NationStates Jolt Archive

Cosmic
Elemental
Chemical
marco
Micro
Stellar

Polo-Evolution!

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?

I will answer that question as soon as you answer mine.

Wait, wait. Didn't god make us from dirt?

Well dust from the ground but you are essentiall correct. :D

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.
That doesn't make carbon dating useless......
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.
All irrelevant.

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.
Stereotyping.



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.
Cheap scare tactics trying to drum up support for creationism. But no attempts to actually suppored your beloved creation theory. How predictable.

Hitler
Godwin.
and the comlubine shootings were focused on "the advancement of a certain race."
Where did you pull that quote from? And what makes you think the columbine shootings were focused on the advancement of a certain race?

Oh, and again, a poor attempt at scare tactics.
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?
Yawn, further attempts to make evolution look like some big evil. I guess this is what you have to resort too when you can't admit you're wrong.

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.
Ugh, are you even going to make the slightest attempt at supporting creationism or are you just going to lie about evolution over and over and hope that if you lie enough it will become true?

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.
I cannot fathom how poor your understanding of evolution must be for you to tihnk this.

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.
See above.
If you are so smart yourself, then tell me why all of these do not make any sence?

Because you are misunderstanding 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.

No, you find bones in the ground. I will give you $5,000 in cash if you could bring the same bones into court and say "well these bones had had children..." you can not prove they had any kids. You can merely find genetic likeness, but even a .5% change in DNA will kill the living being.


Posted by another person:
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.

No, you proved microEvolution. It is STILL a fruit fly plain and simply.

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.

Uhh...no. Different tools are used for different data ranges and conditions; just because you can't use ice cores to measure climate data in the Amazon or you can't use infrared telescopes to detect gamma rays doesn't mean they are useless, it just means they are suited to different forms of data.

When one system doesn't work in a given environment, others are used in its place.

It is STILL a fruit fly plain and simply.

...'fruit fly' is more than a single species, you know that right?

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.
Micro and macro evolution, that I've heard of. Care to explain the other four?
No, you find bones in the ground. I will give you $5,000 in cash if you could bring the same bones into court
What does court have to do with anything?
and say "well these bones had had children..." you can not prove they had any kids.
I wasn't aware you had a degree in the study of bones.
I wasn't aware You can merely find genetic likeness, but even a .5% change in DNA will kill the living being.
And where are you pulling that number from?

And you do know that even if you're right, that would depend on what the change was.

Posted by another person:


No, you proved microEvolution. It is STILL a fruit fly plain and simply.

If it can't breed with other fruit flies(and is healthy) then it isn't a fruit fly. That's the definition of species, a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

That doesn't make carbon dating useless......

All irrelevant.


Stereotyping.

Neither, they both have to do with what your philosophy is.




Cheap scare tactics trying to drum up support for creationism. But no attempts to actually suppored your beloved creation theory. How predictable.

Same to you? What "evidence" have you shown to me? Read my other posts and you will find some proof.


Godwin.

Come again?

Where did you pull that quote from? And what makes you think the columbine shootings were focused on the advancement of a certain race?

Oh, and again, a poor attempt at scare tactics.

Maybe I should put this in an easier fashion for you to understand: BECUASE (see the cause there?) they believe in Evolution and their outlook on life was that our lives are pointless, they felt (the effect) that they could do whatever they pleased.

Yawn, further attempts to make evolution look like some big evil. I guess this is what you have to resort too when you can't admit you're wrong.

Yea, I have my credintials being pounded on by ever Evolutionist here, not to mention my personal life (not all, but some try and attack me personally), and it is usually when they can not tell me any scientific eveidence for Evolution.

Ugh, are you even going to make the slightest attempt at supporting creationism or are you just going to lie about evolution over and over and hope that if you lie enough it will become true?

The Evolution theory has became the same way. If I am not mistaking it is called a mauntra?


I cannot fathom how poor your understanding of evolution must be for you to tihnk this.


See above.


Because you are misunderstanding evolution.


No, you think it is a science, when in reality it is a THEORY which thus needs to be proven. If it is thenforth a theory that should either be thrown out of the schools, or taught along side of the creationist THEORY.

No, you think it is a science, when in reality it is a THEORY which thus needs to be proven. If it is thenforth a theory that should either be thrown out of the schools, or taught along side of the creationist THEORY.

Are you forgetting that creation is actually taught in religion classes?

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?

Wohoho. You really shouldn't be abusing illegal substances.
I am too lazy to get into the details of this old horseshit. I am not even getting half of what you say because it is so weirdly confused. Nobody ever claimed that a cat would give birth to a non-cat. You just understand ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about evolution, and that's why you reject it. And I really see no point in your galaxy-spinning theory.

No, you think it is a science, when in reality it is a THEORY which thus needs to be proven. If it is thenforth a theory that should either be thrown out of the schools, or taught along side of the creationist THEORY.

Aaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh!!!!

A theory is not what you seem to think it is. A theory is not just a fancy idea someone has, it is rather a complex model (created form a deep understanding of the matter at issue) that wraps up observed phenomena and offers coherent explanations. In addition most theories have already collected lots and lots of evidence to confirm their respective statements.

You are going to my ignore list now, my collection of 'believers' :rolleyes:

I will answer that question as soon as you answer mine.
Well, if you are talking about what I had said, then it does not go. If you are not speaking about what I had said, then it still does not go.

Micro and macro evolution, that I've heard of. Care to explain the other four?

Things unrelated to the theory that happen to fall under a dictionary definition of evolution, as in change over time. Like how stars produce some heavier stuff, then blow up, then that heavier stuff is in a new star that forms.

Well, if you are talking about what I had said, then it does not go. If you are not speaking about what I had said, then it still does not go.

So you are saying that the Old Earth Theory is incorrect without evidence to back up your claim?

No, you find bones in the ground. I will give you $5,000 in cash if you could bring the same bones into court and say "well these bones had had children..." you can not prove they had any kids. You can merely find genetic likeness, but even a .5% change in DNA will kill the living being.

You realize we often have more than one set of bones, right? Prehistoric species traced through many different specimens appearing in the fossil record over time. We know they reproduced because a hundred or a thousand years later, they are still there.

Wohoho. You really shouldn't be abusing illegal substances.
I am too lazy to get into the details of this old horseshit. I am not even getting half of what you say because it is so weirdly confused. Nobody ever claimed that a cat would give birth to a non-cat. You just understand ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about evolution, and that's why you reject it. And I really see no point in your galaxy-spinning theory.
You are going to my ignore list now.

And you obviously do not understand it either. No, you are correct, cats do not give birth to a non-cat, rocks do! Ever heard of the punctiuated equillibrium theory of evolution? That states the same thing that I had said.

No, sir, you do not even understand the BASICS of science and therefore should get off of this thread ASAP.

No, you proved microEvolution. It is STILL a fruit fly plain and simply.

If they are incapable of having viable offspring, they are different species. One of the most basic signs of speciation is the inability of the organisms to reproduce and have viable offspring.


No, you find bones in the ground. I will give you $5,000 in cash if you could bring the same bones into court and say "well these bones had had children..." you can not prove they had any kids. You can merely find genetic likeness, but even a .5% change in DNA will kill the living being

Well, here's one problem: that's totally ignorant of the fossil record works; it's not "these bones had children", it's "here is a sequence of organisms sharing phenotypical and genetic characteristics with each other as well as their more ancient ancestors and more modern organisms, and when we make predictions using this structure the evidence that is discovered confirms our prior predictions and supports the model".

Evolution isn't just a handful of fossils, it's literally thousands of fossils of different stages of development linked together with genetic analysis and confirmed predictions that support the theory.

And you obviously do not understand it either. No, you are correct, cats do not give birth to a non-cat, rocks do! Ever heard of the punctiuated equillibrium theory of evolution? That states the same thing that I had said.

No, sir, you do not even understand the BASICS of science and therefore should get off of this thread ASAP.

I think you need to start answering questions logicly.

No, you think it is a science, when in reality it is a THEORY which thus needs to be proven. If it is thenforth a theory that should either be thrown out of the schools, or taught along side of the creationist THEORY.

I can't stop laughing.

[QUOTE=LancasterCounty;12590105]So you are saying that the Old Earth Theory is incorrect without evidence to back up your claim?[/QUOTE


No, I am trying to draw where you are coming from. If you were to say that the 7 days were millions of years, then Jesus was in the tomb for a heck of a long time wasn't he? I don't know about you, but my tribulation should not last around 2.5 billiob years.

Now, in verse 1:11, the Bible says that God brought forth the earthley shrubs and herbs. In verse 1:14, it says that God created the lights for Earth (the sun, in other words). Now, that right there would be hard on those plats to go without the sun for a million years. In verse 1:24, it states that the land creatures were put on Earth the 5th day. This is a whole 2 days. Now, for it to be in old Earth theory that would be more than 2 million years. A shrub can go without the sun or polination for a day, but not for millions of years.

If you do not quote the Bible accurately in one place, then you can not think that it is accurate in the other places. From this you can conclude that the BIble is nothing but bunk and therefore are no christian. In order to be a christian, the Bible MUST be word for word accurate. I mean, how do you know that we can just pray to God and thus be forgiven?

I can't stop laughing.You will stop as soon as someone like this is allowed to vote and thus to determine your future.

Neither, they both have to do with what your philosophy is.
And what my philosophy is is irrelevant. And making statements about all "evolutionists" and creationists is stereotyping.

Same to you? What "evidence" have you shown to me? Read my other posts and you will find some proof.
http://www.evolutionhappens.net/

I haven't read the whole thing, but it looks to be accurate.

Come again?
Godwin refers to Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law).

Maybe I should put this in an easier fashion for you to understand: BECUASE (see the cause there?) they believe in Evolution and their outlook on life was that our lives are pointless, they felt (the effect) that they could do whatever they pleased.
How do you know what the Columbine shooters thought about evolution? Are your a medium? Can you communicate with the dead? Or are you just making up nonsense in an attempt to make people who don't agree with your creationist silliness look evil? You have no proof that their opinions on evolution influenced the Columbine shooters of Hitler. As I said, cheap scare tactics.

Yea, I have my credintials being pounded on by ever Evolutionist here, not to mention my personal life (not all, but some try and attack me personally), and it is usually when they can not tell me any scientific eveidence for Evolution.
See the link I posted already. Where's your scientific evidence supporting the creationist hypothesis.

The Evolution theory has became the same way. If I am not mistaking it is called a mauntra?
The word your looking for is mantra, and you didn't answer my question. Are you going to try and support creationism or are you just going to attack evolution?


No, you think it is a science, when in reality it is a THEORY which thus needs to be proven. If it is thenforth a theory that should either be thrown out of the schools, or taught along side of the creationist THEORY.
Evolution is not a science. Evolution is a process, described by the theory of evolution. Now here's the important bit:

SCIENTIFIC THEORIES CAN NEVER BE PROVEN, THEY CAN ONLY BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
Things unrelated to the theory that happen to fall under a dictionary definition of evolution, as in change over time. Like how stars produce some heavier stuff, then blow up, then that heavier stuff is in a new star that forms.

Ah, I see.

So you are saying that the Old Earth Theory is incorrect without evidence to back up your claim?


No, I am trying to draw where you are coming from. If you were to say that the 7 days were millions of years, then Jesus was in the tomb for a heck of a long time wasn't he? I don't know about you, but my tribulation should not last around 2.5 billiob years.

I am talking about creation here Indoslavokia. Not Jesus! Please tell me why the Old Earth Theory is incorrect. As to the tribulation, if you are a born again Christian, why should you care as you will not be on the planet when the Tribulation occurs?

Now, in verse 1:11, the Bible says that God brought forth the earthley shrubs and herbs. In verse 1:14, it says that God created the lights for Earth (the sun, in other words). Now, that right there would be hard on those plats to go without the sun for a million years.

We are talking about God here.

In verse 1:24, it states that the land creatures were put on Earth the 5th day. This is a whole 2 days.

Now prove that it was 2 24hr days!

Now, for it to be in old Earth theory that would be more than 2 million years. A shrub can go without the sun or polination for a day, but not for millions of years.

Again, we are talking about God here.

If you do not quote the Bible accurately in one place, then you can not think that it is accurate in the other places.

Now we are getting into translations.

From this you can conclude that the BIble is nothing but bunk and therefore are no christian. In order to be a christian, the Bible MUST be word for word accurate. I mean, how do you know that we can just pray to God and thus be forgiven?

I am still on Genesis. If you want to discuss more things about this, feel free to telegram me.

And you obviously do not understand it either. No, you are correct, cats do not give birth to a non-cat, rocks do! Ever heard of the punctiuated equillibrium theory of evolution? That states the same thing that I had said.

No, that's not true at all. What PE says is that phenotypical changes occur fairly suddenly in an organism's history. These changes seem sudden, but only on a geological timescale. A cat isn't going to give birth to a non-cat, but that species of cat may undergo changes over a short period of time, say 100,000 years, that cause it to branch off and form a new species in a process known as cladogenesis. Allopatric

Even so, the conservative form of PE is not really that radical; it's entirely a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis that is the basis of contemporary evolutionary theory.

You will stop as soon as someone like this is allowed to vote and thus to determine your future.

Yeah, things might turn out to be... just... like... they... arerightnow! Fuck!

If they are incapable of having viable offspring, they are different species. One of the most basic signs of speciation is the inability of the organisms to reproduce and have viable offspring.



Well, here's one problem: that's totally ignorant of the fossil record works; it's not "these bones had children", it's "here is a sequence of organisms sharing phenotypical and genetic characteristics with each other as well as their more ancient ancestors and more modern organisms, and when we make predictions using this structure the evidence that is discovered confirms our prior predictions and supports the model".

Evolution isn't just a handful of fossils, it's literally thousands of fossils of different stages of development linked together with genetic analysis and confirmed predictions that support the theory.

I know how it works. You find a fossil buried under another and therefore can conclude that it is older. Thus the geologic column is born. However, if I am buried underneath a deer, does that mean he is my long-lost father?

If anything it proves that there was a great flood. One of the interesting things about hydrolatic sorting (excuse me if I spelled it wrong) is that when in water, different kinds of sand would sort by density. Another thing, what would be to drown last in a flood? Birds. So therefore you can conclude that birds would be ontop. The aligators and most other animals would be on the bottom while not too many fish would die... if it was a global flood, then fish would not have trouble finding water.

It is "these bones had children" becuase without saying that, no life would have existed.

So you are saying that the Old Earth Theory is incorrect without evidence to back up your claim?[/QUOTE


No, I am trying to draw where you are coming from. If you were to say that the 7 days were millions of years, then Jesus was in the tomb for a heck of a long time wasn't he? I don't know about you, but my tribulation should not last around 2.5 billiob years.

Now, in verse 1:11, the Bible says that God brought forth the earthley shrubs and herbs. In verse 1:14, it says that God created the lights for Earth (the sun, in other words). Now, that right there would be hard on those plats to go without the sun for a million years. In verse 1:24, it states that the land creatures were put on Earth the 5th day. This is a whole 2 days. Now, for it to be in old Earth theory that would be more than 2 million years. A shrub can go without the sun or polination for a day, but not for millions of years.

If you do not quote the Bible accurately in one place, then you can not think that it is accurate in the other places. From this you can conclude that the BIble is nothing but bunk and therefore are no christian. In order to be a christian, the Bible MUST be word for word accurate. I mean, how do you know that we can just pray to God and thus be forgiven?

Cute, but no cigar. The reason why the six 'days' of Genesis could mean millions of years is because the Hebrew word for 'day' (yom) can also mean an undefined length of time.

The New Testament was written in Greek.

if I am buried underneath a deer, does that mean he is my long-lost father?

Depends. First, we'd probably try to determine that you aren't, in fact, a deer.


Also, we'd have to know the deer isn't female, else it could be a long lost mother instead.

Cute, but no cigar. The reason why the six 'days' of Genesis could mean millions of years is because the Hebrew word for 'day' (yom) can also mean an undefined length of time.

The New Testament was written in Greek.

Thank you but could you fix the quote boxes please?

And you obviously do not understand it either. No, you are correct, cats do not give birth to a non-cat, rocks do!
What are you on about?
Ever heard of the punctiuated equillibrium theory of evolution? That states the same thing that I had said.
Never heard of it. Source?

No, sir, you do not even understand the BASICS of science and therefore should get off of this thread ASAP.
Says the guys who doesn't understand what a scientific theory is.

No, that's not true at all. What PE says is that phenotypical changes occur fairly suddenly in an organism's history. These changes seem sudden, but only on a geological timescale. A cat isn't going to give birth to a non-cat, but that species of cat may undergo changes over a short period of time, say 100,000 years, that cause it to branch off and form a new species in a process known as cladogenesis. Allopatric

Even so, the conservative form of PE is not really that radical; it's entirely a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis that is the basis of contemporary evolutionary theory.

First, I would like to congradulate you. You are the first one I have seen who has put the burden of proof on yourself to prove Evolution, and not make me have to disprove it. However, it is still like I had said earlier. Why is the story of a frog turning into a prince a "fairy tale" and yet if you add more time in between that, it turns out it be a science.




Off-topic: People, it is your job to prove Evolution, not mine t disprove it. If I said the the inside of a watermelon was sludge until it split open, then whose job would it be to try and prove it either way? Mine, not the other persons.

What are you on about?

Never heard of it. Source?


Says the guys who doesn't understand what a scientific theory is.First off, this was a post to the other person, not you.

Second, my old biology book states it. "The term punctiuated Equilibrium refers to sudden, rapid change..." (Holt, Rinehart and Winston 'harcourt education comapny,' modern Biology page 330.)

Source it.

First, I would like to congradulate you. You are the first one I have seen who has put the burden of proof on yourself to prove Evolution, and not make me have to disprove it. However, it is still like I had said earlier. Why is the story of a frog turning into a prince a "fairy tale" and yet if you add more time in between that, it turns out it be a science.

There's more to evolution than it taking a long time. Maybe you should come back when you actually understand evolution.


Off-topic: People, it is your job to prove Evolution, not mine t disprove it. If I said the the inside of a watermelon was sludge until it split open, then whose job would it be to try and prove it either way? Mine, not the other persons.

And you're meant to be providing evidence supporting creationism. Well, get to it.

First off, this was a post to the other person, not you.
So?

Second, my old biology book states it. "The term punctiuated Equilibrium refers to sudden, rapid change..." (Holt, Rinehart and Winston 'harcourt education comapny,' modern Biology page 330.)

Source it.

Vetalia explained it well enough, but for future reference you're better off using internet sources when people ask you for one here. It's not like I'm going to go out and buy that book.

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.

Look, you clearly don't know anything about the method used in dating objects and artifacts.

Suppose you had a 1cm ruler, a 30cm ruler, a ten metre long pole, and a 100 metre long pole and you had to measure a distance. Assume that none of them have any markings on them. If you want to measure a small newt then the 1cm ruler will probably be your best bet, the 10 and 100 metre long poles are too long to give you an accurate reading of the distance. If, on the other hand, you want to measure an aircraft carrier, then the 100 metre pole is your best bet.

A radioactive isotope loses 50% of its material after a half-life has passed, so after ten half lives there is so little left that we can't get a reliable figure from it. The half-life of Carbon 14 is 6,000 years, so after 60,000 years there isn't enough left to get a reliable age. IIRC Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so it's great for ancient stuff but far to unwieldy to use on relatively recent objects.

Oh, and we can 'truly know the date' because we've calibrated dating techniques on lake valves, ice cores, and the like.

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.

What are you talking about?

I know how it works. You find a fossil buried under another and therefore can conclude that it is older. Thus the geologic column is born. However, if I am buried underneath a deer, does that mean he is my long-lost father?

Uhh, no. If that deer were born several strata underneath you and there was a series of organisms showing clear phenotypical progression between organisms in the intermediate strata that showed clearly the way that deer changed in to you, as well as genetic similarities between other contemporary organisms that share a common ancestor with that dear, you could in fact say that deer was your ancestor.

Otherwise, it's a completely invalid comparison to the fossil record; the fossil record is a lot more than just finding things in different layers and putting them together.

If anything it proves that there was a great flood. One of the interesting things about hydrolatic sorting (excuse me if I spelled it wrong) is that when in water, different kinds of sand would sort by density. Another thing, what would be to drown last in a flood? Birds. So therefore you can conclude that birds would be ontop. The aligators and most other animals would be on the bottom while not too many fish would die... if it was a global flood, then fish would not have trouble finding water.

No, it doesn't. There are many, many places where the order of sedimentation is totally inconsistent with the way that sediment would have been deposited in a flood; you've got sandstone and shale mixed with volcanic ash layers, for example, and deposits that formed at different times reflecting the different conditions during geological eras.

And if it were coming from under the ground, that superheated water would have caused massive deposits of basalt around the eruption sites (as well as boil off the oceans and kill all life on the surface). There is no way whatsoever that a global flood could have happened and produced the results we have today. It simply contradicts all of the evidence and none has been produced ever to support it.

It is "these bones had children" becuase without saying that, no life would have existed.

And that shows...that the fossil record is entirely correct, since life clearly does exist and so we can confidently predict that at least some of these organisms had children that survived to reproduce?

Off-topic: People, it is your job to prove Evolution, not mine t disprove it.

Nope. The scientific method is based on testing and disproving hypotheses, not on proving them right.

Off-topic: People, it is your job to prove Evolution, not mine t disprove it. If I said the the inside of a watermelon was sludge until it split open, then whose job would it be to try and prove it either way? Mine, not the other persons.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

There's more to evolution than it taking a long time. Maybe you should come back when you actually understand evolution.




And you're meant to be providing evidence supporting creationism. Well, get to it.

Err... maybe you should learn about it, too? I do not think I can sufficiently answer that... err... question?

I do not need to prove creationism, why should I do that? Are our tax dollars going towards teaching it? No, it is you who needs to prove Evolution, as my tax dollars are supporting it.



Lancaster, you mentioned that you were a christian, so I was merely trying to make you better understand the exact thing that you "beleive in."

So?



Vetalia explained it well enough, but for future reference you're better off using internet sources when people ask you for one here. It's not like I'm going to go out and buy that book.

Just go to the "contact us" button on the web page and ask them yourself.



http://www.harcourt.com/contact/

I do not need to prove creationism, why should I do that? Are our tax dollars going towards teaching it? No, it is you who needs to prove Evolution, as my tax dollars are supporting it.

Your taxdollars are actually supporting biologists trying to disprove evolution. That they sofar have failed miserably and in the process of testing have made many intruiging discoveries is just a mere detail.

There, does that make it better ?

Look, you clearly don't know anything about the method used in dating objects and artifacts.

Suppose you had a 1cm ruler, a 30cm ruler, a ten metre long pole, and a 100 metre long pole and you had to measure a distance. Assume that none of them have any markings on them. If you want to measure a small newt then the 1cm ruler will probably be your best bet, the 10 and 100 metre long poles are too long to give you an accurate reading of the distance. If, on the other hand, you want to measure an aircraft carrier, then the 100 metre pole is your best bet.

A radioactive isotope loses 50% of its material after a half-life has passed, so after ten half lives there is so little left that we can't get a reliable figure from it. The half-life of Carbon 14 is 6,000 years, so after 60,000 years there isn't enough left to get a reliable age. IIRC Uranium 238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so it's great for ancient stuff but far to unwieldy to use on relatively recent objects.

Oh, and we can 'truly know the date' because we've calibrated dating techniques on lake valves, ice cores, and the like.



What are you talking about?


I was not stating anything about any other dating, just how carbon dating is not accurate, but thank you for supporting me.

Your taxdollars are actually supporting biologists trying to disprove evolution. That they sofar have failed miserably and in the process of testing have made many intruiging discoveries is just a mere detail.

There, does that make it better ?

If you wish to put it that way, the Bible also has a load of scoffers trying to disprove it, but do they? No.

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.

Firstly, this is a damn lie. Evolution is a science and so makes no value judgements.
Secondly, even if this was true (which it isn't) it wouldn't justify rejecting the evidence for evolution.

Hitler and the comlubine shootings were focused on "the advancement of a certain race."

Bullshit. The Columbine shootings were the result of overly lax gun control laws. Hitler was a Christian and his crusade against Jews were largely driven by his faith.

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?

This is a damn lie and you'd know it if you'd taken the time to actually read any of Darwin's work instead of just repeating the crap you read on Creationist websites. Where shall I start?

1. 'Races' doesn't refer to human races, but to species. Darwin's work on the evolution of man was included in his later book The Descent of Man.
2. Darwin was not a racist. He was very nearly kicked off the ship by the captain (a devout Christian) because of his outspoken opposition to slavery and his advocacy of racial equality.
3. Darwin donated huge sums of money to William Wilberforce's abolition movement.

Seriously, spewing this nonsense serves no purpose beyond making you look foolish. Try reading his books.

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.

Evolution does occur today. Heard of the Nylon bug? Do you know why so many people are worried about Avian Flu? What about the Silver Foxes in Russia?

First, I would like to congradulate you. You are the first one I have seen who has put the burden of proof on yourself to prove Evolution, and not make me have to disprove it. However, it is still like I had said earlier. Why is the story of a frog turning into a prince a "fairy tale" and yet if you add more time in between that, it turns out it be a science.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no other theory in existence has undergone as rigorous testing or provided as much empirical, genetic, paleontological well as geological evidence to support that claim as the theory of evolution. The kind of rigor that has gone in to constructing the theory of evolution and making it the most correct explanation of the development of life on Earth is unrivaled in any other field of science.

Off-topic: People, it is your job to prove Evolution, not mine t disprove it. If I said the the inside of a watermelon was sludge until it split open, then whose job would it be to try and prove it either way? Mine, not the other persons.

To go back to the courtroom analogy, if a jury were presented with evidence exonerating a person that was as broad, tested and as well-supported as the evidence that supports evolution, they would be guilty of a heinous, even criminal miscarriage of justice to find that person guilty. It has been tested, tested, and tested again, and it has only been confirmed by experiments and evidence and made stronger and stronger.

I was not stating anything about any other dating, just how carbon dating is not accurate, but thank you for supporting me.

You've shown no such thing, all you've done is present ignorance and misconceptions. Why don't you try to respond to my post about lake varves and the callibration of C14 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12589460&postcount=482)?

Thank you but could you fix the quote boxes please?

Sorry, it should be fixed now. :)

If you wish to put it that way, the Bible also has a load of scoffers trying to disprove it, but do they? No.

"LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."

The bat is not a bird.

Second, my old biology book states it. "The term punctiuated Equilibrium refers to sudden, rapid change..." (Holt, Rinehart and Winston 'harcourt education comapny,' modern Biology page 330.).

That's exactly what I said. Sudden, rapid change. The problem is, your conception of "sudden" isn't "sudden" on a geological scale; we're talking hundreds of thousands of years here, not a few generations. An organism that changes enough to speciate in 50,000 or 100,000 years is blisteringly fast and sudden on a evolutionary timescale; that's equal to 0.000026% of the entire history of life on Earth.

If you wish to put it that way, the Bible also has a load of scoffers trying to disprove it, but do they? No.

The Bible can't be disproved. There is no way to falsify the theological claims in the Bible and that's the main reason why it is not and will never be considered science. The same is true of the Qur'an, or the Mahabarata, or any other religious text in existence. Those books illustrate the philosophical and theological ideas behind personal belief...they are not science texts and were never meant to be.

The only claims in the Bible that can be supported or refuted are those that have to deal with history and the physical world.

Lancaster, you mentioned that you were a christian, so I was merely trying to make you better understand the exact thing that you "beleive in."

What I believe in does not truly matter to the Old Earth Theory. You have stated that it is wrong and I asking on what basis. You have yet to answer it nor have you responded to my post.

If you wish to put it that way

II do not "wish" to put it that way - that is the way it is. That you have chosen to ignore how the scientific method actually works does not magically change the fact that it really *is* based on testing, disproving and adaptation to observation.

the Bible also has a load of scoffers trying to disprove it, but do they? No.

Depends how you look at it. One could say that many interpretations of the Bible have been proven wrong - but that many Christians simply refuse to accept that because the Bible "cannot be wrong, so the facts must be". The whole "the earth is much older than 6000 years" debate is a good example. Of course, the whole "facts are wrong if they do not fit scripture" stance is completely acceptable if one accepts a supreme being that can change things at will.
If you disagree with this analysis, give me some examples of what you would accept as being proof that the Bible is wrong.

The theory of evolution on the other hand does not have a supernatural "escape line". A flaw found is a flaw found. And while many aspects of it have changed since Darwin, the main idea has still not been disproven yet. The tests performed in the attempts to disprove it have furthermore given us extremely valuable insights.

In other words: even if the theory of evolution turns out to be wrong, it has been very useful.

The Bible can't be disproved. There is no way to falsify the theological claims in the Bible and that's the main reason why it is not and will never be considered science. The same is true of the Qur'an, or the Mahabarata, or any other religious text in existence.

The only claims in the Bible that can be supported or refuted are those that have to deal with history and the physical world.

See my post above. And like he said, if one word of the bible is false than it all must be false or something or other. Whatever that guy said.

Sorry, it should be fixed now. :)

Thank you my friend :)

Err... maybe you should learn about it, too? I do not think I can sufficiently answer that... err... question?

I do not need to prove creationism, why should I do that? Are our tax dollars going towards teaching it? No, it is you who needs to prove Evolution, as my tax dollars are supporting it.
Eh, that's not how the burden of proof works at all.

Evolution? Well, there was the species of homo sapiens. But a while ago a new species branched off to become homo stultus and somehow the sapiens part was lost. And normally members of the original species do not (or should not) interbreed with members of the latter. Scientists are still trying to figure out how this happened, but apparently the latter species is lacking some basic functionality in the neocortex...

Hitler was a Christian and his crusade against Jews were largely driven by his faith.No way.

No way.

Way. :)

No, you proved microEvolution. It is STILL a fruit fly plain and simply.

You do realise that the difference between those two species of fruit flies is about the same as the difference between chimpanzees and humans, right? No, no you do not.

Also, care to refute the Nylon Bug and HeLa?

The Bible can't be disproved. There is no way to falsify the theological claims in the Bible ...However, it can be proved that the currently understood theology of the bible was not around until shortly prior to the time when the bible was written in the 3rd century BCE. So if nobody actually believed what and how the bible claims, doesn't that render the bible pointless entirely? If Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc believed in the same gods their contemporaries did (and there is absolutely no reason to assume that they did not), then why the fuck should anyone today believe in the biblical 'god'?

All I've read is the author's first post, since that's all I need to read. I'm a Christian and a creationist, but not for the "literal" translation of one day actually being a day.

Hitler was a Christian and his crusade against Jews were largely driven by his faith.

I hate when people use this argument, since it's not true. Hitler was not a Christian, though he used the name of God on several occasions to help instill the support of the crowds. However, Hitler was just as atheist and anti-religion in private (and I recall a quote from him about it somewhere as well) as the Soviets, since they actually had the similar ideals. Nazis are socialists, after all, and part of socialism/communism is the abolishment of religion.

Hitler's "crusade" was actually revenge against the Jews, who he felt lead to the devestation of Germany after WW1, which actually isn't too far off. When the country was split up into different sections, most of them taken away to create new countries or be taken up by other powers, the wealthy bankers - mostly Jews - profitted greatly in all the exchange and the like and actually led to it being further broken up. If you remember your history, Germany entered into a devestating depression following WW1, while the wealthy bankers who had made a fortune remained rich.

On a side note: What the hell does this have to do with Creationism? :mad:

All I've read is the author's first post, since that's all I need to read. I'm a Christian and a creationist, but not for the "literal" translation of one day actually being a day.

But do you believe that a bat is a bird?

Evolution? Well, there was the species of homo sapiens. But a while ago a new species branched off to become homo stultus and somehow the sapiens part was lost. And normally members of the original species do not (or should not) interbreed with members of the latter. Scientists are still trying to figure out how this happened, but apparently the latter species is lacking some basic functionality in the neocortex...

No, you're wrong. Homo sapiens gave rise to a sympatric subspecies, Homo sapiens insapiens. Crosses or purebreeds are theoretically viable, but theologically unstable.

You do realise that the difference between those two species of fruit flies is about the same as the difference between chimpanzees and humans, right? No, no you do not.

Also, care to refute the Nylon Bug and HeLa?

He also has not refuted the Old Earth Theory either.

No, you're wrong. Homo sapiens gave rise to a sympatric subspecies, Homo sapiens insapiens. Crosses or purebreeds are theoretically viable, but theologically unstable.Trying to make fun from my fun, huh?

I hate when people use this argument, since it's not true. Hitler was not a Christian, though he used the name of God on several occasions to help instill the support of the crowds. However, Hitler was just as atheist and anti-religion in private (and I recall a quote from him about it somewhere as well) as the Soviets, since they actually had the similar ideals. Nazis are socialists, after all, and part of socialism/communism is the abolishment of religion.

Hitler's "crusade" was actually revenge against the Jews, who he felt lead to the devestation of Germany after WW1, which actually isn't too far off. When the country was split up into different sections, most of them taken away to create new countries or be taken up by other powers, the wealthy bankers - mostly Jews - profitted greatly in all the exchange and the like and actually led to it being further broken up. If you remember your history, Germany entered into a devestating depression following WW1, while the wealthy bankers who had made a fortune remained rich.

I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work.

I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

The National Government regards the two Christian confessions as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.

Yep, that sounds like the kind of thing an atheist would say...

Anti-semitism was rife in Christianity at the time; the Catholic Church included the phrase "perfidious Jew" in their core beliefs, and anyone who's read any of Martin Luther's writing will know how much he hated Jews.

I'm not suggesting that Christianity is inherently anti-semitic or that Christians today are anti-Semites, but it's undeniable that Hitler considered himself to be a Christian and believed that he was doing God's work.

On a side note: What the hell does this have to do with Creationism? :mad:

Some Creationists like to pretend that Hitler was an atheist and that Nazism is the logical conclusion of Evolution.

Yep, that sounds like the kind of thing an atheist would say...It sounds like someone who tries to win over the mainly Christian German public of the 1920s and 30s. Hitler was no real Christian and his Christian drooling was superficial at best.

It sounds like someone who tries to win over the mainly Christian German public of the 1920s and 30s. Hitler was no real Christian and his Christian drooling was superficial at best.

What evidence do you have that Hitler wasn't a Christian?

What evidence do you have that Hitler wasn't a Christian?

The Darwinian ideal of survival of the fittest is not a christian ideal.

The Darwinian ideal of survival of the fittest is not a christian ideal.

Survival of the fittest isn't an 'ideal', it's a tautology.

What evidence do you have that Hitler wasn't a Christian?Of course he was "Christian", because it said so in his papers. Since when does being Christian mean anything in Europe? It says nothing about actual beliefs. And of course he wanted to seem a "good Christian" in the public eye by dropping some Christian bullshit every now and then. If one is coming from southern Germany or Austria it is (in some extend even today) important to appear Christian to be acceptable by the bourgeoisie.
Grow up in France and Germany and you'll know such things.

Of course he was "Christian", because it said so in his papers. Since when does being Christian mean anything in Europe? It says nothing about actual beliefs. And of course he wanted to seem a "good Christian" in the public eye by dropping some Christian bullshit every now and then. If one is coming from southern Germany or Austria it is (in some extend even today) important to appear Christian to be acceptable by the bourgeoisie.
Grow up in France and Germany and you'll know such things.

So can I take it that you don't actually have any evidence for his not being a Christian?

History isn't an exact field and nothing in the past can be truly certain, but all the evidence that we have points towards Hitler regarding himself as a Christian.

Survival of the fittest isn't an 'ideal', it's a tautology.

I meant in the "human intervention to acheive the goal of a perfect race" style of "survival of the fittest".

I meant in the "human intervention to acheive the goal of a perfect race" style of "survival of the fittest".

... and Eugenics isn't a Darwinian ideal, any more than pushing people off cliffs is a Newtonian ideal. Would you like to try again?

... and Eugenics isn't a Darwinian idealpushing people off cliffs is a Newtonian ideal. Would you like to try again

It's almost exclusively influenced by Darwin.

It's almost exclusively influenced by Darwin.

Influenced by Darwin? Yes.
Exclusively? No.
People have been killing groups of people they don't like FOREVER.
Among the Nazi influences is Martin Luther, founder of the brand of Christian Protestantism known as Lutheranism. Martin Luther called for the extermination of the Jews I believe, and his works became popular among the Nazis.

It's almost exclusively influenced by Darwin.

The Inquisition was almost exclusively influenced by Christianity. Does that mean that the Inquisition was a Christian 'ideal'.

Besides, Darwin never advocated eugenics, Eugenics simply used the knowledge which he presented. The manufacture of nuclear weapons is only possible because of the knowledge accumulated through research into nuclear physics, but that doesn't make nuclear war an ideal of physics does it?

You might also be interested to know that Darwin was outspoken in his opposition to slavery and other racist endeavors.

Martin Luther called for the extermination of the Jews I believe, and his works became popular among the Nazis.

I'm not sure about extermination, but some of his writings bear an uncanny resemblence to the early stages of the Final Solution.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:


First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly * and I myself was unaware of it * will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.


Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.


Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)


Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.


Fifth, I advise that safe*conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).


Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.


Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen 3[:19]}. For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.

Jewish Virtual Library (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/Luther_on_Jews.html)

The Inquisition was almost exclusively influenced by Christianity. Does that mean that the Inquisition was a Christian 'ideal'.

Besides, Darwin never advocated eugenics, Eugenics simply used the knowledge which he presented. The manufacture of nuclear weapons is only possible because of the knowledge accumulated through research into nuclear physics, but that doesn't make nuclear war an ideal of physics does it?

You might also be interested to know that Darwin was outspoken in his opposition to slavery and other racist endeavors.

I don't disagree with you. However, you seem to be suggesting that Christianity was the main motivation behind the Nazis. I am pointing out that there is nothing Christian about the idea of a perfect race through eugenics.

I don't disagree with you. However, you seem to be suggesting that Christianity was the main motivation behind the Nazis. I am pointing out that there is nothing Christian about the idea of a perfect race through eugenics.

It's my position that the Nazis believed that what they were doing was Christian; whether or not Christianity can be taken to support their actions is a completely different question. Apologies if I misunderstood you. :)

So can I take it that you don't actually have any evidence for his not being a Christian?

History isn't an exact field and nothing in the past can be truly certain, but all the evidence that we have points towards Hitler regarding himself as a Christian.Which means nothing, really. You can't go to a German villager, tell him you're no Christian, and expect him to vote for you in the next election for the Reichstag. Impossible in those days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

Which means nothing, really. You can't go to a German villager, tell him you're no Christian, and expect him to vote for you in the next election for the Reichstag. Impossible in those days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs

And yet even in private conversations with those he trusted, Hitler still declared himself to be a Christian. He told Gerhard Engel that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" and Engel noted this in his diary.
If you're not willing to accept this as evidence for Hitler's beliefs, then may I ask what you would consider to be evidence?

And yet even in private conversations with those he trusted, Hitler still declared himself to be a Christian. He told Gerhard Engel that "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" and Engel noted this in his diary.
If you're not willing to accept this as evidence for Hitler's beliefs, then may I ask what you would consider to be evidence?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements
and the 'Positive Christianity' thing has nothing to do with Christianity, really

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Private_statements
and the 'Positive Christianity' thing has nothing to do with Christianity, really

And the footnote reads:

The collection called Table Talk is questioned by some; while most historians consider it a useful source, they do not regard it as wholly reliable. Ian Kershaw makes clear the questionable nature of Table Talk as a historically valid source; see his Hitler 1889-1936 Hubris London, 1998, xiv. Richard Carrier goes further contending that certain portions of Table Talk, especially those regarding Hitler's alleged hatred of Christianity, are outright inventions: see his "Hitler's Table Talk, Troubling Finds" German Studies Review26:3 October 2003. However, although Kershaw recommends treating the work with caution, he does not suggest dispensing with it altogether. (The Holy Reich, p. 253)

Richard Carrier's article can be found here (http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php), with the relevant part starting almost half way down the page; he shows that many of the anti-Christian comments reported in Table Talks are fabrications which are nowhere to be found in the original German text. Table talks is a shoddy translation of a shoddy French translation.

I ask again: what would you consider to be evidence of Hitler's beliefs?

He also has not refuted the Old Earth Theory either.

Man, I'm not holding my breath.

As much as I've been arguing against Creationism in this discussion, my only real emnity towards it comes in the form of YEC. If you're an Old Earth Creationist and willing to keep it out of science classes, I honestly don't care what you believe.

Man, I'm not holding my breath.

As much as I've been arguing against Creationism in this discussion, my only real emnity towards it comes in the form of YEC. If you're an Old Earth Creationist and willing to keep it out of science classes, I honestly don't care what you believe.

I could go either way on Creationism but it should be left out of science.

I could go either way on Creationism but it should be left out of science.

As a YEC I feel both Creationism as part of Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught alongside each other in the classroom as theories and leave it up to the student to decide which to believe. Teach both as theories as they should as both can't be absolutely proven as fact (yet). Also, they should both be taught as both are major beliefs. So, teach them both if only for the knowledge of knowing what the other side believes. I feel this is important because if I didn't go to a Christian university I would still be a theistic-evolutionist. Yes, I used to beleive evolution but now I believe in a biblical creation. You may dissagree with me but I at the least feel the student should have the choice of what to be taught as I never had until college.

As a YEC I feel both Creationism as part of Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught alongside each other in the classroom as theories and leave it up to the student to decide which to believe. Teach both as theories as they should as both can't be absolutely proven as fact (yet). Also, they should both be taught as both are major beliefs. So, teach them both if only for the knowledge of knowing what the other side believes. I feel this is important because if I didn't go to a Christian university I would still be a theistic-evolutionist. Yes, I used to beleive evolution but now I believe in a biblical creation. You may dissagree with me but I at the least feel the student should have the choice of what to be taught as I never had until college.

Maybe if creationism or Intelligent Design ever become scientific theories they'll get taught in science classes. For now they're poor attempts at hypotheses and not worth the time of science students, except maybe as an example of what not to do.

I will have no problem with having Creationism taught in schools, just as soon as it comes up with some evidence to support itself.

Let's see....how long has it been since the first organism took a breath, (or osmosed..whatever)?
No proof yet.
Hmm..doesnt look good for Creationism, huh?

Maybe if creationism or Intelligent Design ever become scientific theories they'll get taught in science classes. For now they're poor attempts at hypotheses and not worth the time of science students, except maybe as an example of what not to do.

I agree entirely, creationism should be mocked and ridiculed in the science class for being a load of shite, based on a load of shite. In the RE classes, I have no problem with other kinds of discussion regarding creationism.

I agree entirely, creationism should be mocked and ridiculed in the science class for being a load of shite, based on a load of shite. In the RE classes, I have no problem with other kinds of discussion regarding creationism.Why do you distinguish between science class and RE class? Does a load of shite not always remain a load of shite, regardless how you look at it?

As a YEC I feel both Creationism as part of Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught alongside each other in the classroom as theories and leave it up to the student to decide which to believe. Teach both as theories as they should as both can't be absolutely proven as fact (yet).

I got news for you: we already do this.

See, in science classes, when we present a theory we present it in the context of the science behind it. We present the reasons why the theory is supported by data. We present the history of the research that has gone into developing the theory, and the various tests and challenges to the theory that science has employed.

Creationism has precisely zero evidence of any kind. There has been precisely zero empirical research done to establish Creationism as a scientific theory. Creation scientists have given exactly zero predictions arising from their theory, and have provided exactly zero empirical methods for testing their hypotheses.

So that is what we present in science class, when it comes to Creationism.

We give Creationism exactly the same consideration as we give evolutionary biology. The only difference is, evolutionary biology actually has material to present, while Creationism has nothing.

Don't believe me? Fine. You present the testable, falsifiable hypotheses of Creationism. You provide me with links to peer-reviewed laboratory or field research performed to support Creationism. Remember, experiments testing EVOLUTION don't count. They have to be empirical studies done to test Creationism, specifically.

I'll wait.

This is why I get so pissed off at the lying liars who claim Creationism is "science." It's like if I spend the next 4 years working on my doctoral thesis, doing experiments, processing data, analyzing results, busting my ass to present a cogent explanation for what I am observing...etc etc. Then, on the day that I present my thesis, some other guy stands up and insists that his alternate theory be given equal time. He hasn't done any research at all. He hasn't done a single experiment, or generated a single hypothesis, or put forth any predictions. He hasn't got a single paper published. He hasn't got a grant. But he wants equal time. And his theory is, "God did it." He doesn't have anything to support it, of course, but he wants his made-up guess to be given equal time along side the real work I have done.

Fuck that noise. You want equal consideration? Do equal work.


Also, they should both be taught as both are major beliefs. So, teach them both if only for the knowledge of knowing what the other side believes. I feel this is important because if I didn't go to a Christian university I would still be a theistic-evolutionist. Yes, I used to beleive evolution but now I believe in a biblical creation. You may dissagree with me but I at the least feel the student should have the choice of what to be taught as I never had until college.
Bullshit.

Students don't have a choice in what they're taught, because we don't get to pick and choose which reality we live in. Students shouldn't get to choose to be taught that 3+3=105923, and they shouldn't get to be taught that Creationism is a scientific theory. Telling students either of those would not be teaching...it would simply be lying.

No, that's not true at all. What PE says is that phenotypical changes occur fairly suddenly in an organism's history. These changes seem sudden, but only on a geological timescale. A cat isn't going to give birth to a non-cat, but that species of cat may undergo changes over a short period of time, say 100,000 years, that cause it to branch off and form a new species in a process known as cladogenesis. Allopatric

Even so, the conservative form of PE is not really that radical; it's entirely a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis that is the basis of contemporary evolutionary theory.
There's actually a really cool bit of research being done on some newt species in California right now. Let me see if I can break it down in simple terms.

We start with Newt Species A. They live in a particular environment (let's say, by the coast). Over time, some members of Newt Species A move inland a bit. They live in a different environment now, and over time the new selective pressures of this environment favor slightly different newts in the inland tribe. After quite a while, we end up with Newt Species A2 living inland, with some significant differences from Newt Species A. But A and A2 newts can still interbreed.

So far so good?

Okay, now some members of A2 also migrate further inland. They form a new pocket of newts around an inland lake, and they also experience slightly different selective pressures, which eventually leads them to become Newt Species A3. They can still interbreed with A2 newts.

Now, repeat this several more times. You end up with Species A, A2, A3, A4, and so on.

Along the way, something very interesting happens. Eventually, Newt Species A cannot interbreed with, say, Newt Species A6. Now, Newt Species A6 can still interbreed with A5s, and A5s can breed with A4s, and so on back down the line, so indirectly all the newt species can still interbreed. But we can actually SEE the divergence of a new species occurring! We can look at various isolated newt populations, and actually see the way that selection leads to populations that have diverged so much that they can no longer reproduce together.

Awesome stuff.

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.

I've heard lots of people claim this, and not a single one has ever supported it with anything other than their personal psychological hangups.

Please explain, specifically, how the theory of evolution states that "we have not point in life," and that "if it feels good then do it" should be our philosophy.

Please also explain how natural selection is consistent with the idea that we can all do what we feel. Keeping in mind that we have countless metric tons of evidence that "doing what you feel" will frequently get you prematurely removed from the gene pool.

You need to learn how to distinguish between micro and macro evolution. So perhaps you should go and educate yourself eh?
The supposed "distinction" between micro and macro evolution is almost entirely made up by laypeople. In evolutionary biology, no significant distinction is recognized by researchers.

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?

The Bible is irrelevant to my points. There is no more reason for me to "open my mind" to the Bible than there is for me to "open my mind" to the Greek myths or the tablets which recount the life of Horus.

We are discussing science. If you have scientific evidence to present, please do.


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

I didn't ask you for "arguments" against evolution. The fact that you choose to present them is irrelevant, and a very lame attempt at distraction.

I make my living testing hypotheses that are directly tied to evolutionary theory. I promise you, I come up with more challenges to the theory of evolution in one week than you have come up with in your lifetime. And my challenges can actually be used in the laboratory.

I don't need your help with that. What I ask from you is supports FOR the validity of your Creation myth. These supports must specifically address YOUR Creation myth, as opposed to all the other Creation myths, and must be scientific in nature.

Simply saying "Evolution hasn't been proved!" does nothing for you. Repeating that it's "just a theory" does nothing for you. Scientific theories ARE NEVER PROVEN. The fact that a prevailing theory has not been proven does not in any way, shape, or form lend strength to your arguments.

Stop being lazy. You cannot get ahead in science by tossing insults at hard-working researchers, or by simply insulting a theory you don't like. Do some actual work yourself. Get supports for YOUR competing theory. Get some evidence FOR your theory.

This reminds me of nothing so much as if the Charge of the Light Brigade was translated into a forum argument, where the creationists bravely charge Bottle and get messily slaughtered. "It is magnificent, but it isn't debate. It is stupidity."

I seem to be encountering a lot of creationists these days. On another forum where the average poster has the intelligence of a cantaloupe I got into an extremely unpleasant evolution debate. It essentially came down to
"The Earth was created 6000 years ago! Radiocarbon dating is a lie!"
"... why?"
"Uh... I read it in a book."
Ooh, ooh, the best moment there was when someone said that Darwin converted on his deathbed. I disagreed. I was told to search it. I duly googled. I posted a list of every result on the first page and how every single one said the conversion was nonsense. Ah, good times.
Today in the newspaper there was a letter to the editor where "God-given common sense tells him that if monkeys still exist evolution is false" :headbang:

So... enough with my rambling. Bottle needs no help here on the debate front.

So... enough with my rambling. Bottle needs no help here on the debate front.

Clearly, but forum slaughter is fun, and our side has BFG9000s.

Why do you distinguish between science class and RE class? Does a load of shite not always remain a load of shite, regardless how you look at it?

Much as I loathe this pseudo-science called 'creationism', you can't leave it off the RE curriculum. RE is about studying people's beliefs; therefore if people believe in something, however misguided and ill-informed their belief may be, you can look at it in RE. Otherwise, you might as well have art teachers refusing to discuss the Sistine Chapel ceiling just because they don't agree with the religion which inspired Michelangelo to paint it.

Naturally, creationism does not belong in science class, any more than the Flat Earth Society's ideas belong in a geography lesson.

This reminds me of nothing so much as if the Charge of the Light Brigade was translated into a forum argument, where the creationists bravely charge Bottle and get messily slaughtered. "It is magnificent, but it isn't debate. It is stupidity."

Half a page half a page
  Half a thread onward
All in the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred:
'Forward, the ID Brigade!
Charge for the Evilutionists' he said
Into the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred.

'Forward, the ID Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the posters knew
  Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to post & die,
Into the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred.

Facts to right of them,
Facts to left of them,
Facts in front of them
  Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with data & theory,
Baldly they lied & poorly,
Into the thread of Creationism,
Into the fait accompli
  wrote the six hundred.

Flash'd all their fallacies bare,
Flash'd as they turned in air,
Duping the masses there,
Charging at windmills while
  All the world wonders:
A smoke screen to cover their shame
And Hitler's "atheism" to blame;
Biologist & Physicist
Laughed from the pseudo-science joke
Battered & plunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Facts to right of them,
Facts to left of them,
Facts in front of them
  Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with data & theory,
While fallacies & fanatics fell,
They that had stone-walled so well
Came thro' the thread of Creationism,
Back from the fait accompli,
All that was left of them
  Left of six hundred.

When can their gullibility fade?
O the wild charges they've made!
  All the world wonders.
Humor the charge they made!
Humor the ID Brigade,
  Gullible six hundred!

<musical snip>

Siggin dis!


It's getting really hard to fit things into my sig these days. Damned 1000 character limit!

Siggin dis!
Apologies for the loose rhymes and poor adherence to metre. Tennyson is probably spinning in his grave so fast that we could use the energy to power our lab.

Apologies for the loose rhymes and poor adherence to metre. Tennyson is probably spinning in his grave so fast that we could use the energy to power our lab.

That might save on electricity costs, you know.

Half a page half a page
  Half a thread onward
All in the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred:
'Forward, the ID Brigade!
Charge for the Evilutionists' he said
Into the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred....

Worth framing.

LOLs! Most definitely sig'd. :cool:

Ok, so I have read all 10 pages of theis topic. I take the bible as fact. I also think that Evolution is BS.

If you have a empty box and tape it up with nothing in it. What is going to happen? Nothing. You throw a broken watch in the air, Is it going to fix itself? No.

There is a line in a movie that says it all "The easiet explaination tends to be the right one", but if you are like me you take why we are here on faith, not scientist theroy. So, say what you will, but I believe the Bible. I DO NOT believe we were made from APES.

I do not attend a church. I just sit at home and read my bible, so the theroy of me being told to believe or else is mute. Also, for the one who wants proof that God is real or that he created the Earth in 6 days. Look around you. The proof is all around you. I see it every day, and God has personally touched my life. Well thats it, so say what you will.

Ha ha ha ha! LOL! What a wonderful advert for athiesm you unknowingly are!
Priceless! :D

Ha ha ha ha! LOL! What a wonderful advert for athiesm you unknowingly are!
Priceless! :D
I'd say he's a much better advert for increasing the science education budget in his area.

Example:

"I DO NOT believe we were made from APES."

Humans are apes.

Imagine somebody saying, "I DO NOT believe the Toyota Camry was made from CARS."

Yeah. Now you can feel the pain a biologist feels.

Much as I loathe this pseudo-science called 'creationism', you can't leave it off the RE curriculum.

Nonsense.

'Creationism' (by which, I assume, we mean christian Creationism), deserves no more or less than any of the other major creation ideas. It also doesn't deserve representation unless ALL other 'theories' are covered to some extent. (I'm willing to allow the biggest handful probably could argue they need a little more time - but only to consider cultural impact.

Even in RE/RS, unless your syllabus gives roughly equal time to the big religions, and at least discusses the aboriginal Dreamtime, the Egyptian concept of a world generated from deitic onanism, and the Japanese defecatory world theory.... then the platform of 'religious education' is dishonest. If we are to bias the material towards Christianity so heavily, it has no place in schools at all. There are places called 'churches' designed specifically for that kind of non-representative praching.

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.
I'm a Christian fundamentalist, and a Young Earth Creationist, in very much the sense you seem to seek.

However, I don't have the time to read forty-one pages of posts to see if you've already found somebody.

So I'll just briefly answer your question, and if you have further comment, feel free to send a telegram to the Free Land of Flarpo.

I don't believe Christianity and evolution can ever be reconciled, at least not in their present forms, for three reasons.

Those reasons are sequence, direct contradiction, and doctrinal consistency.

I'll quickly address each of those.

Sequence: Genesis 1 is very careful to assign a particular sequence to the events of Creation, with the use of words like "first," "second," and so on; that sequence is absolutely incompatible with evolution as we know it today, and also with a fair chunk of modern cosmology. For example, Genesis says there were three evenings and three mornings before the creation of the sun and moon. There are other examples of this, but I'm being brief.

Direct contradiction: There are things a reconciliation between Christianity and evolution depends on that Genesis flatly says didn't happen. I'll give two examples. (I'm being brief.)

Reconcilers say that each day in Genesis may have actually been several millions of years, and point to the common figurative use of the word "yom" in Hebrew. However, Genesis doesn't simply say "the first day," "the second day," etc (which would be bad enough; see above). Instead, it says, "And there was evening and morning, the second day." Almost as if the author of Genesis knew that one day people might suggest millions of years to the day, and specifically intended to eliminate that possibility from interpretation.

Reconcilers say that predator/prey relationships necessarily existed for millions of years of evolution before anything that could be called "man" came into existence. However, according to Genesis 1 (verse 30), every animal in the world was an herbivore, not only until after man had been created, but until after the Fall of Man in Genesis 3. There were no carnivores, there were no predators.

Doctrinal consistency: Reconcilers must give up what turns out to be a surprising amount of Christian doctrine in order to reconcile Christianity with evolution--as a matter of fact, so much that what they wind up with bears only a passing resemblance to Christianity, and that only on the surface, to outsiders. I'll give an example. (If brevity is the soul of wit, I ought to be a comedian.)

One of the foundations of Christian doctrine is that death came into the world because of sin--specifically because of Adam's sin. That's one of the chief claims to importance that sin has: sin implies death, therefore eternal life implies no sin, therefore the atonement of Jesus on the cross is crucial. However, evolution teaches that nature was "red in tooth and claw" for millions of years before man evolved. Yank the premise that sin is the cause of death, and Christianity is already sitting a little cockeyed. Yank the rest of the stuff reconcilers want to yank, and it becomes little more than a hollow shell, if that.

Here's an exercise for you: according to Genesis, what was the occasion of the very first death in the world, and who was the killer? (Hint: look carefully. It's hard to find, and it's not the murder of Abel by Cain. Before that. Which narrows it down a bit.)

So...if you're an honest evolutionist who thinks Christianity is bunk, I can respect that. If you're an honest creationist who thinks evolution is bunk, I can respect that too. But if you're under the impression that Christianity and (macro)evolutionism can be reconciled, I think you're either being sold a bill of goods, or you're trying to sell one to somebody else.

Maybe if creationism or Intelligent Design ever become scientific theories they'll get taught in science classes. For now they're poor attempts at hypotheses and not worth the time of science students, except maybe as an example of what not to do.

There is some truth to what you are saying.

will this make you laugh or cry?

http://www.creationism.org/griggs/index.htm

Why do you distinguish between science class and RE class? Does a load of shite not always remain a load of shite, regardless how you look at it?

RE is Comparitive Religion. Creationism is appropriate there. It is not appropriate in a science classroom and that is coming from a die hard bible believer. :eek:

There is some truth to what you are saying.
This implies that there are portions of what Ifreann was saying which are NOT true. Which parts are those?

Naturally, creationism does not belong in science class, any more than the Flat Earth Society's ideas belong in a geography lesson.

Actualy...it is a good idea to have the Flat Earth Society's ideas in Geography class. Why? Because it is what they thought back then.

This implies that there are portions of what Ifreann was saying which are NOT true. Which parts are those?

That creationism has any remote opportunity to be placed in a science classroom. :D

Actualy...it is a good idea to have the Flat Earth Society's ideas in Geography class. Why? Because it is what they thought back then.
I don't know about anybody else's Geography classes, but in mine the "theory of the flat Earth" took about 30 seconds to teach.

"People once thought the Earth was flat. We now know this is incorrect, and the Earth is actually a slightly-distorted globe."

End of lesson.

Now, in HISTORY classes we learn about the various ups and downs of Flat Earthism throughout human civilization. I'd say that's the appropriate place to look at the influence of various human ideas across human civilizations. Same for Creation myths.

will this make you laugh or cry?

http://www.creationism.org/griggs/index.htm
They fail at teaching evolution. Chances are they fail at teaching in general.

People, again this problem keeps coming up. Some are asking the scientific community to answer faith-based questions, and some are asking the faith community to answer scientific questions. Since, in their purest form, science is relegated to the natural and faith to the supernatural, asking natural-based questions to the supernatural camp and asking supernatural-based questions to the natural is an exercise in futility.

Is there some crossover between science and faith? Certainly, but IMHO, each side can only answer part of the question of creation; neither can explain both sides. What I mean by that is, science (in the strictest sense of the word) is much better equipped to explain *the process* of creation, whereas faith (also in the strictest sense of the word) is much better equipped to explain *the purpose* of creation. Science can explain *how* we're here, but it's certainly in no position to explain *why* we're here; that is a matter of faith/philosophy, and as such is unexplainable by empirical evidence - science's modus operandi. And I would say the reverse is true.

Now, like I said, is there some crossover? Certainly. There are many documented occurances of "miracles" - healings, visions, etc. Some of the are written testimony, whereas others are videos of the different phenomena. Such evidence would be considered "empirical" and also "observable", and thus, would be considered fair game for scientific scrutiny. Also, studies have been done on the power of prayer and its effects on people in the hospital. These are scientific studies done with the purpose of answering faith-based questions. The same could be said for any archaeological dig that sets out to verify or disprove historical claims in the Bible regarding cities or empires and the such.

In the case of creation, however, such eyewitness accounts don't really exist for EITHER side. Now before anyone gets their feathers ruffles over that statement, let me explain:

Science can certainly take data acquired at THIS point in time, and interpolate it back to the point of creation. That's fair; interpolation has been a proven method for data-gathering. Scientist can look at the geological strata, the fossil record, certain forms of radition in the universe, etc. These are all forms of empirical evidence. However, as I said before, any theorizing done on the *exact point of creation* is just that, theorizing. The old-Earth, evolution-based position most scientists take is certainly backed up by what evidence is gathered at the present time, but the fact is, no one was there to see it, and as such, no definitive answer can be given. And yes, before anyone corrects me, I AM aware that "science works mainly in theories, and if you want definitive answers, work in mathetmatics."

On the faith side of the coin, we have what (at first glance) appears to be an eye-witness account from Moses. But then again, what he wrote down was merely a vision of the events that played out before he - and indeed all of mankind - ever existed. With that said, COULD it have been literal? Maybe, but then again, you have all the geological evidence to contend with. COULD God have formed the Earth to look older than it really was right from the start? Sure, but then again, what would be the point?

I guess my main point is, so far, most scientists (from what I can gather) claim "the universe was formed from the Big Bang event, and all living creatures on this planet were formed through the process of evolution." And o this day, creationists have yet to disprove said theory.
On the other hand, regardless of views on the Big Bang or evolution, most religions (with notable exceptions being atheism and its variants) claim "God (or at least, a higher power) was responsible for the events of universe and creature formation." And to this day, scientists have been unable to disprove said theory.

Again, due to the evidence scientists have in the geological/biological record, it's rather pointless to ask a believer to disprove the Big Bang or evolution. But on the flipside, due to the evidence scientists have in various documented miracles and the historical record, it is equally pointless to ask a scientist to disprove the existence of God.

Actualy...it is a good idea to have the Flat Earth Society's ideas in Geography class. Why? Because it is what they thought back then.

No. No it was not. The Earth was positively shown to be round well over two thousand years ago, and everyone knew it was round before then anyways. At no point was there widespread belief that the Earth was flat.

People, again this problem keeps coming up. Some are asking the scientific community to answer faith-based questions, and some are asking the faith community to answer scientific questions. Since, in their purest form, science is relegated to the natural and faith to the supernatural, asking natural-based questions to the supernatural camp and asking supernatural-based questions to the natural is an exercise in futility.

Is there some crossover between science and faith? Certainly, but IMHO, each side can only answer part of the question of creation; neither can explain both sides. What I mean by that is, science (in the strictest sense of the word) is much better equipped to explain *the process* of creation, whereas faith (also in the strictest sense of the word) is much better equipped to explain *the purpose* of creation. Science can explain *how* we're here, but it's certainly in no position to explain *why* we're here; that is a matter of faith/philosophy, and as such is unexplainable by empirical evidence - science's modus operandi. And I would say the reverse is true.

Now, like I said, is there some crossover? Certainly. There are many documented occurances of "miracles" - healings, visions, etc. Some of the are written testimony, whereas others are videos of the different phenomena. Such evidence would be considered "empirical" and also "observable", and thus, would be considered fair game for scientific scrutiny. Also, studies have been done on the power of prayer and its effects on people in the hospital. These are scientific studies done with the purpose of answering faith-based questions. The same could be said for any archaeological dig that sets out to verify or disprove historical claims in the Bible regarding cities or empires and the such.

In the case of creation, however, such eyewitness accounts don't really exist for EITHER side. Now before anyone gets their feathers ruffles over that statement, let me explain:

Science can certainly take data acquired at THIS point in time, and interpolate it back to the point of creation. That's fair; interpolation has been a proven method for data-gathering. Scientist can look at the geological strata, the fossil record, certain forms of radition in the universe, etc. These are all forms of empirical evidence. However, as I said before, any theorizing done on the *exact point of creation* is just that, theorizing. The old-Earth, evolution-based position most scientists take is certainly backed up by what evidence is gathered at the present time, but the fact is, no one was there to see it, and as such, no definitive answer can be given. And yes, before anyone corrects me, I AM aware that "science works mainly in theories, and if you want definitive answers, work in mathetmatics."

On the faith side of the coin, we have what (at first glance) appears to be an eye-witness account from Moses. But then again, what he wrote down was merely a vision of the events that played out before he - and indeed all of mankind - ever existed. With that said, COULD it have been literal? Maybe, but then again, you have all the geological evidence to contend with. COULD God have formed the Earth to look older than it really was right from the start? Sure, but then again, what would be the point?

I guess my main point is, so far, most scientists (from what I can gather) claim "the universe was formed from the Big Bang event, and all living creatures on this planet were formed through the process of evolution." And o this day, creationists have yet to disprove said theory.
On the other hand, regardless of views on the Big Bang or evolution, most religions (with notable exceptions being atheism and its variants) claim "God (or at least, a higher power) was responsible for the events of universe and creature formation." And to this day, scientists have been unable to disprove said theory.

Again, due to the evidence scientists have in the geological/biological record, it's rather pointless to ask a believer to disprove the Big Bang or evolution. But on the flipside, due to the evidence scientists have in various documented miracles and the historical record, it is equally pointless to ask a scientist to disprove the existence of God.

Why would 'science' set out to 'disprove' creation myths?

Science takes an observable phenomenon, produces a mechanism for it, anf then attempts to verify it. No creation myth can give any kind of reliable data, so they are useless to waste your time on.

Add to that, none of these myths actually match the evidence that can be obtained. Where anecdote conflicts observable evidence, anecdote is always going to be of questionable reliability (at best). Science doesn't need to disprove the creation myths - they are not worthy of consideration in a scientific analysis.

Why would 'science' set out to 'disprove' creation myths?

Science takes an observable phenomenon, produces a mechanism for it, anf then attempts to verify it. No creation myth can give any kind of reliable data, so they are useless to waste your time on.

Add to that, none of these myths actually match the evidence that can be obtained. Where anecdote conflicts observable evidence, anecdote is always going to be of questionable reliability (at best). Science doesn't need to disprove the creation myths - they are not worthy of consideration in a scientific analysis.

So, what category do I fall into?

I believe in the Big Bang, and the general consensus among physicists (the inflation period, etc), and I believe in evolution.

But, I believe it was all part of God's plan, and was initiated by God. I don't have any scientific proof there (any more than scientists have proof of anything prior to the Big Bang).

I tend to think that God is far more imaginative than most people give Him credit, and He made the universe in this fashion to give our minds something to explore.

People, again this problem keeps coming up. Some are asking the scientific community to answer faith-based questions, and some are asking the faith community to answer scientific questions. Since, in their purest form, science is relegated to the natural and faith to the supernatural, asking natural-based questions to the supernatural camp and asking supernatural-based questions to the natural is an exercise in futility.
If Creationists want their ideas to be recognized IN SCIENCE, or IN SCIENCE CLASSES, then they must follow the same rules as everybody else. They WILL be asked "natural-based questions."

If Creationists were content to admit that their beliefs are not science, we would not be having this debate right now.

I'm really sick of people trying to present this debate as if it is some kind of even, equal-sided debate between two rational positions. It's not.

So, what category do I fall into?

I believe in the Big Bang, and the general consensus among physicists (the inflation period, etc), and I believe in evolution.

But, I believe it was all part of God's plan, and was initiated by God. I don't have any scientific proof there (any more than scientists have proof of anything prior to the Big Bang).

I tend to think that God is far more imaginative than most people give Him credit, and He made the universe in this fashion to give our minds something to explore.
What do you mean, "what category"?

You happen to hold some personal beliefs that are non-scientific. You have some personal superstitions, which you freely admit you cannot support with any scientific evidence. That's fine. Lots of people hold personal beliefs that are not supported by scientific evidence

What do you mean, "what category"?

You happen to hold some personal beliefs that are non-scientific. You have some personal superstitions, which you freely admit you cannot support with any scientific evidence. That's fine. Lots of people hold personal beliefs that are not supported by scientific evidence

I wasn't saying they were scientific, if you'll notice.

Yes, religion shouldn't be in the classroom. But many of you are arguing that it's impossible to be a scientist and have religious beliefs.

It's just not so.

I wasn't saying they were scientific, if you'll notice.

Yes, religion shouldn't be in the classroom. But many of you are arguing that it's impossible to be a scientist and have religious beliefs.

It's just not so.
"Many of us"?

Can I get names, please?

I don't know of a single respected science debater in this forum who claims it is impossible to be a scientist and have religious beliefs. Sure, we have some trolls who say things like that, but nobody takes them seriously.

Actualy...it is a good idea to have the Flat Earth Society's ideas in Geography class. Why? Because it is what they thought back then.

Back when? How long has it been since anyone with any decent level of education actually thought the world was flat? Long enough ago for it to be in history, and not geography.

So, what category do I fall into?

I believe in the Big Bang, and the general consensus among physicists (the inflation period, etc), and I believe in evolution.

But, I believe it was all part of God's plan, and was initiated by God. I don't have any scientific proof there (any more than scientists have proof of anything prior to the Big Bang).

I tend to think that God is far more imaginative than most people give Him credit, and He made the universe in this fashion to give our minds something to explore.

I'm a little concerned you claim to 'believe' in evolution and Big Bang theory. They are theories. 'Belief' is misplaced and inappropriate.

But, I don't see any conflict in what you say - you have an insupportable idea, sure... but it is not something the contadicts - or even relates to - the available evidence.

I do agree with you about the imaginative god, though. It seems bizarre that the very people who claim an infinite, majestic, eternal god... often tend to be the same people with a pottery-class vision of god knocking up everything out of mud, quick, before the weekend.

can't believe I missed this...

As a YEC I feel both Creationism as part of Intelligent Design and Evolution should be taught alongside each other in the classroom as theories and leave it up to the student to decide which to believe.

NO, no, no. Evolution is the best answer we have so far of life based on the evidence we've been able to gather.
ID boils down to "GOD DID IT!". It's an argument for the existence of god and thus has no right in a class room. Unless someone here thinks that god can be scientifically explained?

Teach both as theories as they should as both can't be absolutely proven as fact (yet). Also, they should both be taught as both are major beliefs. So, teach them both if only for the knowledge of knowing what the other side believes.

Other side? If you wanted to teach another side to theory of evolution, why not cover some of the other theories such as Lamarckism? at least if would allow for some interesting debates.

I feel this is important because if I didn't go to a Christian university I would still be a theistic-evolutionist. Yes, I used to beleive evolution but now I believe in a biblical creation. You may dissagree with me but I at the least feel the student should have the choice of what to be taught as I never had until college.

So you believed in evolution when you went to a state school. then went to a christian college and now its creationism?

Maybe a bit of critical thinking on your part would be beneficial.

Remember boys and girls.
Its not a matter of believing in evolution or not. You either agree with it or you don't.

I wasn't saying they were scientific, if you'll notice.

Yes, religion shouldn't be in the classroom. But many of you are arguing that it's impossible to be a scientist and have religious beliefs.

It's just not so.Sure it's possible for scientist to have religious beliefs. However, the nature of such beliefs is limited by what the respective scientists' field of study is. There are certainly no creationists among the serious scientists in the fields of archeology, history, paleontology, physics. And holding a belief in some higher being is not equal to maintain the narrow dogmatic view of certain religious groups. And definitely no real scientist dwells on literal interpretation of the bible.
Back when? How long has it been since anyone with any decent level of education actually thought the world was flat?In pre-hellenistic times.

I guess my main point is, so far, most scientists (from what I can gather) claim "the universe was formed from the Big Bang event, and all living creatures on this planet were formed through the process of evolution." And o this day, creationists have yet to disprove said theory.
On the other hand, regardless of views on the Big Bang or evolution, most religions (with notable exceptions being atheism and its variants) claim "God (or at least, a higher power) was responsible for the events of universe and creature formation." And to this day, scientists have been unable to disprove said theory.


I refer you to wiki


In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

The term theoretical is sometimes used to describe a result that is predicted by theory but has not yet been adequately tested by observation or experiment. It is not uncommon for a theory to produce predictions that are later confirmed by experiment.

In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework — derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc) — which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is electromagnetic theory, which encompasses the results that can be derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. Another name for this theory is classical electromagnetism. Note that the specific theoretical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory, which have been consistently and successfully replicated for well over a century, are termed "laws of electromagnetism", reflecting the fact that they are today taken as granted. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested as yet.

The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything. In common speech, theory has a far wider and less defined meaning than its use in the sciences.

I don't know of a single respected science debater in this forum who claims it is impossible to be a scientist and have religious beliefs.
While I certainly wouldn't say that, there is a very strong case to be made for Religious Organisations to be fundamentally incompatible with either scientific experimentation or philosophical search for truth. Religions exist to pass on a message from generation to generation without distorting it, but critique exists to reject that which it finds to be false. A given religious body cannot adopt into its creed a system of self-evaluation, for to do so would destroy the authority of its purpose by accepting the fallibility of its foundations.

So I do think that there's a degree of incompatibility between being a scientist and having explicit membership of a religious (or irreligious, come to think of it) organisation, regardless of what the individual wishes to believe on the matter.

Sure it's possible for scientist to have religious beliefs. However, the nature of such beliefs is limited by what the respective scientists' field of study is. There are certainly no creationists among the serious scientists in the fields of archeology, history, paleontology, physics. And holding a belief in some higher being is not equal to maintain the narrow dogmatic view of certain religious groups. And definitely no real scientist dwells on literal interpretation of the bible.
In pre-hellenistic times.

Depends on your definition of "Creationist".

To me, if I set the Creation to "before the Big Bang" I don't have any conflicts with science. It's unprovable, it's unscientific - but there aren't any scientific facts before that time, so I'm perfectly safe.

Nonsense.

'Creationism' (by which, I assume, we mean christian Creationism), deserves no more or less than any of the other major creation ideas.

What it 'deserves' is irrelevant. The most influential religion of whatever culture you happen to be in will almost inevitably get more study. Yes, this means that the way RE is taught is flawed from the outset. You could say the same about history. Were you taught as much about the history of Ethiopia as you were about the history of your own country? I suspect not, but that doesn't mean teachers shouldn't be allowed to teach local history.

What you say is right in principle, but impractical. With only a couple of years to teach, there is no way to do more than scratch the surface of every religion ever known.

I refer you to wiki
Seriously.

I'm insulted every time somebody refers to "God" or "Creationism" as a theory.

Those are beliefs. Guesses. Speculations.

A theory requires actual work. It requires LOTS of work, as a matter of fact. Getting your model elevated to the level of "theory" is a huge freaking deal. It means you have busted your ass for years and years and years, and you've faced up to harsh criticism from the best minds in your field (and beyond).

As a scientist, I feel it is profoundly ignorant and insulting to refer to something as "just a theory," and it is even more insulting to refer to Creation myths as "theories."

The layperson's definition of this term just cheapens what it means in the context of science. If you're participating in a discussion within the context of science (like this one), show respect by bothering to at least learn what "theory" means, and use that term appropriately.

What it 'deserves' is irrelevant. The most influential religion of whatever culture you happen to be in will almost inevitably get more study. Yes, this means that the way RE is taught is flawed from the outset. You could say the same about history. Were you taught as much about the history of Ethiopia as you were about the history of your own country? I suspect not, but that doesn't mean teachers shouldn't be allowed to teach local history.

What you say is right in principle, but impractical. With only a couple of years to teach, there is no way to do more than scratch the surface of every religion ever known.

I don't have any problem with just scratching the surface. I don't have a problem on spending proportionally more time on the dominant thoughts of the time. I do, however, have a problem with the point at which RE becomes endorsement of one particular religion. We have churches for religious bias. It has no place in the schoolroom.

It is probably worth speculating the Christianity is actually not that big a deal... and that our cyulture has been at least equally influenced by other historical factors, our inheritance from Rome, or the Greeks, or Babylon...

Depends on your definition of "Creationist".

To me, if I set the Creation to "before the Big Bang" I don't have any conflicts with science. It's unprovable, it's unscientific - but there aren't any scientific facts before that time, so I'm perfectly safe.
There is no time before the Big Bang.

I don't have any problem with just scratching the surface. I don't have a problem on spending proportionally more time on the dominant thoughts of the time. I do, however, have a problem with the point at which RE becomes endorsement of one particular religion. We have churches for religious bias. It has no place in the schoolroom.

It is probably worth speculating the Christianity is actually not that big a deal... and that our cyulture has been at least equally influenced by other historical factors, our inheritance from Rome, or the Greeks, or Babylon...

Fair enough, but I think scratching the surface is poor teaching, and encourages misconceptions and misunderstandings. Naturally I wouldn't want RE to become a vehicle for ramming any particular religion down the students' throats, but to me that's not RE at all.

Of course you are right that our modern cultures are influenced by their predecessors, just as Christianity was infuenced by previous and contemporary religions (for instance, Mithraism). However, I think it's fair to say that Christianity is a particularly strong factor. Maybe I need to consider that...

Add:
Yeah, look at it like this - much of what we 'know' about past cultures has come to us via Christianity. Paintings, statues and literature that were perceptibly non-Christian were neglected or even destroyed. Hence Trajan's Column has a statue of St Paul on it. Folk tales about people who, if they ever existed, were clearly not Christians (such as Beowulf or King Arthur) were given some superficial editing to make them acceptable.

Half a page half a page
  Half a thread onward
All in the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred:
'Forward, the ID Brigade!
Charge for the Evilutionists' he said
Into the thread of Creationism
  wrote the six hundred.

-snip-

When can their gullibility fade?
O the wild charges they've made!
  All the world wonders.
Humor the charge they made!
Humor the ID Brigade,
  Gullible six hundred!

*applauds*

But given that all the YECs seem to have fled the thread this might be more appropriate:

Where have all the Creationists gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the Creationists gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the Creationists gone?
Facts have irked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

There is no time before the Big Bang.

You have about as much proof of that as I do of God.

Some scientists have speculated that creation is cyclical, and that prior to the instant of the big bang, there was the big crunch of the previous universe.

But it's all speculation.

You have about as much proof of that as I do of God.

Some scientists have speculated that creation is cyclical, and that prior to the instant of the big bang, there was the big crunch of the previous universe.

But it's all speculation.A possible "previous" universe has nothing to do with this universe and its properties, of which time is one.

oh and for you young earth creationists who believe this sort of stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=451746&in_page_id=1811

I sure you can book a place. Be quick though limited places

oh and for you young earth creationists who believe this sort of stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=451746&in_page_id=1811

I sure you can book a place. Be quick though limited places

LOL. It's only half the size of the alleged original and he still had to use modern building techniqes and steel joints to hold it together. Also, I'm pretty sure that it can't really float: it's resting on a barge.

I'd like to think that these facts would have some kind of effect on him but I doubt it.

Fair enough, but I think scratching the surface is poor teaching, and encourages misconceptions and misunderstandings. Naturally I wouldn't want RE to become a vehicle for ramming any particular religion down the students' throats, but to me that's not RE at all.

Of course you are right that our modern cultures are influenced by their predecessors, just as Christianity was infuenced by previous and contemporary religions (for instance, Mithraism). However, I think it's fair to say that Christianity is a particularly strong factor. Maybe I need to consider that...

Add:
Yeah, look at it like this - much of what we 'know' about past cultures has come to us via Christianity. Paintings, statues and literature that were perceptibly non-Christian were neglected or even destroyed. Hence Trajan's Column has a statue of St Paul on it. Folk tales about people who, if they ever existed, were clearly not Christians (such as Beowulf or King Arthur) were given some superficial editing to make them acceptable.

I disagree with the assertion that 'scratching the surface is bad teaching'... I think that rather depends on how it is done.

An elegantly designed course that focused on features that are consistent throughout all religions... or through 'families' of religions... seems to me like it could be a good way of 'scratching the surface', without wasting time. It would focus on the things that make religions comparable and illustrate the conflicts - which seems to me what 'religious education' maybe should be. Certainly, without resorting to preaching one religion, it is an example of it being possible to manage to avoid 'bad teaching', no?

Regarding the other thing... why should we give Christianity pride of place? Yes - you could argue that our 'code of laws' idea comes from a Christian embrace of the Hebrew traditions, which, in turn, may have swiped it wholsale from the Babylonians... but we are we ONLY focusing on that last vehicle? Wouldn't it be better to refer to the roots of such things?

I disagree with the assertion that 'scratching the surface is bad teaching'... I think that rather depends on how it is done.

It would depend on how it is done, except that it will inevitably end up being done through generalisations and superficial views. (For instance, one not very knowledgeable history teacher told us that Roman religion was just the Greek gods, given new names. Not only is this totally untrue, it also dismisses the complexity of Roman spiritualism and its contrast with ancient Greek religion.)
So a subject that should be about exploring and understanding beliefs becomes a question of pigeonholing and misunderstanding them.


Regarding the other thing... why should we give Christianity pride of place? Yes - you could argue that our 'code of laws' idea comes from a Christian embrace of the Hebrew traditions, which, in turn, may have swiped it wholsale from the Babylonians... but we are we ONLY focusing on that last vehicle? Wouldn't it be better to refer to the roots of such things?

I don't think we should only concentrate on Christian beliefs, nor have I said or suggested that we should. I just think it's okay to teach creationism in RE. After all, it's a very widespread religious view.

"Many of us"?

Can I get names, please?

I don't know of a single respected science debater in this forum who claims it is impossible to be a scientist and have religious beliefs. Sure, we have some trolls who say things like that, but nobody takes them seriously.

Richard Dawkins. But I stopped taking him seriously a loooong time ago.

In pre-hellenistic times.

Not even then. Almost everyone thought the Earth was round, they just weren't able to demonstrate it.

*applauds*

But given that all the YECs seem to have fled the thread this might be more appropriate:

Where have all the Creationists gone?
Long time passing
Where have all the Creationists gone?
Long time ago
Where have all the Creationists gone?
Facts have irked them every one
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?

I prefer the more direct:

God is dead, and no one cares
And if there is a hell I'll see you there.

God bless you, NiN!

Seriously.

I'm insulted every time somebody refers to "God" or "Creationism" as a theory.

Those are beliefs. Guesses. Speculations.

A theory requires actual work. It requires LOTS of work, as a matter of fact. Getting your model elevated to the level of "theory" is a huge freaking deal. It means you have busted your ass for years and years and years, and you've faced up to harsh criticism from the best minds in your field (and beyond).

As a scientist, I feel it is profoundly ignorant and insulting to refer to something as "just a theory," and it is even more insulting to refer to Creation myths as "theories."

The layperson's definition of this term just cheapens what it means in the context of science. If you're participating in a discussion within the context of science (like this one), show respect by bothering to at least learn what "theory" means, and use that term appropriately.

:confused:
Me? I think the quote I took backs this up quite well? Or we you just strenghenig the post with your input?

Seriously.

I'm insulted every time somebody refers to "God" or "Creationism" as a theory.

Those are beliefs. Guesses. Speculations.

A theory requires actual work. It requires LOTS of work, as a matter of fact. Getting your model elevated to the level of "theory" is a huge freaking deal. It means you have busted your ass for years and years and years, and you've faced up to harsh criticism from the best minds in your field (and beyond).

As a scientist, I feel it is profoundly ignorant and insulting to refer to something as "just a theory," and it is even more insulting to refer to Creation myths as "theories."

The layperson's definition of this term just cheapens what it means in the context of science. If you're participating in a discussion within the context of science (like this one), show respect by bothering to at least learn what "theory" means, and use that term appropriately.


To start out, I meant no disrespect to any scientist by my use of the word "theory" in context, just as I'm sure (at least, I hope) you meant no disrepect to creationists by your use of the term "Creation myths". Scientists don't take Creation to be a "theory", just as creationists don't take Creation to be a "myth".

Secondly, seeing as this whole topic has both scientific AND theological implications, it is not purely "within the context of science", and therefore, both scientific and theological ramifications must be taken into account.

Thirdly, apparently it's thought that theologians don't do any research nor any work, or at least, not nearly as much as scientists. I suppose you could say the same for philosophers. However, the fact that it takes just as many years to get a degree in theology or philosophy as it does a degree in chemistry contradicts this position. The great reformers DID face harsh criticism from the "best" minds in their field. Some died for it, just as Galileo was executed for his work in astronomy. So don't say that theologians, (in this case, in the form of creationists) don't do any work.

Fourthly, the layperson's definitions of "Christian" and "creationist" also serve to cheapen what they mean in the context of theology. And as I said before, this discussion, with both its scientific AND theological ramfications, must be discussed within both scientific and theological context. With that said, I would hope that any scientist in here would show as much respect to the theologians in here as they are asking for themselves.

To start out, I meant no disrespect to any scientist by my use of the word "theory" in context, just as I'm sure (at least, I hope) you meant no disrepect to creationists by your use of the term "Creation myths". Scientists don't take Creation to be a "theory", just as creationists don't take Creation to be a "myth".

Secondly, seeing as this whole topic has both scientific AND theological implications, it is not purely "within the context of science", and therefore, both scientific and theological ramifications must be taken into account.

Thirdly, apparently it's thought that theologians don't do any research nor any work, or at least, not nearly as much as scientists. I suppose you could say the same for philosophers. However, the fact that it takes just as many years to get a degree in theology or philosophy as it does a degree in chemistry contradicts this position. The great reformers DID face harsh criticism from the "best" minds in their field. Some died for it, just as Galileo was executed for his work in astronomy. So don't say that theologians, (in this case, in the form of creationists) don't do any work.

Fourthly, the layperson's definitions of "Christian" and "creationist" also serve to cheapen what they mean in the context of theology. And as I said before, this discussion, with both its scientific AND theological ramfications, must be discussed within both scientific and theological context. With that said, I would hope that any scientist in here would show as much respect to the theologians in here as they are asking for themselves.
Christian or Jewish theology may include laboriously studying all kinds of works of all kinds of people, but in the end it all just comes down to the bible and the helpless belief that it is true. Theology by its very nature will never exceed that, and theology will never provide new knowledge. The work that theologians do is resultless.

To start out, I meant no disrespect to any scientist by my use of the word "theory" in context, just as I'm sure (at least, I hope) you meant no disrepect to creationists by your use of the term "Creation myths". Scientists don't take Creation to be a "theory", just as creationists don't take Creation to be a "myth".

But it is mythology. wiki again... (i knoe, i know)
stories that a particular culture believes to be true and that use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity


Secondly, seeing as this whole topic has both scientific AND theological implications, it is not purely "within the context of science", and therefore, both scientific and theological ramifications must be taken into account.

Why?


Thirdly, apparently it's thought that theologians don't do any research nor any work, or at least, not nearly as much as scientists. I suppose you could say the same for philosophers. However, the fact that it takes just as many years to get a degree in theology or philosophy as it does a degree in chemistry contradicts this position. The great reformers DID face harsh criticism from the "best" minds in their field. Some died for it, just as Galileo was executed for his work in astronomy. So don't say that theologians, (in this case, in the form of creationists) don't do any work.

heh?
So we can ask theology student about Density functional theory?

Fourthly, the layperson's definitions of "Christian" and "creationist" also serve to cheapen what they mean in the context of theology. And as I said before, this discussion, with both its scientific AND theological ramfications, must be discussed within both scientific and theological context. With that said, I would hope that any scientist in here would show as much respect to the theologians in here as they are asking for themselves.

You give what you get.
And although I'm not a scientist I will show the respect to theologians here the respect scientists like bottle get.

Jesus is made up as there is no proof of his existance. If so, show me his body!

That's the sort of respect people are showing scientists on this thread

Kabbalah, which is intensive Judiasm (please dont confuse it with the Madonna version), came up with the big bang theory way before scientists did. I've always found that interesting. Most jews I know follow the Kabbalah version, just with a spin. I'm wondering how it got morphed in christianity though.



http://www.fixedearth.com/nasas_spiritual_roots.htm

Christian or Jewish theology may include laboriously studying all kinds of works of all kinds of people, but in the end it all just comes down to the bible and the helpless belief that it is true. Theology by its very nature will never exceed that, and theology will never provide new knowledge. The work that theologians do is resultless.

If you are of the persuasion that all moral/ethical codes - along with most philanthropy - is completely useless, then yes, the above statement could be considered true. Otherwise, the work of theologians certainly isn't resultless.

You give what you get.
And although I'm not a scientist I will show the respect to theologians here the respect scientists like bottle get.

Jesus is made up as there is no proof of his existance. If so, show me his body!

That's the sort of respect people are showing scientists on this thread

While there may be some (on both sides, I might add) who don't necessarily show respect, I would hope that both sides are mature enough not to lump the good in with the bad. Simply because someone is a theologian doesn't mean they automatically ignore the geological evidence scientists give, just as if someone's a scientist they don't automatically ignore the miraculous evidence theologians give. I suppose the choice to ignore this or that evidence is left up to the individual themselves.

For the record, I haven't ignored any evidence the scientists (or scientist supporters) have given in this thread. Frankly, I don't know why this topic (EVERY time I've encountered it) always tends to devolve into an "us vs. them" battle of some sort. Certainly scientific evidence and a "literal 7-day creation" position are incompatible; but scientific evidence and a generalized "creationist" position certainly are not.

To start out, I meant no disrespect to any scientist by my use of the word "theory" in context, just as I'm sure (at least, I hope) you meant no disrepect to creationists by your use of the term "Creation myths". Scientists don't take Creation to be a "theory", just as creationists don't take Creation to be a "myth".

That's because Creationism isn't a theory. Until they can make predictions from it and propose ways in which it could be falsified it isn't even a hypothesis.

Secondly, seeing as this whole topic has both scientific AND theological implications, it is not purely "within the context of science", and therefore, both scientific and theological ramifications must be taken into account.

And the theological implications of Evolution can be discussed in RS. Science isn't the place for it.

Thirdly, apparently it's thought that theologians don't do any research nor any work, or at least, not nearly as much as scientists. I suppose you could say the same for philosophers. However, the fact that it takes just as many years to get a degree in theology or philosophy as it does a degree in chemistry contradicts this position. The great reformers DID face harsh criticism from the "best" minds in their field. Some died for it, just as Galileo was executed for his work in astronomy. So don't say that theologians, (in this case, in the form of creationists) don't do any work.

This is a complete strawman. If I want a Biblical verse analysed, or an ancient language translated, or certain elements of philosophy and history discussed then I'll ask a theologian. If I want to learn about the origins of life and the Universe then I'll ask a scientist.

Fourthly, the layperson's definitions of "Christian" and "creationist" also serve to cheapen what they mean in the context of theology. And as I said before, this discussion, with both its scientific AND theological ramfications, must be discussed within both scientific and theological context. With that said, I would hope that any scientist in here would show as much respect to the theologians in here as they are asking for themselves.

If the theologians stick to theology then good luck to them, but why should scientists be expected to be polite when a theologian with no relevant training or knowledge tries to critique a scientific theory which thousands of reputable scientists have dedicated their lives to?

While there may be some (on both sides, I might add) who don't necessarily show respect, I would hope that both sides are mature enough not to lump the good in with the bad. Simply because someone is a theologian doesn't mean they automatically ignore the geological evidence scientists give, just as if someone's a scientist they don't automatically ignore the miraculous evidence theologians give. I suppose the choice to ignore this or that evidence is left up to the individual themselves.

For the record, I haven't ignored any evidence the scientists (or scientist supporters) have given in this thread. Frankly, I don't know why this topic (EVERY time I've encountered it) always tends to devolve into an "us vs. them" battle of some sort. Certainly scientific evidence and a "literal 7-day creation" position are incompatible; but scientific evidence and a generalized "creationist" position certainly are not.

Regarding the bolded bit. Bottle asks for evidence earlier and no-one has yet to present any.

All people have done is critisize all the hard work scientists have put into the field. See alot of the previous posts by some. True they don't have all the answers, but they are trying to find the answers.

and the closest i've seen creationists come is ID. Which is to say god directed evolution. And if someone wants to believe this that is there perogative, but it cannot be classed as a scientific theory as we cannot test for God.

You say that creatonism is not a theary because it cannot be falsified. That is because it deals with things that happened in the past and it is impossible to say with complete certenty what happend thousands of years ago. Evolution has the exact same problem. It is impossibe to falsify. If you are going to call creatonism unreasnable because it cant be falsified, then evolution is equally unreasnable.

Also, you say theologens who have no training or knoledge in the feild of science can't critique scientific theory. You are correct. However, their are many biologests, physisists and other scientists that have looked at the data and concleded that the earth was created. there's a list of them here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

These people also believe in a six day creation. Check out the site, answersingenesis.org. they specialize in explaining why they believe in creationism and a young earth.

Christian or Jewish theology may include laboriously studying all kinds of works of all kinds of people, but in the end it all just comes down to the bible and the helpless belief that it is true.

I don't see why you would have to believe it's true to study judeo christian theology.

The work that theologians do is resultless.

I think it's very useful in determining why our culture and laws are the way they are.

Bottle: Random query, but what IS what comes before a theory, scientifically speaking. I know it has a term, but it's totally evading my mind.

Cthulhu: They could scientifically prove the earth was round - that's why ships had crows nests. They knew that by going up higher they could see across the curved horizon. Same for building lighthouses very high up.

And the theological implications of Evolution can be discussed in RS. Science isn't the place for it.

With that said, I took a look at the first thread in this topic:
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?

I don't know about anyone else, but to me these questions are purely theologically-based. While I would agree with you in the sense that Creation shouldn't be taught in a *science class* (due to lack of empirical evidence and inability to work through the scientific method regarding said claims), this topic itself is not purely a scientific thread; in fact I would argue that this thread, based on it's opening post, is more theological than scientific. With that in place, it stands to reason that theological implications and ramifications be taken in account - even moreso than scientific ones. Does that mean that theology trumps science in every matter? Of course not - don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Bt certainly in the context of *this thread*, the questions presented are based around theological worldviews, not scientific ones.


This is a complete strawman. If I want a Biblical verse analysed, or an ancient language translated, or certain elements of philosophy and history discussed then I'll ask a theologian. If I want to learn about the origins of life and the Universe then I'll ask a scientist.

As I've stated before, if I was to ask a scientist to explain how the universe and/or life was created, I wouldn't (or at least, shouldn't) be chided for that. Life is observable, life is empirical. So is nature. So asking a scientist about such things wouldn't be illogical. However, if I were to ask a scientist what/who got the ball rolling, or what/who created the "singularity" often referred to in Big Bang theory, that would be outside their are of expertise, as we are now crossing over into metaphysical questions. That would be the area of expertise for theologians and/or philosophers. I guess why this is always such a debate is because the point of creation - that exact moment in time (or I guess that exact moment at the start of time) - is where the metaphysical hits the physical, and thereofre you have all these theologians and scientists arguing over whose area of expertise that moment falls into.

If the theologians stick to theology then good luck to them, but why should scientists be expected to be polite when a theologian with no relevant training or knowledge tries to critique a scientific theory which thousands of reputable scientists have dedicated their lives to?

Replace "theologian(s)" with "scientist(s)", "theology" with "science", and "scientific" with "theological", and you'll see that the two sides aren't so different. In answer to the question of "why be polite" though, the response is that we should all be polite because politeness is a hallmark of civilized discourse. If we all wanted an all-out war, then I suppose we could all do away with politeness. But that doesn't seem very condusive to finding answers to the sorts of questions that kicked off this thread.

Bottle: Random query, but what IS what comes before a theory, scientifically speaking. I know it has a term, but it's totally evading my mind.

I'm not Bottle but I believe the term is 'hypothesis'.

With that said, I took a look at the first thread in this topic:


I don't know about anyone else, but to me these questions are purely theologically-based. While I would agree with you in the sense that Creation shouldn't be taught in a *science class* (due to lack of empirical evidence and inability to work through the scientific method regarding said claims), this topic itself is not purely a scientific thread; in fact I would argue that this thread, based on it's opening post, is more theological than scientific. With that in place, it stands to reason that theological implications and ramifications be taken in account - even moreso than scientific ones. Does that mean that theology trumps science in every matter? Of course not - don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Bt certainly in the context of *this thread*, the questions presented are based around theological worldviews, not scientific ones.

As I've stated before, if I was to ask a scientist to explain how the universe and/or life was created, I wouldn't (or at least, shouldn't) be chided for that. Life is observable, life is empirical. So is nature. So asking a scientist about such things wouldn't be illogical. However, if I were to ask a scientist what/who got the ball rolling, or what/who created the "singularity" often referred to in Big Bang theory, that would be outside their are of expertise, as we are now crossing over into metaphysical questions. That would be the area of expertise for theologians and/or philosophers. I guess why this is always such a debate is because the point of creation - that exact moment in time (or I guess that exact moment at the start of time) - is where the metaphysical hits the physical, and thereofre you have all these theologians and scientists arguing over whose area of expertise that moment falls into.

My apologies, I thought that by 'this topic' you meant the Evolution/Creation debate in general. As a veteran of many NS Evolution debates it's rare to see anyone addressing the OP after the first ten pages. :D My response isn't really relevant to what you meant.

Replace "theologian(s)" with "scientist(s)", "theology" with "science", and "scientific" with "theological", and you'll see that the two sides aren't so different. In answer to the question of "why be polite" though, the response is that we should all be polite because politeness is a hallmark of civilized discourse. If we all wanted an all-out war, then I suppose we could all do away with politeness. But that doesn't seem very condusive to finding answers to the sorts of questions that kicked off this thread.

Well, you don't often see scientists waxing lyrical about the Arian heresy or the relative merits of Aquinas and Anselm (at least, not in their professional capacity). I'm certainly in favour of treating people civilly as long as they're civil in return, but it's hard to be patient when YECs come charging in accusing scientists of being liars and distorting reality.

You say that creatonism is not a theary because it cannot be falsified. That is because it deals with things that happened in the past and it is impossible to say with complete certenty what happend thousands of years ago. Evolution has the exact same problem. It is impossibe to falsify. If you are going to call creatonism unreasnable because it cant be falsified, then evolution is equally unreasnable.

Off the top of my head, finding fossilised humans (or indeed, anything more advanced than worms and jellyfish) in pre-Cambrian strata would falsify evolution. If humans had a completely different form of storing genetic information from DNA then this would show that we weren't descended from animals with DNA, and if it could be shown that the Earth was only 6,000 years old then that would falsify evolution as there wouldn't have been time for evolution to take place.

Also, you say theologens who have no training or knoledge in the feild of science can't critique scientific theory. You are correct. However, their are many biologests, physisists and other scientists that have looked at the data and concleded that the earth was created. there's a list of them here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Not many, a neglible handful. There's a reason why Creationist petitions of 'scientists' have to include engineers, doctors, and philosophers to bulk out the numbers. You may be interested in Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp), where they've collected the signatures of 802 scientists (relevant scientists, not engineers etc.) called Steve, Stephen, and Stephanie, all supporting Evolution.

I'd also point out that none of them have had any anti-evolution articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

These people also believe in a six day creation. Check out the site, answersingenesis.org. they specialize in explaining why they believe in creationism and a young earth.

They specialise in spreading lies and deceit. Did you know that all members of AiG are required to sign a statement saying "the Bible is 100% literally true and inerrant, any evidence to the contrary is false"? That doesn't sound very scientific to me...

If Creationists want their ideas to be recognized IN SCIENCE, or IN SCIENCE CLASSES, then they must follow the same rules as everybody else. They WILL be asked "natural-based questions."

I agree entirely

If Creationists were content to admit that their beliefs are not science, we would not be having this debate right now.

Indeed.

I'm really sick of people trying to present this debate as if it is some kind of even, equal-sided debate between two rational positions. It's not.

Again I agree.

Christian or Jewish theology may include laboriously studying all kinds of works of all kinds of people, but in the end it all just comes down to the bible and the helpless belief that it is true. Theology by its very nature will never exceed that, and theology will never provide new knowledge. The work that theologians do is resultless.

Actually that is not necessarily true. Theology is constantly updated with new knowledge and new interpretations thus giving a different perspective on old knowledge.

Science is the same thing. It gives us new information. Though science can be tested throughout time, a person's legitemacy in theology is in the words he uses to describe his point.

If you think theologians are resultless, the same can be said for historians and political scientists.

I think it's very useful in determining why our culture and laws are the way they are.

And how it evolved over time. Not to mention the new perspectives on current events through prophecy etc.

:confused:
Me? I think the quote I took backs this up quite well? Or we you just strenghenig the post with your input?
Yeah, I was agreeing with you. :D

In the Age Of Internets, I don't allow anybody off the hook with bullshit excuses about how they "didn't know what that word meant." If you're on the internet, you have access to about 7000 different dictionaries. Use 'em!

You say that creatonism is not a theary because it cannot be falsified. That is because it deals with things that happened in the past and it is impossible to say with complete certenty what happend thousands of years ago. Evolution has the exact same problem. It is impossibe to falsify. If you are going to call creatonism unreasnable because it cant be falsified, then evolution is equally unreasnable.

100% wrong. (Surprise surprise)

See, the thing about a REAL theory is that it MUST INCLUDE means of testing the various hypotheses which are the basis for the model.

Evolutionary theory has generated so many subhypotheses I can't even begin to count them. A small minority of these are not yet testable using our current equipment, but the overwhelming majority ARE testable, and ARE being tested (or have been tested already).

Here's the soft-ball question I always lob at Creationists who try this tactic:

Provide me with ONE testable hypothesis generated by Creationism. Just one.


Also, you say theologens who have no training or knoledge in the feild of science can't critique scientific theory. You are correct. However, their are many biologests, physisists and other scientists that have looked at the data and concleded that the earth was created. there's a list of them here. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Okay, never mind, this MUST be a troll. Every single major word in that paragraph was mis-spelt.

Bottle: Random query, but what IS what comes before a theory, scientifically speaking. I know it has a term, but it's totally evading my mind.
The hierarchy kind of goes: hypothesis, theory, scientific law.

A scientific law must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. These are things that are virtually accepted as fact, because they are always observed to be true. They are the closest science gets to "proven" concepts. An example would be Boyle's Law.

A hypothesis is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been "proved." It's the starting point for all good science!

A theory falls in between these two, but it's much closer to a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based on well-supported hypotheses verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

It is very important to understand that one scientist cannot create a theory. She can only create a hypothesis. In a great many cases, a particular scientist or group of scientists will be the primary people working on a theory, so it is viewed as "their" theory. However, unless outside researchers test their hypotheses, they will NEVER make it to actual Theory status.

Not many, a neglible handful. There's a reason why Creationist petitions of 'scientists' have to include engineers, doctors, and philosophers to bulk out the numbers. You may be interested in Project Steve (http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp), where they've collected the signatures of 802 scientists (relevant scientists, not engineers etc.) called Steve, Stephen, and Stephanie, all supporting Evolution.

LMAO

One of the things that annoys me the most is when creationists claim that good Christians can't believe in evolution. I have never met or heard of someone who follows the Bible to the letter, since I don't think "Thou shalt not kill" and "stone your stubborn children to death" really work together. Moderate and sensible Christians realise that much of the Bible is metaphor and possibly distorted by human hands, and take most of it with a grain of salt. If you eat shellfish, you don't have to have unwavering faith in the creationism story.

Bottle: Random query, but what IS what comes before a theory, scientifically speaking. I know it has a term, but it's totally evading my mind.

I'm not Bottle but I believe the term is 'hypothesis'.

Correct.

I prefer the more direct:

God is dead, and no one cares
And if there is a hell I'll see you there.

God bless you, NiN!

You rock.

Thirdly, apparently it's thought that theologians don't do any research nor any work, or at least, not nearly as much as scientists. I suppose you could say the same for philosophers. However, the fact that it takes just as many years to get a degree in theology or philosophy as it does a degree in chemistry contradicts this position.

I just have to point out - it doesn't matter in the slightest if it "takes just as many years to get a degree in theology or philosophy as it does a degree in chemistry". The amount of time spent, has no impact on the amount of work involved, or the rigour of that exercise.

For example - if I sunbathe for 4 weeks, it takes four weeks. Does that, therefore, make my sunbathing the academic equivalent of a four week immersion course in Conversational Japanese?

You rock.

Why, thank you.

I just have to point out - it doesn't matter in the slightest if it "takes just as many years to get a degree in theology or philosophy as it does a degree in chemistry". The amount of time spent, has no impact on the amount of work involved, or the rigour of that exercise.

For example - if I sunbathe for 4 weeks, it takes four weeks. Does that, therefore, make my sunbathing the academic equivalent of a four week immersion course in Conversational Japanese?

I suppose a more appropriate analogy would be:
I spent 2 years learning the mathematical and conceptual underpinnings of our understanding of the way specific aspects of the universe work, some of the history and prevailing theories behind them. I also learned a few side things like how to program in Java, and the basics of Abstract Data Types and algorithm analysis.

You, on the other hand, spent 2 years learning about the content of an already heavily analyzed series of texts. You read the analyses of these texts, and were required by your classes to form your own analyses and interpretations of said texts. You also learned a few things on the side, such as improved writing and critical reasoning skills, probably a few logical analysis courses, &c.

In the end, I will continue on to spend 2 years filling out the foundations of my Physics degree, before going on to do research, first for a professor, then as an independent researcher, in the branch of Physics of my choosing, hopefully discovering some new hypotheses on the way, or testing the validity or invalidity of existing hypotheses along the way, furthering my field and possibly churning out some useful applications that will then filter down into the common market. In the end, I'll (hopefully) have tenure and will continue doing such research, possibly branching out into other branches of Physics, for the next 40 years.

You, on the other hand, will spend 2 more years rounding out your theological education, before spending another few years first researching further into the texts and analyses presented to you, and then forming your own analyses of these texts, hopefully providing some previously undiscovered insight into the field that will ultimately have an effect of reshaping, no matter how much, the way in which your field is viewed. While some of these analyses may filter down into the lay world, the vast majority of them will have no true, fruitful application to the real world other than to provide insight to those who already subscribe to your Weltanshaung. In the end, you'll probably be giving lecture series on your interpretations of 2000 year old religious texts to bored college students who will be no more convinced by your emphatic talks than they were by their local church figure.

Are these equivalent academic pursuits?

They specialise in spreading lies and deceit

It's easy to call people liars. What is your reasoning? How do you back it up? Or do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar?

Evolution might have worked back in the 1800 when people thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm, but modern microbiology has brought up some serious problems with the theory. DNA for example. DNA is a code: its data. DNA is the blueprints for every protien in the body. A single strand of DNA could fill a library with information. So you have to ask, how could it develop by chance?
Lets say that you had all the data in a strand of DNA written out in front of you. Also lets say that you had a bag filled with enough scrabble tile Gs As Ts and Cs to spell out the whole code. Now, reach into the bag and draw a tile, and put it down. Keep doing that untill you filled out the code.
What are the chance of you randomly assembling the intire code? Chances of getting the first letter right: 1 in 4. Getting the first and second right: 1 in 16. Three? 1 in 64. And there are billions of DNA "letters" in a single strand. You could attempt it at random over and over again: the odds are still just barely shy of impossible. Even if you do it for millions of years, that doesn't help the odds any. And that's just one strand. How many strands in a chromosome?

Some argue that DNA is chemicly attracted to each other to combine this way. They point out naturally occuring complex structures such as crystals. But these structures are mad out of a repeating structure of molocules. If the same was true of DNA, you would get GAGAGAGAGAGAGAGA....just a repeating pattern.

Now, what if you did manage to produce a correct strand of DNA by chance. And it has to be correct, because if you miss even one letter you get something like sicle cell anemia or hemopelia. Anyway, DNA all by itself is useless. To use DNA you first need a special protien that seperates the DNA strand during protien synthesis. Then you need a seprate protien which transcribes the DNA into mRNA, then anouther protien to tow the mRNA to a ribosome. The ribosome then transcribes the mRNA into a protien chain. Anouther protien takes that chain to a golgi body, where it's folded into a protien. You need all those parts to get a protien from DNA. How are you going randomly assemble all those protiens at the same time you randomly assemble the DNA? It's logicly and mathmaticly impossible. Sorry, it's matmaticly extremly improbable. The odds are against you in the extreme.

It's easy to call people liars. What is your reasoning? How do you back it up? Or do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar?

Evolution might have worked back in the 1800 when people thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm, but modern microbiology has brought up some serious problems with the theory. DNA for example. DNA is a code: its data. DNA is the blueprints for every protien in the body. A single strand of DNA could fill a library with information. So you have to ask, how could it develop by chance?

Evolutionary theory specifically states that our DNA did not evolve by chance.

There are two possibilities:

1) You are intentionally lying/misrepresenting reality. You are, in essence, trolling.
2) You have chosen not to learn THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT in evolutionary biology, yet have also chosen to stick your nose into debates about the very topic you refuse to learn about.

Either way, you're not looking too good here.


Now, what if you did manage to produce a correct strand of DNA by chance. And it has to be correct, because if you miss even one letter you get something like sicle cell anemia or hemopelia. Anyway, DNA all by itself is useless. To use DNA you first need a special protien that seperates the DNA strand during protien synthesis. Then you need a seprate protien which transcribes the DNA into mRNA, then anouther protien to tow the mRNA to a ribosome. The ribosome then transcribes the mRNA into a protien chain. Anouther protien takes that chain to a golgi body, where it's folded into a protien. You need all those parts to get a protien from DNA. How are you going randomly assemble all those protiens at the same time you randomly assemble the DNA? It's logicly and mathmaticly impossible. Sorry, it's matmaticly extremly improbable. The odds are against you in the extreme.
Actually, there are answers to a lot of the questions of how genetic information has evolved, and how the mechanisms for replicating, repairing, and transmitting it have also evolved. If I believed, for one tiny instant, that you were actually interested in learning anything, I would be happy to tell you about them.

And it has to be correct, because if you miss even one letter you get something like sicle cell anemia or hemopelia.

How can you write this sentence but still not get it?

because if you miss even one letter you get something like sicle cell anemia or hemopelia.
Yeah, if you miss one letter from 'sickle cell anemia' you get something that looks like 'sicle cell anemia'. 'Hemopelia' is actually missing two letters, though.

:D

It's easy to call people liars. What is your reasoning? How do you back it up? Or do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar?

Evolution might have worked back in the 1800 when people thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm, but modern microbiology has brought up some serious problems with the theory. DNA for example. DNA is a code: its data. DNA is the blueprints for every protien in the body. A single strand of DNA could fill a library with information. So you have to ask, how could it develop by chance?
Lets say that you had all the data in a strand of DNA written out in front of you. Also lets say that you had a bag filled with enough scrabble tile Gs As Ts and Cs to spell out the whole code. Now, reach into the bag and draw a tile, and put it down. Keep doing that untill you filled out the code.
What are the chance of you randomly assembling the intire code? Chances of getting the first letter right: 1 in 4. Getting the first and second right: 1 in 16. Three? 1 in 64. And there are billions of DNA "letters" in a single strand. You could attempt it at random over and over again: the odds are still just barely shy of impossible. Even if you do it for millions of years, that doesn't help the odds any. And that's just one strand. How many strands in a chromosome?

Some argue that DNA is chemicly attracted to each other to combine this way. They point out naturally occuring complex structures such as crystals. But these structures are mad out of a repeating structure of molocules. If the same was true of DNA, you would get GAGAGAGAGAGAGAGA....just a repeating pattern.

Now, what if you did manage to produce a correct strand of DNA by chance. And it has to be correct, because if you miss even one letter you get something like sicle cell anemia or hemopelia. Anyway, DNA all by itself is useless. To use DNA you first need a special protien that seperates the DNA strand during protien synthesis. Then you need a seprate protien which transcribes the DNA into mRNA, then anouther protien to tow the mRNA to a ribosome. The ribosome then transcribes the mRNA into a protien chain. Anouther protien takes that chain to a golgi body, where it's folded into a protien. You need all those parts to get a protien from DNA. How are you going randomly assemble all those protiens at the same time you randomly assemble the DNA? It's logicly and mathmaticly impossible. Sorry, it's matmaticly extremly improbable. The odds are against you in the extreme.

What does the improbability of DNA coming about have to do with evolution?

What does the improbability of DNA coming about have to do with evolution?

Yet it's only improbable if viewed as a complete thing.

It's improbable for a million monkeys on a million typewriters to write the complete works of Shakespeare but if you slowly build up language, from 'Ugg' to 'Hello' to the point of writing with complex grammar rules, it only takes one monkey, called Shakespeare, to write the complete works of....round and round we go.

EDIT: Ilfreann, understand your point, merely, and possibly clumsily, expanding

2nd EDIT - I really must resolve not to return to this thread :)

Perhaps we are actually witnessing evolution at work with the emergence of a new human subspecies - Homo Sapiens Beheii. People too stupid to understand even basic science are fixing the trait of believing in creationism by continually marrying their cousins.

It's easy to call people liars. What is your reasoning? How do you back it up? Or do you call everyone who disagrees with you a liar?

Evolution might have worked back in the 1800 when people thought cells were just blobs of protoplasm, but modern microbiology has brought up some serious problems with the theory. DNA for example. DNA is a code: its data. DNA is the blueprints for every protien in the body. A single strand of DNA could fill a library with information. So you have to ask, how could it develop by chance?
Lets say that you had all the data in a strand of DNA written out in front of you. Also lets say that you had a bag filled with enough scrabble tile Gs As Ts and Cs to spell out the whole code. Now, reach into the bag and draw a tile, and put it down. Keep doing that untill you filled out the code.
What are the chance of you randomly assembling the intire code? Chances of getting the first letter right: 1 in 4. Getting the first and second right: 1 in 16. Three? 1 in 64. And there are billions of DNA "letters" in a single strand. You could attempt it at random over and over again: the odds are still just barely shy of impossible. Even if you do it for millions of years, that doesn't help the odds any. And that's just one strand. How many strands in a chromosome?

Some argue that DNA is chemicly attracted to each other to combine this way. They point out naturally occuring complex structures such as crystals. But these structures are mad out of a repeating structure of molocules. If the same was true of DNA, you would get GAGAGAGAGAGAGAGA....just a repeating pattern.

Now, what if you did manage to produce a correct strand of DNA by chance. And it has to be correct, because if you miss even one letter you get something like sicle cell anemia or hemopelia. Anyway, DNA all by itself is useless. To use DNA you first need a special protien that seperates the DNA strand during protien synthesis. Then you need a seprate protien which transcribes the DNA into mRNA, then anouther protien to tow the mRNA to a ribosome. The ribosome then transcribes the mRNA into a protien chain. Anouther protien takes that chain to a golgi body, where it's folded into a protien. You need all those parts to get a protien from DNA. How are you going randomly assemble all those protiens at the same time you randomly assemble the DNA? It's logicly and mathmaticly impossible. Sorry, it's matmaticly extremly improbable. The odds are against you in the extreme.

Amusing. What are the chances that you will win the Big Game (a very improbable lottery in the US)? Pretty similar to whether or not we would come up with your DNA, no? Now, what are the chances someone will win the Big Game? Yes, it's 100%. It's actually more that 100% since lots of somones are going to win the Big Game.

The problem with your mathematical claims is that you are not placing them in context. First, you assume that only one outcome is acceptable, but you've not demonstrated that to be true. In fact, we know it to be false. Second, you assume that we can somehow say it was only attempted once. You've not demonstrated this either and we know it to be false. Third, you assume that it's random. Again, you've not demonstrated this and, again, we know this to be false.

Your entire argument is predicated on lies and misinformation.

Here's the truth of it. Probability is only useful before the fact. After the fact, it does little good. I'll give you an example. I mix together 200 decks of cards each with unique backs. I then deal out 200 cards to you. The probability you'd get that exact hand before I deal is about 1 in 5400 multiplied by one in 5399 multiplied by ...

The probability you'd get the hand I gave you is astronomocal? Does that make the idea you'd get the hand impossible? Nope. In fact, once I did it, it would make the probability that you'd GOTTEN the hand 100%.

Now if I change that scenario to where only a select number of hands would work, then things change, of course. But then I also have to analyze how many hands I'm willing to deal to you or anyone. We don't know how many worlds had the potential for abiogenesis. We know it's more than one. We don't know how many outcomes would result in life. We know it's more than one. We don't know how many successful outcomes there were. We know it's at least one.

Mathematically improbable? Nope. Not unless you don't understand math.

And that's abiogenesis, I'm talking about. You switch to evolution and you're talking about a situation where it's completely not random at all. Random has nothing to do with it. So I'm going to assume you were talking about abiogenesis since trying to insert random into evolution is like saying gravity is random and I'm hoping you're not that uneducated.

Perhaps we are actually witnessing evolution at work with the emergence of a new human subspecies - Homo Sapiens Beheii. People too stupid to understand even basic science are fixing the trait of believing in creationism by continually marrying their cousins.As I said before, homo stultus has been existing for a while now.... :(

And that's abiogenesis, I'm talking about. You switch to evolution and you're talking about a situation where it's completely not random at all. Random has nothing to do with it. So I'm going to assume you were talking about abiogenesis since trying to insert random into evolution is like saying gravity is random and I'm hoping you're not that uneducated.

I would like to clarify here, as I think you have it a tad wrong on the last part. It's true that natural selection is not random at all. However, as a lot of anti-evolutionists (I'm not pointing at you, mind) don't seem to realize, there's another facet to evolution called genetic drift, which is random, and which can be equally involved in diversification and speciation.

Unless I got it wrong. Which I might have. I hate biology, personally, and have always preferred Physics, so if it's wrong, feel free to correct me.

I would like to clarify here, as I think you have it a tad wrong on the last part. It's true that natural selection is not random at all. However, as a lot of anti-evolutionists (I'm not pointing at you, mind) don't seem to realize, there's another facet to evolution called genetic drift, which is random, and which can be equally involved in diversification and speciation.

Unless I got it wrong. Which I might have. I hate biology, personally, and have always preferred Physics, so if it's wrong, feel free to correct me.

It's not random. unworkable genetic reproduction happens all the time. Only the workable changes manage to remain. That's not random at all. Evolution is a force. Random and force do not go together. At all.

It's not random. unworkable genetic reproduction happens all the time. Only the workable changes manage to remain. That's not random at all. Evolution is a force. Random and force do not go together. At all.

Fair enough, then. My understanding of the science was wrong.

Fair enough, then. My understanding of the science was wrong.

Not wrong, per se. Limited. Often things are explained in a way that allow us to begin to understand the knowledge. Things we don't have enough information to predict are often called random in school classes but this is not precisely true. Random for the most part means that we don't have enough information to predict it, in the way you were probably taught it. However, in the way we use it when discussing mathemetic probability, we have to account for whatever we actually do know.

See how random isn't a precise enough word to discuss this topic?

*Pout*

Way to go, guys. Your stupid rational thinking and level-headedness has driven off the Creationist trolls. Spoil my fun, whydoncha. *grumble*

*Pout*

Way to go, guys. Your stupid rational thinking and level-headedness has driven off the Creationist trolls. Spoil my fun, whydoncha. *grumble*

Sorry. We'll try and save some for you next time.

Pony up.

Huh, what does that mean? Something like saddle 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.

OK. I'm a creationist working as a scientist in microbial genetics. But I'm a bit careful about the use of the word 'Creationist', because there is an awful lot of variation in the definition of that word. I'm a creationist because I *believe* that God was definitely involved in the existence of this universe. As to the details of how, that is very much a matter of interest. I am a skeptic of much of evolutionary theory, but do agree with some of it. As for a six day creation, as far as I have understood biology, I don't see anything that would seriously contradict it, although I tend to be skeptical of many of the 'Creationist' claims. Most of biology is interpreted in terms of lots of little unguided changes over long periods of time (i.e. Darwinian evolution), but those interpretations do not rule out a sudden creation. However, I can easily accept that God could have used Darwinian evolution. So my position is not to rule either scenario out, but to accept that both are possible, and to approach my science with this in mind.


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.


I guess you mean the literal six day creationists. Well, I might be one of those. I'm not sure yet. (My collegues call me a creationist, and some hard core creationists would probably call me an evolutionist. I call myself a creationist, but with reservations about the meaning of the word.)


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.


I will try to keep this brief. I am at work still, on a break.


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.


So in this, we can agree.



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.


I'm not sure that I can agree that we cannot know God's time. We may not know God's timing, but that is different to God's time. The Bible is accepted as God's relevation to mankind, by most Christians anyway. And as relevation, it stands as something that God has revealed to us. And thus we should treat each part of it as something that God wanted to say to us, something that he wanted us to understand. Thus, when it talks about the 'evening and the morning' in Genesis, I can't agree with your conclusion that we cannot know God's time. We can if he reveals it to us.



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.


Possibly what you may not realize is that the big bang theory was resisted for a long time because most scientists considered it to be too religious. Something like a 'big bang' would fit easily with a 'sudden creation'. It certainly does fit with the starting from a void, although the Genesis account starts with God first, and then goes on to describe the earth as being void--i.e. no account of how the earth first got there.


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.

Well, not quite, because the plants were created one day before the sun, apparently. That kind of messes up the order a bit, because I can't imagine plants surviving very long without the sun--unless they were totally unlike modern plants.


Evolution doesnt even contradict a First Man First Woman theory.


Well, I don't agree with that one either, because the Genesis account tells of how man came from a combination of earth and the breath of God. And then man walked with God in the garden, in contrast to the animals. And then when man sinned, he was promised death--something new, apparently. But if the evolutionary story is correct, then death was simply a necessary part, providing natural selection--certainly nothing new.
The way around it would be to interpret the 'dust of the earth' as a rather human-like ape, and that God breathed into the nostrils of an ape and turned it into a human capable of 'walking with him in the garden'. Some people actually hold to this theory, but there are also lots of problems with it too.



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?


Possibly firstly because they have been used as ammunition to fire away at all those 'poor deluded fools who believe in God'.

Secondly, because they change the gospel story, which has man as he first appears, 'walking in the garden', then falling from grace, and then receiving grace as a gift of God, in the form of Christ.
The evolutionary story has it that man evolved from the apes (actually is still one of the great apes), and so has already a long history of suffering, pain, and death. In that case, suffering during evolution could not be the result of sin. In that case, we are not suffering because of our sin, but because God planned a world filled with suffering. That would tell us something about God, and we could blame him for sin and suffering. In contrast to this, the gospel of Christ has it that God has rescued us in his mercy. Redemption, something that Jesus often mentioned, is not the raising up of an ape into a human, but the buying back of something that was once lost, and is now found.


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?


That then raises the question of whether God is truly capable of revealing a vision to a mere human without totally confusing that poor individual. And if so, just how much of the scriptures should we be attributing to the confusion of people with God's visions? What you end up with is a totally unreliable collection of writings.


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?


Of course. God is certainly capable of designing evolution.


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"?

Yeah, well, we don't really know what the writer saw, or heard. If I was to see something like evolution all 'fast-fowarded' in a blink of an eye, I might be lost for words too. But I would call it the 'evening and the morning', because that would just confuse the hell out of everyone, not to mention being misleading.


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?

If it was a sudden creation, we may never get to understand the processes involved. If it was a long slow creation, perhaps, but the complexity of life and the universe is absolutely mind bogglingly wonderful. I kind of hope that we never get to understand it all, not because I don't like knowledge, but because I love the quest.



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

Actually, I tend to approve of people who tend to hold a less-than-certain opinion about the universe. The point is that we just don't know. And we cannot know just yet. So we must resort to belief, either a belief in creation, or in evolutionary theory, or a mixture of both (at least I don't see any other reasonable alternatives).


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

Possible it comes down to one's motive for holding those theories. If you are trying to get rid of God (because as everyone knows, if there is no God, then we are free to do what we like, without consequences, but if there is a God, then we might be held to account for everything we have done in our lives), then accepting such theories is just dishonest. If you are honestly seeking the truth, and happen to hold such theories despite or because of your search, I don't think God is going to reject you. Like someone mentioned before in this thread, such theories do not necessarily move people away from God, so long as God is still sovereign over them, and not subject to them, if you know what I mean.


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

There are several, including some I have already mentioned. One being that if we don't take it literally, what other parts should also not be taken literally? The resurrection of Christ, or his return?
We should also look at why not to take it seriously. If it is simply because we have been persuaded by the 'facts' of evolutionary theory, then I suggest that we need to take a serious look at those 'facts', and to see the ground on which they rest. At least, that has been part of my approach.

In conclusion, I like that you are asking these questions. I take you for a serious pilgrim on the journey towards truth. As a fellow pilgrim, I wish you all the very best.

B

Bruarong, your beliefs sound somewhat similar to mine. I believe that G-d was involve, and that He created the laws of evolution. I call myself an evolutionist.

I am of course open to other possibilities, but I have yet to see strong evidence against my beliefs.

Frankly, I'd call you a religious evolutionist, which is what I am.

Bruarong, your beliefs sound somewhat similar to mine. I believe that G-d was involve, and that He created the laws of evolution. I call myself an evolutionist.

I am of course open to other possibilities, but I have yet to see strong evidence against my beliefs.

Frankly, I'd call you a religious evolutionist, which is what I am.

Interesting!

And by the look of your reference to God, you are possibly a Jew??

Actually, I don't call myself a religious evolutionist, but you are welcome to if you wish. Rather, I see myself as a religious person who is deeply interested in the origins debate, and who considers the evidence to be far too lacking to take a strong position on either side. Although, in the last few years, I have come to be more and more critical of the evolutionary side, more than the religious side. Perhaps that's because I find the evolutionary side to be more dogmatic, with some promenant people there calling for evolutionary theory to be taught as fact. They seem to be a lot more fanatical than the creationists. Sure, some of the creationists do the same, but they are by far the minority, it seems.

The second reason is that as I have investigated biology with respect to both creation and evolution, I find that the data does not seem to support many of the big evolutionary assumptions, and that life itself seems to be far to complex and intricate to be accounted for by lots of tiny undirected changes over long periods of time. It's not intuitive to my sense of how things really are in the real world. As things stand, though, I am by no means in a position to rule out either scenario.

To be honest, I'm not really sure I understand why it seems as though so many people have to be really dogmatic about it. Sure, it is interesting, and it is important. But do we really have to have a very strong belief in either evolution or creation? My answer is no. Far better to retain our interest and curiosity without calling each other dishonest.

Rather, I see myself as a religious person who is deeply interested in the origins debate, and who considers the evidence to be far too lacking to take a strong position on either side.

Can you expand on those areas where evidence is 'far too lacking' on the evolution side? I'll admit upfront I'm fairly 'dogmatic' on evolution but I'm reasonably open to reason :)

This (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2)might help though I apologize if I'm assuming the basics aren't covered.

Bruarong, your beliefs sound somewhat similar to mine. I believe that G-d was involve, and that He created the laws of evolution. I call myself an evolutionist.

I am of course open to other possibilities, but I have yet to see strong evidence against my beliefs.

Frankly, I'd call you a religious evolutionist, which is what I am.So what time frame are you giving to evolution on earth? And what about the obvious discrepancy between the things claimed by the bible and the knowledge gained from research of the real world? What's your position on that?

Well, I don't agree with that one either, because the Genesis account tells of how man came from a combination of earth and the breath of God. And then man walked with God in the garden, in contrast to the animals. And then when man sinned, he was promised death--something new, apparently. But if the evolutionary story is correct, then death was simply a necessary part, providing natural selection--certainly nothing new.
The way around it would be to interpret the 'dust of the earth' as a rather human-like ape, and that God breathed into the nostrils of an ape and turned it into a human capable of 'walking with him in the garden'. Some people actually hold to this theory, but there are also lots of problems with it too.

This story, taken non-literally, parallels Vedism. Yes; evolution would necessarily come after "the fall" - if we read the myth in vedic terms, there can be no evolution before it because life in the Garden is eternal.

The problem with your "way around it" is that it considers "man" to be the "of the flesh," rather than "of the spirit." It is from the perspective of spirit that man walks with God in the garden - spirit with Spirit.

Perhaps that's because I find the evolutionary side to be more dogmatic, with some promenant people there calling for evolutionary theory to be taught as fact. They seem to be a lot more fanatical than the creationists. Sure, some of the creationists do the same, but they are by far the minority, it seems.

Ha. What does this have to do with the scientific evidence? Nothing. If you factor this into your study of evolution, then science is NOT your purpose.

Meanwhile, if you think the evolutionary side is the one overstepping the evidence then you're not really looking. Evolution is scientific, whether it turns out to be correct or incorrect.

Creation is not scientific. Name one falsifiable scientific hypothesis for creation. Name one thing we can predict as a result of creation. Name one bit of scientific value to creation. Any value. At all.

And, for the record, I believe that God created the earth and heavens and everything in and on it. I just not so lacking in imagination that I would think that belief is in conflict with any idea ever. I don't believe in interventionist God. God knows everything, why would he keep having to correct the path, like humans would?

I always looked at Genesis this way. It was telling a much bigger story that how the earth was created. If every little detail about evolution, DNA, ect was included, the story would get lost in the details. You also have to look at who the target audience was. Do you really think the people of the time would be able or care to comprehend evolution?

God also created the universe in a very logical way. He didn't have to make atoms, molecules, quarks, ect; but He did. Is it such a stretch to imagine that the human race evolved in a similarly logical way?

Seriously, we don't disbelieve in the existence of quarks because they weren't spoken of in Genesis.

Creation is not scientific. Name one falsifiable scientific hypothesis for creation. Name one thing we can predict as a result of creation. Name one bit of scientific value to creation. Any value. At all.

This paragraph should be copied by everybody, and it should simply be pasted as a reply whenever any Creationist opens their mouth about their little "theory."

Put up or shut up, Creationists.

This paragraph should be copied by everybody, and it should simply be pasted as a reply whenever any Creationist opens their mouth about their little "theory."

Put up or shut up, Creationists.

You're forgetting one thing. Creationists are by and large impervious to logic. Then there's the ones that think circular logic counts as real debate.

"My logic is perfect because is goes in a circle, there's no beginning and no end.":rolleyes:

You're forgetting one thing. Creationists are by and large impervious to logic. Then there's the ones that think circular logic counts as real debate.

"My logic is perfect because is goes in a circle, there's no beginning and no end.":rolleyes:

http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=bhikopqrtw6&n=Creationists&c=%23FF0000&t=Creationism

*nods*

http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=bhikopqrtw6&n=Creationists&c=%23FF0000&t=Creationism (http://www.megat.co.uk/wrong/wrong.php?r=bhikopqrtw6&n=Creationists&c=%23FF0000&t=Creationism)

*nods*

Ha!
So sad, yet so true.
My two favorites:
Total Logical Disconnect
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.

Anything You Don't Understand is Easy to Do.
Example: If you have the right tools, how hard could it be to generate nuclear fission at home?

Edit: Doesn't this sound familiar:
Incompleteness as Proof of Defect
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

And what about the obvious discrepancy between the things claimed by the bible and the knowledge gained from research of the real world? What's your position on that?

Not my question, but that's a wide brush. Not everything in the Bible is contrary to real world discoveries. And it is not always a case that it is "obviously" so. Are there any specific points you'd like to address?

Ha!
So sad, yet so true.
My two favorites:
Total Logical Disconnect
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.

Anything You Don't Understand is Easy to Do.
Example: If you have the right tools, how hard could it be to generate nuclear fission at home?
I like:

Incompleteness as Proof of Defect
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

I would also provide a different example for their Generalizing from Self item.
My Example: I don't understand X. Therefore, nobody understands X.

I can't count the number of times that some ignorant twit has informed me that "science can't explain" something, when in fact science can and does explain that something, it's just that the twit doesn't understand the science.

Not my question, but that's a wide brush. Not everything in the Bible is contrary to real world discoveries. And it is not always a case that it is "obviously" so. Are there any specific points you'd like to address?

Pi=3 is the most amusing one.

This paragraph should be copied by everybody, and it should simply be pasted as a reply whenever any Creationist opens their mouth about their little "theory."

Put up or shut up, Creationists.

If it were scientific, it wouldn't require "faith," now would it? ;)

Of course, there are some creationists who do not view Creation as scientific, in that it is not built upon the same restrictions and parameters as, say, Evolution. So now you seek to discount a point of view by ignoring the argument. Sounds an awful lot like "shut up and sit down or leave," which I may be wrong, but doesn't seem to fit with especially your opinion on free speech and debate.

Pi=3 is the most amusing one.

Pi approximately = 3. Solomon was a king, not a mathemitician, (obviously). And wasn't th actual value of pi not discovered until sometime after that particular story was written?

Pi approximately = 3. Solomon was a king, not a mathemitician, (obviously). And wasn't th actual value of pi not discovered until sometime after that particular story was written?

Discovered, sure, but invented? Nah. The ratio itself would've existed, God could've made 'em write it if he had to.

So the Bible can be approximate, at least?

Of course, there are some creationists who do not view Creation as scientific, in that it is not built upon the same restrictions and parameters as, say, Evolution.

And those Creationists will, naturally, not advocate that their personal beliefs be referred to as theories alongside evolution in science classes.


So now you seek to discount a point of view by ignoring the argument. Sounds an awful lot like "shut up and sit down or leave," which I may be wrong, but doesn't seem to fit with especially your opinion on free speech and debate.
A person who claims Creationism is a theory is lying. A person who claims Creationism is science is lying. A person who claims that there is as much evidence for Creationism as there is for evolutionary theory is lying.

Nobody should waste time "debating" with people who refuse to be bound by facts and reality.

"Put up or shut up" is the rule that is applied to ALL SCIENTISTS. If Creationists want to play in our yard, they can damn well play by our rules.

I like:

Incompleteness as Proof of Defect
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

I would also provide a different example for their Generalizing from Self item.
My Example: I don't understand X. Therefore, nobody understands X.

I can't count the number of times that some ignorant twit has informed me that "science can't explain" something, when in fact science can and does explain that something, it's just that the twit doesn't understand the science.

::Groans:: It's so sad that's all too common. I also like (and by like I mean despise) when they grab onto a phrase that they don't understand like "missing link" and use it over and over incorrectly.

Discovered, sure, but invented? Nah. The ratio itself would've existed, God could've made 'em write it if he had to.

So the Bible can be approximate, at least?

In this example yes, as the author was providing the general dimensions of a table. A table. Not really that important, and kind of irrelevant, and I don't claim that the author would have had the tools or the necessity to write "60 meters, 12 centimeters, and 17 millimeters, plus or minus a few." Much easier to give general idea when referring to specific, relatively unimportant numbers.

In this example yes, as the author was providing the general dimensions of a table. A table. Not really that important, and kind of irrelevant, and I don't claim that the author would have had the tools or the necessity to write "60 meters, 12 centimeters, and 17 millimeters, plus or minus a few." Much easier to give general idea when referring to specific, relatively unimportant numbers.

There's unimportant bits?

And those Creationists will, naturally, not advocate that their personal beliefs be referred to as theories alongside evolution in science classes.


A person who claims Creationism is a theory is lying. A person who claims Creationism is science is lying. A person who claims that there is as much evidence for Creationism as there is for evolutionary theory is lying.

Nobody should waste time "debating" with people who refuse to be bound by facts and reality.

"Put up or shut up" is the rule that is applied to ALL SCIENTISTS. If Creationists want to play in our yard, they can damn well play by our rules.

First time I've heard that phrase in debate here. Makes sense. That's why a few of us creationists recognize the rule that you don't argue science with the Bible, and you don't argue the Bible with science.

There's unimportant bits?

Beware of extrapolation. Some bits are unimportant to the practice of the faith, at least in my mind. Some. Like the dimensions of a table.

Beware of extrapolation. Some bits are unimportant to the practice of the faith, at least in my mind. Some. Like the dimensions of a table.

How might you determine what is and waht isn't?

How might you determine what is and waht isn't?

Take a look at the Bible. Most of it is about how to live, and provides examples of what faith is. This past example, and I use only this example of the table, is clearly not one of them. It may be a discrepancy, but it is really irrelevant to the greater question of faith.

Take a look at the Bible. Most of it is about how to live, and provides examples of what faith is. This past example, and I use only this example of the table, is clearly not one of them. It may be a discrepancy, but it is really irrelevant to the greater question of faith.

And our origins? As long as God made us, what does it matter to our faith how?

In this example yes, as the author was providing the general dimensions of a table. A table. Not really that important, and kind of irrelevant, and I don't claim that the author would have had the tools or the necessity to write "60 meters, 12 centimeters, and 17 millimeters, plus or minus a few." Much easier to give general idea when referring to specific, relatively unimportant numbers.

I cast doubt upon your expertise.

What makes you think we are talking about a table?

I cast doubt upon your expertise.

What makes you think we are talking about a table?

I would've pointed that out but it wasn't entirely relevant, so eh.

I would've pointed that out but it wasn't entirely relevant, so eh.

If someone claims expertise on what is, and isn't, important... they should really make sure they are accurate, no?

Take a look at the Bible. Most of it is about how to live, and provides examples of what faith is. This past example, and I use only this example of the table, is clearly not one of them. It may be a discrepancy, but it is really irrelevant to the greater question of faith.

Except for the spectre of errancy, which is thus raised.

If someone claims expertise on what is, and isn't, important... they should really make sure they are accurate, no?

I'm sure I would've gotten around to it. really though, Pi=3 was just the most amusing one of many possible starting points. Sides, I wouldn't say he's claimed expertise...the dimensions of some basin don't seem relevant to me either.

I'm sure I would've gotten around to it. really though, Pi=3 was just the most amusing one of many possible starting points. Sides, I wouldn't say he's claimed expertise...the dimensions of some basin don't seem relevant to me either.

No... but, as I said in another reply, it opens the door for answers that are less-than-absolute. It makes the "Word" of God more like the "Opinion".

No... but, as I said in another reply, it opens the door for answers that are less-than-absolute. It makes the "Word" of God more like the "Opinion".

Aye, trust me, I was getting there. :P

Perhaps that's because I find the evolutionary side to be more dogmatic

Eh? How many scientific journals have a statement of faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)?

The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
...
The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.
...
No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Nope, that doesn't sound dogmatic to me, what about the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_tenets/)?

The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.

Oh... How about the Creation Research Society (http://astro.berkeley.edu/~dperley/areopagus/creationorgs.html), their name sounds scientific:

First, members of the Society, which include research scientists from various fields of scientific accomplishment, are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. Thus, they advocate the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms. All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have been accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.

3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.

Dogmatic?

I would've pointed that out but it wasn't entirely relevant, so eh.

It is highly relevant actually. Most creationist arguments are either based on ignorance of the subject or misrepresentation of facts. This is a nice illustration of the first.

It is highly relevant actually. Most creationist arguments are either based on ignorance of the subject or misrepresentation of facts. This is a nice illustration of the first.

A'ight, a'ight, how's about I just give y'all the plans n' you c'n run the argument y'selves, m'kay?

It is highly relevant actually. Most creationist arguments are either based on ignorance of the subject or misrepresentation of facts. This is a nice illustration of the first.

I fail to see the connection between this and a debate on the merits of creationism and evolution. Yes, yes, we are well aware I was ignorant of the actual object being discussed--a basin, apparently--and I admitted my mistake. Which is something most creationists do not do. While I may be ignorant of some facts, I am willing to learn. How does that affect the argument?



Aye, trust me, I was getting there. :P

Oh yes, I am well aware you were. Hence why I said "Beware of extrapolation" in a previous post--you know darn well I'm talking about a specific instance and attempting to pigeonhole me into admitting something by latching onto a piece of my argument that has vague relevance to the actual argument. And, because of my poor (but developing :)) debating skills, you probably would have forced me into such a position. But meh, whatever.



If someone claims expertise on what is, and isn't, important... they should really make sure they are accurate, no?



I cast doubt upon your expertise.

What makes you think we are talking about a table?

I would as well. I thought it was table. Learn something new everyday, my mistake.

Oh yes, I am well aware you were. Hence why I said "Beware of extrapolation" in a previous post--you know darn well I'm talking about a specific instance and attempting to pigeonhole me into admitting something by latching onto a piece of my argument that has vague relevance to the actual argument. And, because of my poor (but developing :)) debating skills, you probably would have forced me into such a position. But meh, whatever.

The reason that probably would've happened is because you're sortof defending an absolute. If anything, my target has been Buarong's reasoning that the bible must be taken literally, cuz if this bit isn't exact, what else might be off?

Technically, that position is struck down as soon as pi=3 is mentioned. so then it moves to approximation. But we come back a bit, approximation only in irrelevant areas. Then where the key part of the argument starts, why is Gensis relevant?

Creationists

I never met one of those. I never knew they still existed.....

The reason that probably would've happened is because you're sortof defending an absolute. If anything, my target has been Buarong's reasoning that the bible must be taken literally, cuz if this bit isn't exact, what else might be off?

Technically, that position is struck down as soon as pi=3 is mentioned. so then it moves to approximation. But we come back a bit, approximation only in irrelevant areas. Then where the key part of the argument starts, why is Gensis relevant?

Well, it certainly has no effect on how I live. It may explain why, but why is not so important as how. I haven't even read the Bible. Maybe that makes me a bad Christian. But for me, my faith is what it is not because of why I'm here...but how I live.

So in essence, I guess the Bible can be taken literally or not, but in the end it doesn't really matter. My belief that Christ died for sin isn't nearly as strong as my belief that God is. I'm sure the Bible has had an enormous impact on my life, but I don't actively pursue proof of its claims. So maybe I'm intellectually lazy. Yea, in this matter I'll admit I am. Everything's circumstantial. But I take the truth of the Bible on faith, and leave it at that. Frees my life for living.

Not my question, but that's a wide brush. Not everything in the Bible is contrary to real world discoveries. And it is not always a case that it is "obviously" so. Are there any specific points you'd like to address?Could you explain to me the first section of the biblical Book of Judith?

One of my particular favorite examples with respect to Biblical errancy occurs not only in Genesis but has to do with genetics as well.


Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the runnels, that is, the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

What makes this even better is that many literal-belief creationists actually trot out the failure of Lamarck's hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired characteristics as evidence for the invalidity of the scientific process as it relates to evolutionary theory (never mind that it is by virtue of the scientific method's self-correcting mechanisms that we have come to discard the hypothesis in the first place).

One of my particular favorite examples with respect to Biblical errancy occurs not only in Genesis but has to do with genetics as well.
Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods which he had peeled in front of the flocks in the runnels, that is, the watering troughs, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.
What makes this even better is that many literal-belief creationists actually trot out the failure of Lamarck's hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired characteristics as evidence for the invalidity of the scientific process as it relates to evolutionary theory (never mind that it is by virtue of the scientific method's self-correcting mechanisms that we have come to discard the hypothesis in the first place).I wonder what rods earlier Israelites used to get the wool for their many-colored coats....

I like:

Incompleteness as Proof of Defect
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

I would also provide a different example for their Generalizing from Self item.
My Example: I don't understand X. Therefore, nobody understands X.

I can't count the number of times that some ignorant twit has informed me that "science can't explain" something, when in fact science can and does explain that something, it's just that the twit doesn't understand the science.

Thanks, Bottle. I borrowed this for the Global Warming debate. It's amazing how everyone that wants to reject science does so using the same fallacies. "I don't understand, so you can't prove it to me."

Could you explain to me the first section of the biblical Book of Judith?

I might, if you would be so kind as to select a book that is actually in the Bible. Perhaps you meant Jude? Or Judges?

I might, if you would be so kind as to select a book that is actually in the Bible. Perhaps you meant Jude? Or Judges??? Judith is actually a book in the Bible.

?? Judith is actually a book in the Bible.

Not in the KJV or NIV.

Not in the KJV or NIV.That's not my fault now, is it? Get a real bible and not some weird protestant bible.

That's not my fault now, is it? Get a real bible and not some weird protestant bible.

You want to buy me one? Feel free. I'll give you my address. Til then, I suggest you lose the temper.

You want to buy me one? Feel free. I'll give you my address. Til then, I suggest you lose the temper.You asked me whether I could point you to a passage in a biblical book that contained flaws which you could address. And I did.

You asked me whether I could point you to a passage in a biblical book that contained flaws which you could address. And I did.

Yes, you did.

"Chapter 1


Now Arphaxad king of the Medes had brought many nations under his dominions, and he built a very strong city, which he called Ecbatana,

Of stones squared and hewed: he made the walls thereof seventy cubits broad, and thirty cubits high, and the towers thereof he made a hundred cubits high. But on the square of them, each side was extended the space of twenty feet.

And he made the gates thereof according to the height of the towers:

And he gloried as a mighty one in the force of his army and in the glory of his chariots.

Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him,

In the great plain which is called Ragua, about the Euphrates, and the Tigris, and the Jadason, in the plain of Erioch the king of the Elicians.

Then was the kingdom of Nabuchodonosor exalted, and his heart was elevated: and he sent to all that dwelt in Cilicia and Damascus, and Libanus,

And to the nations that are in Carmelus, and Cedar, and to the inhabitants of Galilee in the great plain of Asdrelon,

And to all that were in Samaria, and beyond the river Jordan even to Jerusalem, and all the land of Jesse till you come to the borders of Ethiopia.

To all these Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, sent messengers:

But they all with one mind refused, and sent them back empty, and rejected them without honour.

Then king Nabuchodonosor being angry against all that land, swore by his throne and kingdom that he would revenge himself of all those countries. "


Be so kind as to highlight which part is errant. Please. I can make a guess at what you are going to say; but I'd rather know for sure before responding. I will say that this particular book is focused primarily on the religious message entailed; there are certain apparent historical inaccuracies.

... there are certain apparent historical inaccuracies.Yes there are. And don't such inaccuracies rather show that the biblical authors did not know what they were writing about? Why would you assume that the theological aspect was right when the historical aspect was not? And don't such historical inaccuracies destroy whatever other message the text may try to convey? Even if the text is not in protestant bibles.

Yes there are. And don't such inaccuracies rather show that the biblical authors did not know what they were writing about? Why would you assume that the theological aspect was right when the historical aspect was not? And don't such historical inaccuracies destroy whatever other message the text may try to convey? Even if the text is not in protestant bibles.

I am sorry for you. You harbour nothing but doubt. How can you enjoy life? How do you know anything is true? And doesn't such a perspective destroy your capacity to live happily?

I don't have an answer for your question. Perhaps you may come, in time, to realize that the world is full of more than discrepancy. The Bible is comfort, a companion. What does it matter that its history may be innacurate? How does a factual presentation of history, or not, affect how one lives? Call it blind faith if you will, for that is what it is. But sometimes it's better to take some things on faith, so that you may be free to live.

That's not my fault now, is it? Get a real bible and not some weird protestant bible.

It's in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox bibles only.

Jews and Protestants exclude it from theirs.

Nothing wierd about it.

I am sorry for you.Save pity for one of your ignorant religious companions.

You harbour nothing but doubt.The knowledge that the Bible is crap is not doubt but certainty.

How can you enjoy life?How can you enjoy life? I guess your ignorance helps you a lot. It's always easy for small minds to be happy.

How do you know anything is true?Study.

And doesn't such a perspective destroy your capacity to live happily?Why would it?

I don't have an answer for your question.The why do you reply at all?

Perhaps you may come, in time, to realize that the world is full of more than discrepancy.But the bible is not the world, nor is the world the bible. And in my life I have realized more than you did in yours, it seems.

The Bible is comfort, a companion.Just as any other work of fiction.

What does it matter that its history may be innacurate? How does a factual presentation of history, or not, affect how one lives?If the bible fails to get history right, why would you assume it gets anything else right?

Call it blind faith if you will, for that is what it is. But sometimes it's better to take some things on faith, so that you may be free to live.Your faith is blind indeed.
And freedom to live includes freedom from submission. I do not submit to a fabricated Jewish god, unlike you. I am free, unlike you.

It's in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox bibles only.

Jews and Protestants exclude it from theirs.

Nothing wierd about it.Roman Catholic and Orthodox bibles only? Orthodoxy (that includes Catholicism) makes up roughly 70% of Christianity.
And since when do Jews not include Tobit and Judith in the bible anymore? Because they did in their Septuagint. Did the Masoretes remove the books? (which would explain a lot, since Luther and the translators for the KJV used their stuff)

Not in the KJV or NIV.

Nor in any other translation that I have read. Nor is it a book on my laptop computer and I have several translations there.

*snip*

Bitter, are we?

Nor in any other translation that I have read. Nor is it a book on my laptop computer and I have several translations there.

Apparently its only absent in "weird Protestant Bibles." Perhaps if he chose a book in a more commonly disseminated Bible, he would find it much more difficult to point out "discrepancies." I wonder why he chose such an obscure book--oh yes, because he has no interest in debating the merits of the Bible, but seeks only to pursue his bigoted anti-Biblical view