is some form of matter that for some freaking reason we cannot detect, and does not interact with other matter in the same sense that normal matter does. We know it exists because we see the effect of it. We know there is more matter in the universe than what appears to be, as everything acts as though there is more matter. Problem is, we haven't figured out what it exactly is. But we know it's there, not because it has to exist for a theory to work, but because we can observe it's effect.

The creation story found in the Torah is more or less oral tradition. Look to the Qur'an for creation story. The Qur'an introduced the idea of a "Big Bang" as well as many other nuggets of scientific knowledge we have only recently discovered. Qur'an is the purification of the religion of Abraham that has been corrupted throughout time just as the muslim world has been corrupted since the revealing of the Qur'an 1400 years ago.

www.submission.org

look under the Qur'an and science tabsWhat exactly was Abraham's religion? Worship of Enlil, Enki (who was later re-fashioned into Yhvh), and Inanna?

Just let Indoslavokia explain how carbon-dating works, and maybe (s)he'll find out herself pretty quick why it is somewhat pointless to try to carbon-date living organisms. Even with long dead organisms carbon-dating never produces absolute dates. However, carbon-dating as such works just fine.

Indeed. However, one must be bloody careful what you carbon date. For instance, there was issues with carbon-dated clamshells from archaeological sites a while back that made it appear that these sites were several hundred years older than they should have been.

Of course, creationists clamored on about "Carbon-dating being innaccurate!" and such.

Of course, it was later found out that due to the nature of the clam shells, and what clams eat, it throws the entire thing out of whack, in a sense. It wasn't a problem with Carbon Dating, just a problem with what was used to Carbon Date.

Indeed. However, one must be bloody careful what you carbon date. For instance, there was issues with carbon-dated clamshells from archaeological sites a while back that made it appear that these sites were several hundred years older than they should have been.

Of course, creationists clamored on about "Carbon-dating being innaccurate!" and such.

Of course, it was later found out that due to the nature of the clam shells, and what clams eat, it throws the entire thing out of whack, in a sense. It wasn't a problem with Carbon Dating, just a problem with what was used to Carbon Date.?? What do clam shells eat?
And before you reveal any more information, let Indoslavokia or LancasterCounty explain how carbon-dating works...

Just let Indoslavokia explain how carbon-dating works, and maybe (s)he'll find out herself pretty quick why it is somewhat pointless to try to carbon-date living organisms. Even with long dead organisms carbon-dating never produces absolute dates. However, carbon-dating as such works just fine.
Isn't it funny that god would have created radioactive decay in a way that it proves his creationist followers wrong?

I phrased it wrong. You can't carbon-date living organisms, for obvious reasons. (They keep taking in C-14 throughout their life, and expell N-12 [I think] as well.) You also can't carbon-date marine organisms, for less obvious reasons. I can't remember why, but I know you'd can't carbon-date them.

I phrased it wrong. You can't carbon-date living organisms, for obvious reasons. (They keep taking in C-14 throughout their life, and expell N-12 [I think] as well.) You also can't carbon-date marine organisms, for less obvious reasons. I can't remember why, but I know you'd can't carbon-date them.damn :eek: :rolleyes: ;)

?? What do clam shells eat?
And before you reveal any more information, let Indoslavokia or LancasterCounty explain how carbon-dating works...

It also has to do with how they make their shells, as well, but yes, I am curious on that as well.

It also has to do with how they make their shells, as well, but yes, I am curious on that as well.

Ah, found why it doesn't work on aquatic organisms.

Radiocarbon dating utilizes C14 and C12 ratios to produce a date. But where does C14 come from? It turns out that the C14 isotopes needed for doing dating come from the atmospheric reservoir, and thus only carbon artifacts resulting from a terrestrial and atmospheric carbon utilization will be accurately dated by these methods.

Notice that all of the examples given of discordantly dated artifacts result from organisms from aquatic environments or which obtain significant amounts of carbon from aquatic sources. Since carbon in aquatic environments may have long since have been removed from atmospheric sources, it will have depleted its ratio of C14 to C12 already to some degree even before incorporation into the organism eventually tested. Trying to produce a C14 date when the initial assumptions are violated is not likely to succeed.


From http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/oct99.html

Ah, found why it doesn't work on aquatic organisms.



From http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/oct99.html

Yep. I found this particular bit of info out in one of my classes, where what I assume was a Christian fundamentalist brought this up. The teacher tore the argument apart, and the kid walked out of class.

These kinds of instance really are good for helping you remember such types of information.

Ah, found why it doesn't work on aquatic organisms.



From http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/oct99.html

Yep. I found this particular bit of info out in one of my classes, where what I assume was a Christian fundamentalist brought this up. The teacher tore the argument apart, and the kid walked out of class.

These kinds of instance really are good for helping you remember such types of information.

Yep. I found this particular bit of info out in one of my classes, where what I assume was a Christian fundamentalist brought this up. The teacher tore the argument apart, and the kid walked out of class.

These kinds of instance really are good for helping you remember such types of information.And a lesson for the kid. I hope.

And a lesson for the kid. I hope.

I sincerely doubt it. That was why he walked out of the class.

Which is unfortunate.

Happily, evolutionary theory agrees with you! Modern apes and humans SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR.

And what is your point here?

This is like how you and your cousin share common grandparents, but your cousins did not evolve into you.

Thank the Lord because I do not even like some of my cousins (most notably the adult ones)

If you have "excellent science scores" without understanding the concept of common ancestors, then I have to wonder who is testing you.

Oh how about public schools?

I can only judge your comprehension of science based on what you post here. Your posts, thus far, have shown that you are largely ignorant about fundamentals. The fact that you are Christian is irrelevant. Several of the most informed scientific posters around these forums are Christians. Don't bother trying to use some imagined religious persecution as an excuse for your own shortcomings.

My own shortcomings? Yes I have them as does everyone. No one needs to point them out to me for I already know them. Thanks though :)

Maybe I need to explain to him that I can be an excellent Christian, and still believe that science is right about evolution and the creation of the universe...

How about no you do not have to do so?

Oh how about public schools?

Aha! I think that we've found the culprit!

?? What do clam shells eat?
And before you reveal any more information, let Indoslavokia or LancasterCounty explain how carbon-dating works...

How should i know how Carbon-dating works? I am not a scientist nor an Archeologist. I do not know the procedure either so leave me out of it.

Oh how about public schools?


Oh, right. The public schools that have been forced to stop teaching pretty much every single facet of science because of creationists?

Ah, found why it doesn't work on aquatic organisms.



From http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/oct99.html

Thank you for the information. :)

Oh, right. The public schools that have been forced to stop teaching pretty much every single facet of science because of creationists?

Was this sarcasm? Hopefully it was because my response was sarcasm too.

Was this sarcasm? Hopefully it was because my response was sarcasm too.

The only way your response could have been sarcasm would be if you went to a private school. Sarcasm actually has a definition, you know.

And for the record, I am entirely serious on how creationists have forced public schools to stop teaching almost every single aspect of science.

Pony up.

I have a question for Creationists, a rather long winded one. It is on the matter of Biblical justification for certain things and while i am open to getting slammed for what I think I dont want to bother posting my opinion to be forced to listen to the Anti-religious(minority) around who just like to blather pointlessly about the stupidity of religion.

I do however have bone to pick with Creationism, and I am sincerely hoping there is indeed someone here who can earnestly represent that particular group.

So if you are a Creationist(In the Christian Fundamentalist sense--for clearification) please step up and have a dialogue with me for a tic or two.

If I cant find any...I will give it a day bump the thread and place my question for people in general to discuss...though it will be pointless without the opposition's point of veiw.

EDIT:
Since there are indeed interested parties.

I am Believer.
I believe in Jesus Christ is the son of God, that he died on the cross as a blood sacrifice for the sins of the world.
I believe he is the Messiah.
I believe in the trinity.

I am believer who submits himself to the bible, as best as I can...and I often fall short.

There is the qualifier.
Now, on the matter of creation.
In genisis we are all familiar witht he six days of work and the seventh day of rest.

I would like to know why this is taken literally when the bible clearly states man can not know Gods time.

Or to clearify.
I believe that the Big Bang, is perfectly acceptable theory to walk hand in hand with genisis---first there was the void.

I also believe that genisis is practically describing evolution.
the sea, the earth, the crawling, the larger animals, then finally--Man form the earth. From the dirt.
Evolution doesnt even contradict a First Man First Woman theory.

So, what I want to know why in the creation of earht and man are the scientific theories of the Big Bang, and Evolution so tabboo? SO wrong?

Why are not the Seven Days alagory, or man being fashioned from dirt alagory...if truly genisis was delivered in a vision how could a man of the period hope to describe the information he was imparting?

Why is it that for a Perfect All powerful God Evolution such a complex mechanism? Surely designing evolution would be but an after thought for an Almighty God?

And if in the blink of an eye you were to be shown the Evolutionary process through a spiritual vision...how else would you describe it then "Man came from dirt"?

And if creation is indeed at the hand of God(which I believe) they doesnt it make sense that it has taken man a thousand generations to even scratch the surface of the process involved?

And be even less certain of the creation of the universe?

Simply, why are evolution and the big bang veiwed as heresy when clearly they are perfectly well within the power of God to inact?

What biblical justification is there for taking Genisis descriptions and designations of time literally?

Remember, the following is simply my opinion. There may be little to no science in this at all. if you disagree with it, then fine. I will not debate my opinion.

When I was younger, I believed the seven days took seven days. Only I was thinking seven of our days. Then, later on, I learned of The Big Bang Theory and Evolution. I thought something had to be wrong. They all sounded right, and that was just impossible, right? wrong.

I believe their two sides of the same coin. While yes, the vision of creation was probably revealed very quickly in comparison to how long it actually took, one must also remember, that for most people with very little understanding of how something actually works, a story is much easier to remember than a list of facts. Thus, the seven days story. Its only now, many many years in the future when we have a better understanding of how The universe works that we can begin to come up with scientific facts on how it actually happened.

So then, what about it? Big Bang? God's Divine powers? Both. An explosion is a Reaction not an action. So, what caused the action? What created that egg in the first place? There are a varity of concepts that answer this, but as this thread is on Creationism, the simplest and easiest answer is God.
What Mortal Man truely understands God's Timing? We see a Day in the Bible. Scientists see Millions, if not Billions of years. They also clearly see diffrent developmental periods in history, as Life evolved.

I seem to be alone in this though. I believe Evolution happened. How can someone doubt something, when the proof is before them?
I believe Evolution and The Big Bang did happen, guided by God.

And for the record, I am entirely serious on how creationists have forced public schools to stop teaching almost every single aspect of science.

Sad really :(

The only way your response could have been sarcasm would be if you went to a private school. Sarcasm actually has a definition, you know.

And for the record, I am entirely serious on how creationists have forced public schools to stop teaching almost every single aspect of science.The good thing is though, that the creationism crap has not yet spread too much outside the US.

Exactly. You win a fluffle.
:fluffle:

YaY:)

Sorta. I'm kinda the deist type who believes God left earth alone and let evolution and nature take the wheel for the most part, besides prayers & the J-Man.

Maybe BOTTLE can be a bit of assistance on this.

Does'nt the fact that we share a lot of genetic information with certain species allow us to speculate that we might have common ancestors if we go far enough back in time? I believe it is now claimed with share 94% of the same genetic material as Chimps.
And the more distant the relationship with another species the lower the shared % of DNA.

Second
What about vestigial structures? The best example I can think of is the hind leg bones in whales?

Maybe BOTTLE can be a bit of assistance on this.

Does'nt the fact that we share a lot of genetic information with certain species allow us to speculate that we might have common ancestors if we go far enough back in time? I believe it is now claimed with share 94% of the same genetic material as Chimps.
And the more distant the relationship with another species the lower the shared % of DNA.
Yes, we can infer from the fact we're genetically similiar to other species that we share a common ancestor.

Second
What about vestigial structures? The best example I can think of is the hind leg bones in whales?

What about them?

Yes, we can infer from the fact we're genetically similiar to other species that we share a common ancestor.

What about them?

Well don't these give credibility to evolution? Even for someone who does'nt agree with evolution

Why else would whales has these vestigial structure unless they're ancestors wer at some point land based?

Or in the case of primates sharing DNA. For what other reason than common ancestry could there be?

I'm asking these questions for 2 reasons. First, its always fun to learn something new, and not just to take existing knowledge on 'faith'. Second a learned answer to these questions might help to convince people why the current theory of evolution is held to be the best answer to why we are here and so on

I held off as long as I could before posting this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1KGZSFmfs

:D

I held off as long as I could before posting this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1KGZSFmfs

:D

lol

I held off as long as I could before posting this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj1KGZSFmfs

:D

I'm surprised the thread got to this point without that video.

Well don't these give credibility to evolution? Even for someone who does'nt agree with evolution

Why else would whales has these vestigial structure unless they're ancestors wer at some point land based?

Or in the case of primates sharing DNA. For what other reason than common ancestry could there be?

I'm asking these questions for 2 reasons. First, its always fun to learn something new, and not just to take existing knowledge on 'faith'. Second a learned answer to these questions might help to convince people why the current theory of evolution is held to be the best answer to why we are here and so on

Expected response from Creationists: Whales land-based before Flood.

I'm surprised the thread got to this point without that video.

So am I. I guess I have to do everything myself. :rolleyes:


;)

The good thing is though, that the creationism crap has not yet spread too much outside the US.


So you mean that there are 2 billion christians in America alone? Did you know that less then 6% of Americans believe in Evolution? Further, did you know that there ARE ub fact over 2 billion christians in the world?

I think that there are less Evolution believers than there are any other religions... I am not sure, it just would sound like it.

In the Evolution theory[I] is simply a theory, in which needs to be yet proven, just like the creation theory. You can not prove that we came from a speck of dust billions of years ago, and you can not prove that we came from a higher being. Thus, both should either be in or out of the text books.

Another thing, in the text books the main focus is micro Evolution. You have 6 different forms of Evolution to have to happen before that. The only items that they describe in the text books are the Micro, Macro and stellar Evolutions.

None of the "scientific" theories state how we became, they merely theorise how we got on Earth.

The Big Bang [I]theory does not even state how we got the trinity of trinites* (Time, space and matter). Absolutely NONE of these theories even come close to stating how any of these came into existance... for any one of these trinities to become true they would all have to appear AT THE SAME TIME. How does the Big Bang theory say we got here? The meteor theory only states how a few biological bacteria got here.

It does state, however, that we came from rocks 4.5 billion years ago. (The Big Bang theory literally states "the rain fell on the rocks [rocks] for millions of years.)

One last thing. Does the cell theory disprove Evolution:


All living organisms are composed of one or more cells
Cells are the basic units of structure and function in an organism
!!!!!!CELLS COME ONLY FROM THE REPRODUCTION OF EXISTING CELLS!!!!


So therefore, the last law in the cell theory disporves it, becuase water+rocks do not make living material.

Did you know that if you add air to the chicken soup that the rain and rocks made, you can not create life? However, without the air, you can not create life! A college text book also stated that when the earth was a few million or billion years old, there was 0% air... and yet it also states that at the very same point, the rocks were absorbing it.

Which one would be better? The one that states there is a higher being. The one that states there is a higher being is better due to the fact that it states how we all got here AND it states the trinities in the first sentece.

"In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and Earth (matter)." [Genisis 1:1].

Summary.

The big bang theory has no "evidence," neither does the creation theory. The big bang theory does not state where the trinity of trinities came from.* It does not even explain where the dust came from to make the dot. The Evolution theory survives off of tax dollars only. The creation theory puts all of these into action a mere page of a book.

*The trinity of trinities are:
Time: past present future.
Space: lenght width and hieght.
Matter: solid liquid gas.

Expected response from Creationists: Whales land-based before Flood.

I guess whales don't get to reproduce then... The bones back there are for repoduction...

Vestigal structures are the oposite of Evolution. Evolution would mean a gain in complexity, not the other way around.

They say we had a tail at one point and no longer need it... I WANT ONE!! I mean, I could drink with one hand, hold a cigar with my tail and drive witht he other hand!

It also has to do with how they make their shells, as well, but yes, I am curious on that as well.

Well, I am not sure how it works precisely, however, I read magazines that state ages of stuff all the time. Like for instance, one end of a mammoth c-14 dated at 25k years old while the other end dated at 10k.

I do know that you have to reach equillimbrium to c-14 date, which even most scientist would agree we have not reached. They suspect that it takes approx. 30k years to reach it. So why have we not reached it yet?

The only way your response could have been sarcasm would be if you went to a private school. Sarcasm actually has a definition, you know.

And for the record, I am entirely serious on how creationists have forced public schools to stop teaching almost every single aspect of science.

Oh really? Most sciences branch off of either the Bible itself, or branch off from a science that was started by a... who? A christian? Who would have thought?

"Nice" is irrelevant in this discussion.

If you're wrong, and I point it out by saying "You're wrong, fuckhead," then I have chosen to be rude in how I express the fact that you are wrong. But my rudeness doesn't impact how wrong you were. You'd have been just as wrong if I politely informed you, "I beg your pardon, sir, but I believe you may be mistaken."

Yet another left-wing liberal... So, instead of attacking his theory you attack him?

I have seen people calling both creationism and evolution a "science." However, what does science mean?

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Seeing as neither can be seen or experimented with, neither are a science. Therefore what are they?

<WWW.Dictionary.COM>

Just let Indoslavokia explain how carbon-dating works, and maybe (s)he'll find out herself pretty quick why it is somewhat pointless to try to carbon-date living organisms. Even with long dead organisms carbon-dating never produces absolute dates. However, carbon-dating as such works just fine.
Isn't it funny that god would have created radioactive decay in a way that it proves his creationist followers wrong?


You are correct. When the date does not agree with the geologic time column then the evolutionists throw it out.

Wrong.

We have one side arguing based on what science actually is. We have another side arguing that misinterpretations of what science actually is should be used to define what science actually is.

They are not "correct given their understandings." They are simply wrong. They are mistaken.

They may be very nice people who have been fed some bad information. They may be well-meaning folks who have simply been led astray by cheap media soundbites which don't accurately reflect science. It is entirely possible for a person to be mistaken about science and yet still be a good person at heart.

But they're still wrong.


Science is both. Science is both learning AND testing. Any scientists who says they're done learning is either lying or nuts.


Hell no.


More importantly, why bother?


I suspect that the people who have been insulting evolutionary biology on this thread have not even attempted to gain a rudimentary understanding of what evolutionary theory IS, and therefore are not even slightly interested in honest, thoughtful, meaningful debate.

If they'd like to prove me wrong by presenting cogent SCIENTIFIC arguments, they are welcome to do so.

So you are biasing your arguement with an unopened mind thus you can not make any clear arguement at all. Maybe it is YOU that do not understand the bible?

I have posted SEVERAL arguements against Evolution for which you have not even bothered to look at. Therefore, you are wrong again.

Saying "why bother" is a lovely thing to say. "Oh, Russia is taking over the world, why bother stopping them?"

I have seen people calling both creationism and evolution a "science." However, what does science mean?

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Seeing as neither can be seen or experimented with, neither are a science. Therefore what are they?

<WWW.Dictionary.COM>

Evolution can both be observed and experimented with. You're either a liar or ignorant.

Well, I am not sure how it works precisely, however, I read magazines that state ages of stuff all the time. Like for instance, one end of a mammoth c-14 dated at 25k years old while the other end dated at 10k.
That is a flat-out lie perpetrated by AiG. It never happened.

I do know that you have to reach equillimbrium to c-14 date, which even most scientist would agree we have not reached. They suspect that it takes approx. 30k years to reach it. So why have we not reached it yet?
And that's meaningless bullshit. Seriously, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Evolution can both be observed and experimented with. You're either a liar or ignorant.

No, sir, I believe that it is you who is the ignoramous. I would love to see you give an example of how it can be experimented with and how it is observed.

None of it is meaningless unless you have an iq of a rock.

Edit: Oh yea, that is right, you must have a small amount of intelligence to use that sort of language.

No, sir, I believe that it is you who is the ignoramous. I would love to see you give an example of how it can be experimented with and how it is observed.

None of it is meaningless unless you have an iq of a rock.

*sigh* The adaptation of certain organisms to changing conditions in their environment through random mutation and the selection of certain traits favorable to survival.

Drug resistant bacteria, anyone?

Well, I am not sure how it works precisely, however, I read magazines that state ages of stuff all the time. Like for instance, one end of a mammoth c-14 dated at 25k years old while the other end dated at 10k.

I do know that you have to reach equillimbrium to c-14 date, which even most scientist would agree we have not reached. They suspect that it takes approx. 30k years to reach it. So why have we not reached it yet?
So, you read in a magazine about carbon dating. That would explain that equilibrium bit, which makes no sense. Carbon dating doesn't have some sort of 30,000 equilibrium, or whatever it's suppoed to be. There are some good sites on the Internet that can explain C-14 dating better than that, they'd be a much better place to start.
Oh really? Most sciences branch off of either the Bible itself, or branch off from a science that was started by a... who? A christian? Who would have thought?
What sciences branch off of the Bible? Physics, biology, chemistry, medicine perhaps? And what the hell does a scientist's religion have to do with anything? They didn't advance science through prayer, you know.

You are correct. When the date does not agree with the geologic time column then the evolutionists throw it out.
Why should outliers be kept when dating methods could produce all kinds of error? Dates that don't agree are treated with skepticism, as they should be, because they are quite possibly wrong. What kind of dates could an "evolutionist" possibly want to throw out, anyway? You seem to imply a conspiracy that doesn't exist.
I have seen people calling both creationism and evolution a "science." However, what does science mean?

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Seeing as neither can be seen or experimented with, neither are a science. Therefore what are they?

<WWW.Dictionary.COM>
You have confused things quite a bit here. Evolution isn't a science, it is a theory, in the same way creationism is a theory, defined by dictionary.com as:

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Surely you can see that.
So you are biasing your arguement with an unopened mind thus you can not make any clear arguement at all. Maybe it is YOU that do not understand the bible?

I have posted SEVERAL arguements against Evolution for which you have not even bothered to look at. Therefore, you are wrong again.

Saying "why bother" is a lovely thing to say. "Oh, Russia is taking over the world, why bother stopping them?"

You're arguments all seem to be argued from a position of inexperience and conjecture, not to mention extreme bias. If you want people to take you seriously, then arguing a subject you actually know about is a good is a better course of action.

No, sir, I believe that it is you who is the ignoramous. I would love to see you give an example of how it can be experimented with and how it is observed.

None of it is meaningless unless you have an iq of a rock.

Edit: Oh yea, that is right, you must have a small amount of intelligence to use that sort of language.

You have heard of the fossil record, right?

*sigh* The adaptation of certain organisms to changing conditions in their environment through random mutation and the selection of certain traits favorable to survival.

Drug resistant bacteria, anyone?

Ok...

You have heard of the fossil record, right?


So, you find a bunch of bones in the ground... that proves Evolution?

Ok...

...ooook?

No, sir, I believe that it is you who is the ignoramous. I would love to see you give an example of how it can be experimented with and how it is observed.

Take a bunch of fruit flies. Isolate them into two groups, and feed them different things. Wait a few hundred generations. Put them back together. You will observe that the two groups will not interbreed, making them separate species. Viola. I have fulfilled both qualifications.

Also, the Nylon Bug and HeLa. Both are examples of speciation that have been observed to occur. Hell, HeLa is arguably a completely new phylum.

So, you find a bunch of bones in the ground... that proves Evolution?

No, you find a bunch of bones that not only show you the physical feature of creatures that lived long ago, but also in sufficient quantity to show the changes in physical characteristics over millions of years. Now you have material evidence for a theory, so all you need is a theory that explains your evidence.

Now, guess which theory would explain millions of years of changing organisms as exhibited by their physical remains.

So, you read in a magazine about carbon dating. That would explain that equilibrium bit, which makes no sense. Carbon dating doesn't have some sort of 30,000 equilibrium, or whatever it's suppoed to be. There are some good sites on the Internet that can explain C-14 dating better than that, they'd be a much better place to start.

Well, first off, I do not just read one magazine. I read articles of newspapes and the such. Second, this is what a lot of the scientists teach.

What sciences branch off of the Bible? Physics, biology, chemistry, medicine perhaps? And what the hell does a scientist's religion have to do with anything? They didn't advance science through prayer, you know.

Yes, however, how many scientists -who were Evolutionist- came up with a new branch of science... not many let me assure you.

Why should outliers be kept when dating methods could produce all kinds of error? Dates that don't agree are treated with skepticism, as they should be, because they are quite possibly wrong. What kind of dates could an "evolutionist" possibly want to throw out, anyway? You seem to imply a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

A scientist may or may not get the results he wants, so therefore he throws it out. He does not keep the result. I mean, c'mon, if you want to prove a theory, then why would you want to actually use real science?

You have confused things quite a bit here. Evolution isn't a science, it is a theory, in the same way creationism is a theory, defined by dictionary.com as:

a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

Surely you can see that.

Yea... Did I not say that they were both theories and not sciences..?


You're arguments all seem to be argued from a position of inexperience and conjecture, not to mention extreme bias. If you want people to take you seriously, then arguing a subject you actually know about is a good is a better course of action.


And so let me guess, you got 5 Ph.D's in every science field and math realm? Let us face it, we are not all professors. I was merely puting him down for trying to make someone else seem like they are looking from every angle as a biased objection. (I will admitt that I do add some "bias" in my research and such, however, I try and keep an opened mind.)

So, since you think you have it all, then try and give me some evidence for Evolution that I can not refute.

I would like to know why this is taken literally when the bible clearly states man can not know Gods time.

I do not take it literally. I've always felt that it could mean thousands, millions, billions, trillions etc. of years, as what we've learned so far of evolution. And yes, I thought that before I ever really knew anything about evolution. So no.. bible thumper (not you) .. it wasn't the 'evil' evolutionist that put that in my head.

So, what I want to know why in the creation of earht and man are the scientific theories of the Big Bang, and Evolution so tabboo? SO wrong?

They shouldn't be. I believe God created Evolution. And any 'religious' person needs to check their faith and common sense if they feel that evolution crosses out Gods hand in the making.

And no, I'm not saying that people who do not believe in God need to check their common sense on this matter. This is about people who supposibly Do believe, and yet they find it unfathomable that God could create such a brilliant thing as evolution. I just don't get it. God is the Alpha and the Omega right? The creator of all. But yet.. nope .. no way God would do such a thing as evolution.

I really want to think that these supposed believers of God, but deniers of evolution are not saying God couldn't and wouldn't (like we know what all Gods capable of) create evolution, but that they feel the evolution theory's sole purpose is to 'prove' of no God. But imo it's their fault that this notion of evolution=no God was put out there in the first place, by them flat out denying God did it!

I do find the disbelief of God also lacking in common sense, even though I can understand why some don't. But that's another time and place.

And so let me guess, you got 5 Ph.D's in every science field and math realm? Let us face it, we are not all professors. I was merely puting him down for trying to make someone else seem like they are looking from every angle as a biased objection. (I will admitt that I do add some "bias" in my research and such, however, I try and keep an opened mind.)

since you think you have it all, then try and give me some evidence for Evolution that I can not refute.

To respond to one of the points in that lengthy quote, during any statistical analysis, data taken that falls outside a certain percentage bound as an outlier is typically discarded as an erroneous response or random error.

You've been supplied with evidence. The fruit flies in CthulhuFthagn's post, the bacteria in mine.

So, you find a bunch of bones in the ground... that proves Evolution?

Well...

fossil evidence
geological evidence
molecular evidence
genetic evidence
observed speciation

...and the fact that evolution is simply random genetic mutations which cause a change in inherited traits, some of which may prove to be beneficial to a population of organisms and therefore more likely to propagate themselves and increase their frequency in said population.

among many other forms pretty much gives credence to the theory of evolution. of course, creationists will flat out deny that any of this actually exists.

Well, first off, I do not just read one magazine. I read articles of newspapes and the such. Second, this is what a lot of the scientists teach.
Newspapers and magazines are not good sources of scientific knowledge, especially if you haven't had education in the relevant field. From the second point, I take it you haven't had that education. Carbon dating has its faults, but not the stuff you were trying to describe.

Yes, however, how many scientists -who were Evolutionist- came up with a new branch of science... not many let me assure you.
The point was supposed to be that a scientist's beliefs aren't relevant to their scientific accomplishments, but never mind that now. There are quite a few new theories of biology and medicine that some consider branches of science built upon evolutionary theory. A scientist doesn't have to regard a theory as an -ism to make build off of it.

A scientist may or may not get the results he wants, so therefore he throws it out. He does not keep the result. I mean, c'mon, if you want to prove a theory, then why would you want to actually use real science?
Scientists don't prove theories. If you want to talk about proof, you go to mathematics. In science, you support or contradict theory using the available evidence. Odd dates could easily point to new directions in a theory, indicate a flaw in the dating process, or be the result of human error. None are simply thrown out without good reason.

Yea... Did I not say that they were both theories and not sciences..?
You called them both sciences.

And so let me guess, you got 5 Ph.D's in every science field and math realm? Let us face it, we are not all professors. I was merely puting him down for trying to make someone else seem like they are looking from every angle as a biased objection. (I will admitt that I do add some "bias" in my research and such, however, I try and keep an opened mind.)
We may not all be professors, but it is fairly obvious you weren't even a student. This is the sort of rather elementary stuff you learn if you try to study it seriously in a university, or even reading a textbook, instead of relying on newspapers and magazines.

since you think you have it all, then try and give me some evidence for Evolution that I can not refute.
There has been a hundred and fifty years of research done involving this theory. Where do you propose to begin?

The problem with the understanding of evolution by the less educated folks around is that they expect that a frog could turn into a horse and stuff like that. They expect to observe changes in the individual organism during its lifetime. But that's not how evolution works. Evolution works between the generations.
If on a dirty table a population of bacteria exists, and one cleans the table with a detergent then there might be some bacteria who have a natural immunity against the detergent, caused by the natural variance within the population's individual properties (of the respective genome and thus of the respective organism). Those who happen to have the immunity will survive and replace the original population. That's how evolution works. Often not as drastic but that's how changes in population come about. The adaption of a population to new circumstances is a passive process, because it is the change of environment conditions that will select the individuals out of the population that happen to have the right properties for survival, and it is these individuals' genetic properties that will prevail in subsequent generations.

Completely denying Evolution is retarded, and everyone knows it.

How do you suppose a species of fish can evolve to survive in sulfuric acid in the bottom of a cave?

Or for that matter, species of salamanders that are born without eyes also dwelling in caves. The species have vestigal orbital sockets, and clearly had eyes 1000 generations ago.
Living breathing proof of evolution is all around us people.

The problem with the understanding of evolution by the less educated folks around is that they expect that a frog could turn into a horse and stuff like that. They expect to observe changes in the individual organism during its lifetime. But that's not how evolution works. Evolution works between the generations.
If on a dirty table a population of bacteria exists, and one cleans the table with a detergent then there might be some bacteria who have a natural immunity against the detergent, caused by the natural variance within the population's individual properties (of the respective genome and thus of the respective organism). Those who happen to have the immunity will survive and replace the original population. That's how evolution works. Often not as drastic but that's how changes in population come about. The adaption of a population to new circumstances is a passive process, because it is the change of environment conditions that will select the individuals out of the population that happen to have the right properties for survival, and it is these individuals' genetic properties that will prevail in subsequent generations.

You need to learn how to distinguish between micro and macro evolution. So perhaps you should go and educate yourself eh?

Newspapers and magazines are not good sources of scientific knowledge, especially if you haven't had education in the relevant field. From the second point, I take it you haven't had that education. Carbon dating has its faults, but not the stuff you were trying to describe.

Carbon dating is not acceptable for any kind of accuarte dating. Take it as more of a guide, with large possible chances of error.


The point was supposed to be that a scientist's beliefs aren't relevant to their scientific accomplishments, but never mind that now. There are quite a few new theories of biology and medicine that some consider branches of science built upon evolutionary theory. A scientist doesn't have to regard a theory as an -ism to make build off of it.

They build of their research of micro evolution which is a fact, yet, fossil records and all research currently cannot explain macro evolution.

Scientists don't prove theories. If you want to talk about proof, you go to mathematics. In science, you support or contradict theory using the available evidence. Odd dates could easily point to new directions in a theory, indicate a flaw in the dating process, or be the result of human error. None are simply thrown out without good reason.

Indeed, good science is the pursuit of disproving a theory.


We may not all be professors, but it is fairly obvious you weren't even a student. This is the sort of rather elementary stuff you learn if you try to study it seriously in a university, or even reading a textbook, instead of relying on newspapers and magazines.

I would agree.


There has been a hundred and fifty years of research done involving this theory. Where do you propose to begin?

With you citing the hardcore evidence that would turn evolution in to fact and not theory? I'm sure you would win a significant cash prize if you could manage that.

I am a Young-Earth Creationist. I want to start by saying that I do not believe believing so is mandatory to salvation or anything like that but I believe the beginning of Genesis should be taken literally as it always has until the last 150 years. Never in history has Christians questioned the time God took to create the world unless you count Martan Luther's day when people believed God took less time to create the world. In response to the situation he said "But if you can not understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy spirit the honor of being more learned than you are." I feel that the church has always had the problem with changing what the Bible says to fit our own needs. It happened during the time of Luther, the New Testament, and today. Also, as a side note, a long creation day can't work along side evolution because evolution requires everything to be "made" in a different order than what is written in the Bible.

I'd continue writing but I have an exam to study for which is Hermenuetics - interpretation of the Bible. I say that in the hope to give myself credibility. Also, next semester I am going to take a Genesis book study as a result of my interest in creation and the original covanent. Take care and God bless!

You need to learn how to distinguish between micro and macro evolution. So perhaps you should go and educate yourself eh?
Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the difference? I always thought organisms were systems of microbiological constructs and that any change in the structure of the small-scale will result in changes in the large, but if I'm mistaken in that then by all means please let me know.

since you think you have it all, then try and give me some evidence for Evolution that I can not refute.
If you do not trust historical record then there is no such evidence, for you are distrusting any evidence that could possibly exist to support any concrete model of how the past became the present.

Micro-Evolution is the appearance of small changes over time resulting in various varieties of a particular organism. Examples abound and include the famous finches in the Galapagos islands, or the variations in shape size and colours in any plant or animal. We see Micro-Evolution every day, even if we could dispute the use of the term evolution in the phrase, it is still a fact that it is present.

Micro Evolution in general is the result of a reshuffling or recombination of the genes of the existing genetic pool. Most of Darwins work was based much on his research on something which is unable to produce any new structures because micro-evolution does not involve new information in the genome.

Macro-Evolution, on the other hand is the appearance (generally sudden) of completely new body plans or structures in an organism. The phyla themselves appear abruptly without any precursors but within each phylum we see throughout the fossil record sudden leaps of change often with entirely different organs and structure. This is macro-evolution and it continues to puzzle palaeontologists because there is no clear mechanism as to how it happens.

Biologists often merge both aspects of evolution into the term "true evolution" as they see it as proven enough. However, Palaeontologists do not. There is no evidence of the necessary precursors for micro evolution to explain the progressive divergence expected. For example lack of validating evidence Precambrian.

I can provide a mroe detailed explanation but it will have to wait until tonight.

You need to learn how to distinguish between micro and macro evolution. So perhaps you should go and educate yourself eh?There is no distinction needed. Evolution works the same in all scales.

I am a Young-Earth Creationist. I want to start by saying that I do not believe believing so is mandatory to salvation or anything like that but I believe the beginning of Genesis should be taken literally as it always has until the last 150 years. Never in history has Christians questioned the time God took to create the world unless you count Martan Luther's day when people believed God took less time to create the world. In response to the situation he said "But if you can not understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy spirit the honor of being more learned than you are." I feel that the church has always had the problem with changing what the Bible says to fit our own needs. It happened during the time of Luther, the New Testament, and today. Also, as a side note, a long creation day can't work along side evolution because evolution requires everything to be "made" in a different order than what is written in the Bible.

I'd continue writing but I have an exam to study for which is Hermenuetics - interpretation of the Bible. I say that in the hope to give myself credibility. Also, next semester I am going to take a Genesis book study as a result of my interest in creation and the original covanent. Take care and God bless!Nice that you believe in the Bible. But fortunately the Bible is only a very very small piece of the abundant wealth of texts from ancient times (that btw have not been messed with as much). The Bible is just a book written by a bunch of fanatics, and it should be treated as such. The Bible is no reliable source when it comes to describing the ages prior to the time when the Bible was written. Those handful of Jews who wrote the Bible were just taking bits and pieces of Mesopotamian tradition and copied it poorly into their own, um, work. The Jewish scholars of that time knew shit about history, biology, or physics. Most still don't, including their Christian successors. And Young-Earth Creationists are just as uneducated.

There is no distinction needed. Evolution works the same in all scales.

What you're saying does not fit the evidence presented.

You need to learn how to distinguish between micro and macro evolution. So perhaps you should go and educate yourself eh?

*nods head* He does need to educate himself and not just on this either.

There is no distinction needed. Evolution works the same in all scales.

Ummm no it does not.

The Jewish scholars of that time knew shit about history, biology, or physics. Most still don't, including their Christian successors. And Young-Earth Creationists are just as uneducated.

Grow up. Your rant against religion is getting old, tiresome and not based in fact so please educate yourself.

Micro-Evolution is the appearance of small changes over time resulting in various varieties of a particular organism. Examples abound and include the famous finches in the Galapagos islands, or the variations in shape size and colours in any plant or animal. We see Micro-Evolution every day, even if we could dispute the use of the term evolution in the phrase, it is still a fact that it is present.

Micro Evolution in general is the result of a reshuffling or recombination of the genes of the existing genetic pool. Most of Darwins work was based much on his research on something which is unable to produce any new structures because micro-evolution does not involve new information in the genome.

Macro-Evolution, on the other hand is the appearance (generally sudden) of completely new body plans or structures in an organism. The phyla themselves appear abruptly without any precursors but within each phylum we see throughout the fossil record sudden leaps of change often with entirely different organs and structure. This is macro-evolution and it continues to puzzle palaeontologists because there is no clear mechanism as to how it happens.

Biologists often merge both aspects of evolution into the term "true evolution" as they see it as proven enough. However, Palaeontologists do not. There is no evidence of the necessary precursors for micro evolution to explain the progressive divergence expected. For example lack of validating evidence Precambrian.

I can provide a mroe detailed explanation but it will have to wait until tonight.

Haha, wow, no. I don't know where to begin...How about genetics?

Do you understand, generally, what genetic material is? Y'know, what it's made of, how it works, stuff like that?

What you're saying does not fit the evidence presented.Yes it does. And there are no "sudden leaps of change".

Haha, wow, no. I don't know where to begin...How about genetics?
Do you understand, generally, what genetic material is? Y'know, what it's made of, how it works, stuff like that?Genetics? Darwin knew nothing of genetics. And so doesn't this Sith.

Genetics? Darwin knew nothing of genetics. And so doesn't this Sith.

Mendel had some ideas around that time no? Although it was more on inheritance I suppose...Eh, whatev.

Genetics? Darwin knew nothing of genetics. And so doesn't this Sith.

Somehow, I doubt you know anything about genetics.

Somehow, I doubt you know anything about genetics.

So far, I've asked the question and no one here (myself included) has demonstrated any knowledge of it, except perhaps that it exists. Perhaps we'll save the personal comments till after then? Or even, y'know, not make them at all?

So far, I've asked the question and no one here (myself included) has demonstrated any knowledge of it, except perhaps that it exists. Perhaps we'll save the personal comments till after then? Or even, y'know, not make them at all?

Maybe but I will make sure that posters here do not bash other posters. When they do, the term grow up will be appropriate.

So far, I've asked the question and no one here (myself included) has demonstrated any knowledge of it, except perhaps that it exists. Perhaps we'll save the personal comments till after then? Or even, y'know, not make them at all?What question? About genetic variance within a population? Or what genetics is per se? How evolution works?

What question? About genetic variance within a population? Or what genetics is per se? How evolution works?

So do you have knowledge about Genetics?

What question? About genetic variance within a population? Or what genetics is per se? How evolution works?

The one addressed to that silth guy. I was checking for basic knowledge on the subject so I could know where to start explaining.

Yes it does. And there are no "sudden leaps of change".

I quote the fossil record.

I quote the fossil record.

Actually, that's a bit of a debate at the moment. Based upon the evidence that has been discovered at present, it appears that there are periods of sudden evolutionary change as well as more gradual changes between those periods.

The debate is whether evolution does follow a very gradual path, with the "jumps" just being gaps in the fossil record, or whether they are suggestive of a series of more spontaneous and sudden speciation events that occur at random intervals, most likely due to sudden extinctions or shifts in global climate.

Nice that you believe in the Bible. But fortunately the Bible is only a very very small piece of the abundant wealth of texts from ancient times (that btw have not been messed with as much). The Bible is just a book written by a bunch of fanatics, and it should be treated as such. The Bible is no reliable source when it comes to describing the ages prior to the time when the Bible was written. Those handful of Jews who wrote the Bible were just taking bits and pieces of Mesopotamian tradition and copied it poorly into their own, um, work. The Jewish scholars of that time knew shit about history, biology, or physics. Most still don't, including their Christian successors. And Young-Earth Creationists are just as uneducated.

Why can't Mesopotamian text such as the Epic of Gilgamesh be based off of fact to some degree? In the story there is a great flood and dragon slaying (dinosaurs). Also, just because something isn't written down for a length of time doesn't mean that it isn't true. I know that statement may seem completely stupid to some of you but it is something that I have put great time and effort into studying. Also, I am not saying the story of Gilgamesh is absolutely true but it could have some basis on fact.

Another thing, to say that Young-Earth Creationists are uneducated is untrue completely. I personally know many scientists with there doctorates who believe in a biblical creation. That is not to mention all the other scientists who believe. A large percentage of scientists do indeed believe evolution but there is still a great number who don't and those do not need to be ignored.

I quote the fossil record.The fossil record renders snapshots of life at various points of past time. And?

Maybe but I will make sure that posters here do not bash other posters. When they do, the term grow up will be appropriate.
Heh. I was about to point out that regulating the behaviour of others isn't actually your concern, but then again, it's not mine either, so carry on. :p

Why can't Mesopotamian text such as the Epic of Gilgamesh be based off of fact to some degree? In the story there is a great flood and dragon slaying (dinosaurs). Also, just because something isn't written down for a length of time doesn't mean that it isn't true. I know that statement may seem completely stupid to some of you but it is something that I have put great time and effort into studying. Also, I am not saying the story of Gilgamesh is absolutely true but it could have some basis on fact.You believe in the things said in the Gilgamesh epic? But the Bible contradicts that epic, as it does not share the theology referenced in it. And the dinosaur hint is in fact rather stupid.

Another thing, to say that Young-Earth Creationists are uneducated is untrue completely. I personally know many scientists with there doctorates who believe in a biblical creation. That is not to mention all the other scientists who believe. A large percentage of scientists do indeed believe evolution but there is still a great number who don't and those do not need to be ignored.Evolution is not a matter of belief.

Heh. I was about to point out that regulating the behaviour of others isn't actually your concern, but then again, it's not mine either, so carry on. :p

LOL! I intend to :)

Depends on what kind of evolution one is talking about.

All forms of evolution are not belief.

You believe in the things said in the Gilgamesh epic? But the Bible contradicts that epic, as it does not share the theology referenced in it. And the dinosaur hint is in fact rather stupid.

And you know this for a fact?

Evolution is not a matter of belief.

Depends on what kind of evolution one is talking about.

All forms of evolution are not belief.

Oh I know. I just like messing around with UB.

Oh I know. I just like messing around with UB.
I... uh... think that's against the rules.

I... uh... think that's against the rules.

If it is then I apologize

What you're saying does not fit the evidence presented.

Microevolution is variation within a species.

Macroevolution is variation that generates a new species.

One is the extrapolation of the other.

With any sexually reproducing organism that undergoes many many generations within our lifetime (fruit flies) I'm sure a test could be done to show that once isolated into two groups and left is vastly different conditions, after several hundred or several thousand generations, they would likely not be able to interbreed.

Also: is there really anyone here who disputes microevolution? Honestly?

With any sexually reproducing organism that undergoes many many generations within our lifetime (fruit flies) I'm sure a test could be done to show that once isolated into two groups and left is vastly different conditions, after several hundred or several thousand generations, they would likely not be able to interbreed.

Not just likely. It's happened every time that experiment has been run.

Micro-Evolution is the appearance of small changes over time resulting in various varieties of a particular organism. Examples abound and include the famous finches in the Galapagos islands, or the variations in shape size and colours in any plant or animal. We see Micro-Evolution every day, even if we could dispute the use of the term evolution in the phrase, it is still a fact that it is present.

Micro Evolution in general is the result of a reshuffling or recombination of the genes of the existing genetic pool. Most of Darwins work was based much on his research on something which is unable to produce any new structures because micro-evolution does not involve new information in the genome.

Macro-Evolution, on the other hand is the appearance (generally sudden) of completely new body plans or structures in an organism. The phyla themselves appear abruptly without any precursors but within each phylum we see throughout the fossil record sudden leaps of change often with entirely different organs and structure. This is macro-evolution and it continues to puzzle palaeontologists because there is no clear mechanism as to how it happens.

Biologists often merge both aspects of evolution into the term "true evolution" as they see it as proven enough. However, Palaeontologists do not. There is no evidence of the necessary precursors for micro evolution to explain the progressive divergence expected. For example lack of validating evidence Precambrian.

I can provide a mroe detailed explanation but it will have to wait until tonight.
Neither microevolution nor macroevolution are used that way in science. In short, you are either ignorant or a liar. Which is it?

Plus, we have examples of new body plans appearing. HeLa, for one.

Plus, we have examples of new body plans appearing.Which body plans? And appearing over what period of time?

Which body plans? And appearing over what period of time?

Well, we have a giant, amorphous, immortal mass of tissue coming out of a bipedal omnivore in the space of a couple years. I'm reasonably sure that qualifies as a new body plan.

Carbon dating is not acceptable for any kind of accuarte dating. Take it as more of a guide, with large possible chances of error.

I'm afraid someone's been lying to you friend. Carbon dating is accurate for anything up to about 60,000 years old IIRC, give or take 50 years. If Carbon dating wasn't accurate then we wouldn't be able to do this:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/suigetsu.gif

In Japan, there's a lake called Lake Suigetsu. Every year, algae grow in the lake and when they die they leave a white layer on the bottom of the lake. Dark clay settles on the bottom of the lake over the rest of the year, giving us an alternating series of dark and light stripes, each pair representing one year. If Carbon dating wasn't reliable then we shouldn't expect to get such a tight correlation between the age suggested by Carbon dating and the age recorded by lake varves.

With you citing the hardcore evidence that would turn evolution in to fact and not theory? I'm sure you would win a significant cash prize if you could manage that.

I'm sure somebodies already explained this misconception earlier in the thread but I'll do so again:

In science, theory doesn't just mean a wild guess, or a guess substanstiated by a few pieces of suspicious evidence. A theory is a model which is strongly supported by evidence; a theory is falsifiable but has never been falsified; a theory is overwhelmingly supported by the scientific community.

Evolution is both theory and fact: the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution, just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

Don't you think it's odd that a theory as easy to falsify as evolution has never been falsified? All it would take is a hominid fossil in pre-cambrian strata. Hell, pretty much any kind of fossil more advanced than a worm or a jelly fish in pre-cambrian strata would do it: a rabbit, an alligator, an elephant. If Evolution was false then there's no reason why we shouldn't find these fossils but we don't, why do you think that is?

Humans have 23 chromosomes, chimpanzees have 24. Scientists concluded that, if humans and chimpanzees were descended from a common ancestor, then one human chromosome would have been formed by two merged ape chromosomes. We would be able to see the similarity between them, we would also expect something unusual: the ends of a normal chromosome are marked by telomeres, let's represent them like this: ENDchromosomeDNE. Scientists predicted that one human chromosome would have extra telomeres in the middle, making it look like this: ENDchromosomeDNEENDchromosomeDNE. If this wasn't the case, then common ancestry would have to discarded.

Guess what: every single one of those predictions was born out.

Here's an interesting picture:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom_2.gif

H=Human
C=Chimpanzee
G=Gorilla
O=Orangutan

Spot any similarities?

If we aren't related to apes then there's no reason for any of these predictions to be correct. Coincidence?

Ok, last post for the moment, honest!

The real challenge for Young Earth Creationists isn't to explain why all the dating techniques used in science are wrong, it's to explain how they can all be independently wrong and still get the same result. For example, geological evidence tells us that the Earth is a bit over 4.404 billion years old, astronomical evidence tells us that the Earth is a bit younger than 4.57 billion years old. This principle applies to the lake varve picture I posted just now as well.

An extensive list of phenomena which prove an old-earth can be found here (http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=25&t=2601&m=1).

An extensive list of phenomena which prove an old-earth can be found here."here" is the list? :p

"here" is the list? :p

Argh! That's what happens when I try to use NS and Facebook at the same time. Should be fixed now. :D ;)

In the Evolution theory[I] is simply a theory, in which needs to be yet proven, just like the creation theory. You can not prove that we came from a speck of dust billions of years ago, and you can not prove that we came from a higher being. Thus, both should either be in or out of the text books.
Evolution does not need to and will(almost definitely) never be proven. Nor will any other scientific theory, nor do they need to. However, there is considerable amounts of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and nothing but the bible supporting creation "theory". Unless creation "theory" goes through the same procedures as any other hypothesis must in order to receive recognition then it should only appear in science text books as an example of what not to do.

Another thing, in the text books the main focus is micro Evolution. You have 6 different forms of Evolution to have to happen before that. The only items that they describe in the text books are the Micro, Macro and stellar Evolutions.
6 forms of evolution? Wuh? :confused:

None of the "scientific" theories state how we became, they merely theorise how we got on Earth.
So?

The Big Bang [I]theory does not even state how we got the trinity of trinites* (Time, space and matter).
So?
Absolutely NONE of these theories even come close to stating how any of these came into existance... for any one of these trinities to become true they would all have to appear AT THE SAME TIME.
So?
How does the Big Bang theory say we got here? The meteor theory only states how a few biological bacteria got here.
So?

It does state, however, that we came from rocks 4.5 billion years ago. (The Big Bang theory literally states "the rain fell on the rocks [rocks] for millions of years.)
The Big Bang theory literally states that? Source?


One last thing. Does the cell theory disprove Evolution:


All living organisms are composed of one or more cells
Cells are the basic units of structure and function in an organism
!!!!!!CELLS COME ONLY FROM THE REPRODUCTION OF EXISTING CELLS!!!!


So therefore, the last law in the cell theory disporves it, becuase water+rocks do not make living material.
Wrong. Evolution has nothing to do with how life came about, only how it slowly changed over time(i.e. how it evolved).

Did you know that if you add air to the chicken soup that the rain and rocks made, you can not create life? However, without the air, you can not create life! A college text book also stated that when the earth was a few million or billion years old, there was 0% air... and yet it also states that at the very same point, the rocks were absorbing it.
Source?

Which one would be better? The one that states there is a higher being. The one that states there is a higher being is better due to the fact that it states how we all got here AND it states the trinities in the first sentece.

"In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and Earth (matter)." [Genisis 1:1].
That is not a theory, it's just something someone(allegedly) wrote down a few thousand years ago.

Summary.

The big bang theory has no "evidence," neither does the creation theory.
What?
The big bang theory does not state where the trinity of trinities came from.* It does not even explain where the dust came from to make the dot.Why do you keep going on about the big bang theory? Is there even such a theory?
The Evolution theory survives off of tax dollars only. The creation theory puts all of these into action a mere page of a book.
The theory of evolution is not surviving off tax dollars, that's just a load of horse shit, a pathetic attempt to imply that supporting creationism will lower taxes. The creation "theory" is nothing more than a piss poor hypothesis based off the bible. You might as well use the Lord Of The Rings trilogy and claim Illuvatar created existence from the music of the Valar and Maiar.

*The trinity of trinities are:
Time: past present future.
Space: lenght width and hieght.
Matter: solid liquid gas.
Eh, where does energy figure into your magic trinity?
Oh really? Most sciences branch off of either the Bible itself,
What on earth makes you think this?
or branch off from a science that was started by a... who? A christian? Who would have thought?
What point are you even trying to make here?

6 forms of evolution? Wuh? :confused:

I suspect we're dealing with somebody who learnt their science from Kent Hovind.

I suspect we're dealing with somebody who learnt their science from Kent Hovind.

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American evangelist and prominent Young Earth creationist who is serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges.

That Kent Hovind? I'd say so.

There is an overall problem with creationism: although these folks keep and keep bitching about how wrong biology and physics are and how bad "science" is, they keep failing to come up with an alternative explanation for the set-up of the world. They have nothing to explain how and why things are as they are in the world. All that it always comes down to is: "the bible says it". There is nothing out of non-biblical sources that would confirm the bible, or rather confirm what creationists claim that the bible says. It's all just rejection of knowledge because of faith, nothing more. And we all know that faith is insubstantial. Especially when it is only based on a tale that a number of bigots just pulled out of their butts.

6 forms of evolution? Wuh? :confused:Why not? Evolution comes from e-volvere, which means to un-fold or to un-wrap, literally and otherwise. Everything that changes has an evolution. Christianity has an evolution, y'know... :p

That Kent Hovind? I'd say so.

Call me sentimental but I kinda miss his particular brand of stupidity. :(

Call me sentimental but I kinda miss his particular brand of stupidity. :("The Hovind Theory"

Hovind summarizes his highly controversial version of the argument for Creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory." He acknowledges many contributors to his theory, but claims that if it is proven false then he will personally take the blame. The theory includes a literal reading of the Biblical account of Noah: Noah's family and two of every kind of animal (including dinosaurs) safely boarded the Ark before a minus 300° Fahrenheit (~-184°C) ice meteor came flying toward the earth and broke up in space. Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the north and south poles of the earth.

The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the mammoths standing up. Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. Also this made "the earth wobble around" and it made the canopy collapse that used to protect the earth and opened up the fountains of the deep.

During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil and coal, respectively. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted. This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion — Hovind claims that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time. After a few hundred years, the ice caps slowly melted back retreating to their current size and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves. The deeper oceans absorbed much of the carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere and thus allowed greater amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. As a result, human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.

The vast majority of the scientific community rejects Young Earth Creationism. Furthermore, the plausibility of Hovind's theory has been criticized by both scientists and other Young Earth Creationists.

If it wasn't so very hurtfully stoopid, it would indeed be funny...

It amuses me that someone can be so stupid and yet remember to keep breathing.

I'm afraid someone's been lying to you friend. Carbon dating is accurate for anything up to about 60,000 years old IIRC, give or take 50 years. If Carbon dating wasn't accurate then we wouldn't be able to do this:

So, you just admitted that Carbon Dating is a useless meathod in which you can not date anything over 60,000 years old... Which proves me right.

So, you just admitted that Carbon Dating is a useless meathod in which you can not date anything over 60,000 years old... Which proves me right.

No, I said nothing of the sort, please refrain from trying to misrepresent me.

Carbon-dating is useful for ANYTHING UP TO 60,000 YEARS OLD. Just because it can't be reliably used for anything beyond that doesn't mean it isn't good at what it does, in the same way that a vacuum cleaner isn't useless because it can't mow the lawn. If we're dating older stuff then we use different isotopes such as Argon-Argon, Potassium-Argon, or Rubidium-strontium.

Is that simple enough for you?

"The Hovind Theory"

Hovind summarizes his highly controversial version of the argument for Creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory." He acknowledges many contributors to his theory, but claims that if it is proven false then he will personally take the blame. The theory includes a literal reading of the Biblical account of Noah: Noah's family and two of every kind of animal (including dinosaurs) safely boarded the Ark before a minus 300° Fahrenheit (~-184°C) ice meteor came flying toward the earth and broke up in space. Some of the meteor fragments became rings and others caused the impact craters on the moon and some of the planets. The remaining ice fragments fell to the north and south poles of the earth.

The resulting "super-cold snow" fell near the poles, burying the mammoths standing up. Ice on the North and South pole cracked the crust of the earth releasing the fountains of the deep, which in turn caused certain ice age effects, namely the glacier effects. Also this made "the earth wobble around" and it made the canopy collapse that used to protect the earth and opened up the fountains of the deep.

During the first few months of the flood, the dead animals and plants were buried, and became oil and coal, respectively. The last few months of the flood included geological instability, when the plates shifted. This period saw the formation of both ocean basins and mountain ranges and the resulting water run-off caused incredible erosion — Hovind claims that the Grand Canyon was formed in a couple of weeks during this time. After a few hundred years, the ice caps slowly melted back retreating to their current size and the ocean levels increased, creating the continental shelves. The deeper oceans absorbed much of the carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere and thus allowed greater amounts of radiation to reach the earth's surface. As a result, human lifespans were shortened considerably in the days of Peleg.

The vast majority of the scientific community rejects Young Earth Creationism. Furthermore, the plausibility of Hovind's theory has been criticized by both scientists and other Young Earth Creationists.

If it wasn't so very hurtfully stoopid, it would indeed be funny...

So, what is your take on some planets and entire galaxies spinning the oposite way of the Earth? Does the law of centrifical force make it so that they would not be spinning in this direction, but in the very same direction?

So then tell me, what is your philosophy?

In the beginning dirt, or

In the beginning God.

A theory that states we have always been here (which is a lot like the hippy theory which says "that we are not really here, we just think we are here"), or

a theory in which states how we became.

Evolutionists best hope for an after life: we become recycled through the ground.

Evolutionists worst dread: God is real and you go to hell.

Creationists best hope: there is a God and we go to heaven.

Creationists dread: we become recycled.



Did you know that if Evolution were true, then we have no point to life and we can all do what we feel. This is where the 'if-it-feels-good-then-do-it' philosophy comes in.

Hitler and the comlubine shootings were focused on "the advancement of a certain race." For that matter, Darwin's whole title to his book is 'The Origins of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races.' Why does the Evolution theory have to be so racist anyways?

Why is it a religion of death? For things to advance in adaptions and be able to survive, the mutations would have to live past the non-mutant. The non-mutated being would have to die-off or the new mutation could not be possible.

Why is it that Evolution does not occur today? Why is it that a cat can not produce a non-cat, but millions of years ago they could.

The Evolution theory is a lot like the story of when the frog turns into the prince. The only difference: time. Yes, if it happens very quicly, then it is a fairy tale... however, if it takes a few million years, then it is called science. No, it is still a fairy tale.

If you are so smart yourself, then tell me why all of these do not make any sence?

No, I said nothing of the sort, please refrain from trying to misrepresent me.

Carbon-dating is useful for ANYTHING UP TO 60,000 YEARS OLD. Just because it can't be reliably used for anything beyond that doesn't mean it isn't good at what it does, in the same way that a vacuum cleaner isn't useless because it can't mow the lawn. If we're dating older stuff then we use different isotopes such as Argon-Argon, Potassium-Argon, or Rubidium-strontium.

Is that simple enough for you?

Yes, however, you imply that by using the carbon dating meathod for something we think is older than 60,000 years old that it would wrender it useless. You have to also think about the fact of us not truely knowing the date.

Scientificly, we have not even made it to the ability of carbon-dating. We are ever increasing in C-14. In order to reach equillibrium it would take about 30,000 years. Yet, we are still not at it. What does that say? Carbon dating and having an old Earth is out of the question.

Yes, however, you imply that by using the carbon dating meathod for something we think is older than 60,000 years old that it would wrender it useless. You have to also think about the fact of us not truely knowing the date.

Scientificly, we have not even made it to the ability of carbon-dating. We are ever increasing in C-14. In order to reach equillibrium it would take about 30,000 years. Yet, we are still not at it. What does that say? Carbon dating and having an old Earth is out of the question.

Though I am a Christian and believe the story of Genesis, I am going to have to question your statement regarding an old Earth is out of the question. Why is it out of the question?

Microevolution is variation within a species.

Macroevolution is variation that generates a new species.

One is the extrapolation of the other.

With any sexually reproducing organism that undergoes many many generations within our lifetime (fruit flies) I'm sure a test could be done to show that once isolated into two groups and left is vastly different conditions, after several hundred or several thousand generations, they would likely not be able to interbreed.

Also: is there really anyone here who disputes microevolution? Honestly?

There would be six different forms of Evolution for it to work.

Cosmic
Elemental
Chemical
marco
Micro
Stellar

Heavens to Betsy, of course microEvolution is true... Who would try and debate that, lol.

Though I am a Christian and believe the story of Genesis, I am going to have to question your statement regarding an old Earth is out of the question. Why is it out of the question?

Let me ask you a question regarding this as so I can answer it from the correct view point: do you believe that Genesis is word for word correct, or do you beleive that the days said in Genesis 1-2:1 are millions of years instead of days?

In the beginning dirt, or

In the beginning God.

Wait, wait. Didn't god make us from dirt?

If you are so smart yourself, then tell me why all of these do not make any sence?

Because J00 R teh stoopidz.

There, I said it.

Srsly though, those statements don't make sense because they have, like, no grounding in reality.