NationStates Jolt Archive

How does the Bible explain the time periods in the context of Dinosaurs,carbon dating and the development of the homo brain?

Isn't that in Revelation or Apocrypha?

Even though the events happen in different orders?
They didn't happen in different orders. Verse two isn't talking about anything other than events that already happened, and elaborating on things. For example:

18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
I have seen folks try and say that means God created man and then the animals afterwards. To me, it just says God formed (arranged, or summoned) them before Adam to name.

If you actually read the Bible, it says there was a light source and that plants had water. Waiting one day for the Sun, even if no light source was available, is not a problem, and to imply it would be is rather silly.

Only, we know that the Sun existed before the Earth did. For quite a while, actually. Well, those of us who study science instead of superstitious nonsense.

I don't think you understand the full implications of the Earth, and especially life, existing without the Sun. The lack of light wouldn't be the only problem.

For example, if you read it super-literal--
God said let there be light. But he said nothing about heat. So, without an energy source, how did everything, y'know, survive?

Only, we know that the Sun existed before the Earth did. For quite a while, actually. Well, those of us who study science instead of superstitious nonsense.

I don't think you understand the full implications of the Earth, and especially life, existing without the Sun. The lack of light wouldn't be the only problem.

For example, if you read it super-literal--
God said let there be light. But he said nothing about heat. So, without an energy source, how did everything, y'know, survive?
Who's to say the "light" did not also provide heat? To "light" the world could imply warmth.

reading closer would probably help, as that reading is fundamentally unsupportable in either the original or any standard translation.

in any case, getting back to our earlier discussion about reptilian things with feathers, is it possible for them, having already gained said feathers, to take up climbing trees due to some other mutations?
I don't see what a reptile being able to climb has anything to do with evolution.

If you're trying to prove something in regards to the Archaeopteryx, you can't say that it was a transitional animal. It is proven to be a tree-perching, flying bird, not some feathered transitional.

Who's to say the "light" did not also provide heat? To "light" the world could imply warmth.

Going by a super-literal interpretation of the Bible, which is the only way to arrive at creationism:
Does the Bible SAY heat? No. It only says light, which, as far as I know, has no inherent requirement for heat. For example, if you shine a flashlight on yourself when you're in the snow, you won't feel warm.

Anyway, we have solid evidence for both the age of the earth and the age of the sun, and they're both much, much older than 6,000 years.

Schools are about learning. Not learning "different" ideas. If we allow teaching creationism, we might as well allow people to teach alternate history in history classes. Who cares if it's not factual...we need to expose children to it, right?

I say JFK shot himself!

I don't see what a reptile being able to climb has anything to do with evolution.

If you're trying to prove something in regards to the Archaeopteryx, you can't say that it was a transitional animal. It is proven to be a tree-perching, flying bird, not some feathered transitional.

False.

Archaeopteryx is defined to be a bird (technically, an avialan). However, it had many more dinosaurian traits than bird traits. Its main bird traits are

* long external nostrils.
* quadrate and quadratojugal (two jaw bones) not sutured together.
* palatine bones that have three extensions.
* all teeth lacking serrations.
* large lateral furrows in top rear body of the vertebrae.


Other birdlike traits of Archaeopteryx are found also on several non-avian dinosaurs. These traits include feathers, a furcula (wishbone) fused at the midline, and a pubis elongate and directed backward. The birdlike hallux (toe) attributed to Archaeopteryx is not found on a recent better preserved specimen (Mayr et al. 2005; see also Middleton 2002).

Dinosaurian traits include the following:

* no bill
* teeth on premaxilla and maxilla bones
* nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole)
* neck attached to skull from the rear
* center of cervical vertebrae that have simple concave articular facets
* long bony tail; no pygostyle
* ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes, and not articulated with the sternum
* sacrum that occupies six vertebrae
* small thoracic girdle
* metacarpals free (except third metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible
* claws on three unfused digits
* pelvic girdle and femur joint shaped like those of archosaurs in many details
* bones of pelvis unfused

and over 100 other differences from birds (Chiappe 2002; Norell and Clarke 2001).

In addition, Archaeopteryx was intermediate between dinosaurs and modern birds in the shape of the coracoid and humerus bones and the brain (Elzanowski 2002; Nedin 1999).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html

Hell no. creationism = religion =/= science.

WRONG.

Creationism = science.

Evolution = religion =/= science.

You, and many, many other people on NSG, make the mistake of assuming that it's scientific if it doesn't involve God, and that the concept of "God" is necessarily unscientific, which it is NOT.

It's really sad that the vast overwhelming majority of voters in this poll want schools to lie to our children about the origins of the earth and the universe (i.e. that they "evolved" or were the result of a "big bang" that took place of its own accord without any pre-existing thing triggering it, i.e. an effect without a cause).

WRONG.

Creationism = science.

Evolution = religion =/= science.

You, and many, many other people on NSG, make the mistake of assuming that it's scientific if it doesn't involve God, and that the concept of "God" is necessarily unscientific, which it is NOT.

Lol in what way AT ALL does creationism fit the scientific model

And either way the concept of god is expressly unscientific, no amount of wishing or praying will change that

Going by a super-literal interpretation of the Bible, which is the only way to arrive at creationism:
Does the Bible SAY heat? No. It only says light, which, as far as I know, has no inherent requirement for heat. For example, if you shine a flashlight on yourself when you're in the snow, you won't feel warm.
The light could easily of created a warmth, could be similar to a fire, or even a sun unto itself. Sticking with the "super-literal" interpretation, God also referred to the Sun and stars as "lights".

Who's to say the "light" did not also provide heat? To "light" the world could imply warmth.
That kind of thinking led to the schism that is the multitude of "correct" christian interpretations and denominations. Keep up the good work ... divide and conquer!
:p

Creationism = science.House had a great quote about this.
You must have a high, HIGH tolerance for humiliation.

Much as I may hate to admit it, Fantastical Animals has a point, and I am not just saying that because they are my UN delegate. The whole debate connot be proven one way or the other and arguing about it is kind of stupid, very few people (if any) are going to change their view of the universe because of what is written on an internet forum.

False.


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
A few points in rebuttal:

- Some modern birds have claws on their wings, but no one thinks of them as being missing links. The hoatzin of South America has claws when it is young, which it uses to climb trees. The touraco of Africa also has claws. And if you have ever seen an ostrich close up, you might have noticed that it has three claws on each wing that the animal can use them if it is attacked. Obviously, the presence of “claws” says nothing about a creature’s ancestry.
- Fossil studies have shown that other true birds, which are now extinct, also had teeth. The presence of teeth, then, does not mean that Archaeopteryx or its alleged ancestors were dinosaur-bird links.
- This strange bird also had feathers, just like birds today, and the feathers were fully formed. Archaeopteryx did not have half-scales/half-feathers, but fully formed feathers. It was not in some kind of in-between stage.
- It also is known that there were other true birds living at the same time as Archaeopteryx. In fact, scientists have even found true fossilized birds in layers of rock that they date as being older than Archaeopteryx. This creature was not on its way to becoming a bird—it was a bird!

Lol in what way AT ALL does creationism fit the scientific model

And either way the concept of god is expressly unscientific, no amount of wishing or praying will change that

It is the "theory" (read: LIE) of evolution that does not fit the scientific model, unless the "scientific model", like evolution, is an elaborate fairy tale constructed in a desperate, and ultimately futile, attempt to rid mankind of a God who holds people personally accountable for their deeds.

Science is not the disproof of the existence of God, but rather God is the Author of science. There would BE no "science" if it were not for Him. Science exists because God exists.

WRONG.

Oh?

Creationism = science.

Okay, provide me scientific evidence in favor of Creationism. Make falsifiable predictions-- that is, things that we could test that, if a certain result were found, Creationism would be wrong.


Evolution = religion =/= science.

:rolleyes:
It's amazing how often this conspiracy comes up, that there's some secret Church of the Prophet Darwin (peace be upon his favorable genes), in which we offer up praise to natural selection and sacrifice to genetic drift.


You, and many, many other people on NSG, make the mistake of assuming that it's scientific if it doesn't involve God, and that the concept of "God" is necessarily unscientific, which it is NOT.

Well, it depends. Many claims about God are certainly scientific questions that can be tested. For example, the claim that God flooded the earth ~4,000 years ago is testable, and it turns out to be untrue.
Now, just saying "Goddidit" certainly is not scientific. Theoretically, if you could offer evidence in favor of that, the yes, then it could be scientific. But that's unlikely to happen, because there is no such evidence.

It's really sad that the vast overwhelming majority of voters in this poll want schools to lie to our children about the origins of the earth and the universe (i.e. that they "evolved" or were the result of a "big bang" that took place of its own accord without any pre-existing thing triggering it, i.e. an effect without a cause).
Yeah, so sad that people want to see the results of scientific inquiry presented in a science class. :(

Much as I may hate to admit it, Fantastical Animals has a point, and I am not just saying that because they are my UN delegate. The whole debate connot be proven one way or the other and arguing about it is kind of stupid, very few people (if any) are going to change their view of the universe because of what is written on an internet forum.

What else do you propose we do on a debate forum other then debate?

House had a great quote about this.
You must have a high, HIGH tolerance for humiliation.

Whatever (*yawns*)

A few points in rebuttal:
Notice how that completely ignores many of the points about bone structure?

It is the "theory" (read: LIE) of evolution that does not fit the scientific model, unless the "scientific model", like evolution, is an elaborate fairy tale constructed in a desperate, and ultimately futile, attempt to rid mankind of a God who holds people personally accountable for their deeds.

Science is not the disproof of the existence of God, but rather God is the Author of science.
:rolleyes:
Right, because many scientists are Christians. Darwin himself, before he formulated his theory, wanted to be a preacher, you know. So it seems strange to me that he'd want to destroy Christianity.

I'm going to post this again because it bears repeating:

Stars! (http://www.jonathanminard.com/EarthSpace/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg)

I rest my case. :)

Notice how that completely ignores many of the points about bone structure?
Apes have a few similar bone structures to humans. That doesn't make them human, or transitionals to humans, or ancestors of humans.

I'm going to post this again because it bears repeating:

Stars! (http://www.jonathanminard.com/EarthSpace/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg)

I rest my case. :)
So, Creationism?

What else do you propose we do on a debate forum other then debate?

Obviously, we make nicey-nicey and employ every conceivable philosophy and brainfart anyone in the world ever had ... especially those of us huddled in our parents' basements with the curtains drawn and a twelve-pack of Mountain Dew and an open calendar.
:)
So, who's up for Yahtzee?

Oh?

Okay, provide me scientific evidence in favor of Creationism. Make falsifiable predictions-- that is, things that we could test that, if a certain result were found, Creationism would be wrong.

It's amazing how often this conspiracy comes up, that there's some secret Church of the Prophet Darwin (peace be upon his favorable genes), in which we offer up praise to natural selection and sacrifice to genetic drift.

There is no such thing as "natural selection" or "genetic drift"; those are parts of the fairy tale of evolution. Species reproduce AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, not after some other kind. A dog begets a dog, begets a dog, begets a dog, begets a dog, etc. You don't get oranges from apple trees, or apples from a grapevine.

Jellyfish beget jellyfish, not catfish or sharks or whales. Lizards beget lizards, not frogs or monkeys. Species reproduce after their own kind.

Much as I may hate to admit it, Fantastical Animals has a point, and I am not just saying that because they are my UN delegate.No conflict of interest there! :p
The whole debate connot be proven one way or the other and arguing about it is kind of stupid, very few people (if any) are going to change their view of the universe because of what is written on an internet forum.As compared, of course, to finding what is written in a book in every dresser drawer in every motel in the US as being worthy of discarding sense and reason in exchange for hope of some twisted bloodthirsty vindication :)
Lots of people get turned for the frailest of reasons.
Remember, we're so openminded here that our brains have long since fallen out, and we'll take whatever we can get!

So, Creationism?

Perhaps old earth/old universe creationism, which is a meaningless debate on 'What came before the Big Bang?' that is irrelevant and unprovable until more universes come along. But how does a young earth/young universe creationist possibly explain away the fact that there are structures whose light has been in transit for at least 2 million times the supposed age of Creation?

I'm going to post this again because it bears repeating:

Stars! (http://www.jonathanminard.com/EarthSpace/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg)

I rest my case. :)
Golfballs, have you caught the newest Discover?

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/
Yup, God's empty grave. Toss in your flowers (bloomings, at least)

Apes have a few similar bone structures to humans. That doesn't make them human, or transitionals to humans, or ancestors of humans.

Ah, but that's not the issue. The bone structures in particular don't appear in birds-- they're distinctly dinosaurian traits, suggesting that the Archaeopteryx had a more recent common ancestor with dinosaurs.

And anyway, your example does suggest a common ancestor between apes and man.

There is no such thing as "natural selection" or "genetic drift"; those are parts of the fairy tale of evolution. Species reproduce AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, not after some other kind. A dog begets a dog, begets a dog, begets a dog, begets a dog, etc. You don't get oranges from apple trees, or apples from a grapevine.

You deny mutations and changes happen ? And that many changes can compound ?

Still, you were asked to reason in favour of creationism. It is intruiging that you immediately start to attack evolution instead.

Is then there nothing you can say in favour of creationism ? What makes it better than those other 17 million religious explanations ?

Apes have a few similar bone structures to humans. That doesn't make them human, or transitionals to humans, or ancestors of humans.
Tell us more about how many other things don't jibe with them, or perhaps that's all you've got? Tell me about DNA.

Golfballs, have you caught the newest Discover?

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2007/coldspot/
Yup, God's empty grave. Toss in your flowers (bloomings, at least)

Yep, I read about the cold spot. Interesting stuff. It's not necessarily empty, by the way. But it's still interesting. *nod*

They didn't happen in different orders.

Yes, they did.

I have seen folks try and say that means God created man and then the animals afterwards. To me, it just says God formed (arranged, or summoned) them before Adam to name.

Formed doesn't mean arranged or summoned. It means formed - ie. made. Not to mention that it states:

8 Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’ 19So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

Adam would have been alone if God had not decided to form animals out of the ground. Are you really suggesting that God had buried all the already made animals and was now calling them forth from underground?

Of course, the second account also has Adam being formed before plants:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, 5when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; 6but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground— 7then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground,* and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

The first account, of course, has all of the plants being brought forth in the 3rd day, well before the advent of humankind:

11Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so.

In addition the plant and animal issues, the first account has male and female humans created together, while woman is an afterthought in the second account. The God of the first (priestly) account is all-powerful and aloof from the world while the God of the second (Yahwist) account can make mistakes and is much more personal. The first account focuses on humankind as the pinnacle of Creation while the second account focuses on Adam as the reason for Creation.

I'm not sure how anyone who really bothers to truly read Genesis can see these as anything but what they are - two different ancient accounts of Creation from very different points of view. This does not, of course, mean that one cannot have faith in God or even in the lessons embodied in the stories as they are told. It just means that one cannot see them as literal creation stories (unless one is going to posit that Creation happened at least twice).

WRONG.

Creationism = science.

Evolution = religion =/= science.

You, and many, many other people on NSG, make the mistake of assuming that it's scientific if it doesn't involve God, and that the concept of "God" is necessarily unscientific, which it is NOT.

It's really sad that the vast overwhelming majority of voters in this poll want schools to lie to our children about the origins of the earth and the universe (i.e. that they "evolved" or were the result of a "big bang" that took place of its own accord without any pre-existing thing triggering it, i.e. an effect without a cause).

Something involving God cannot be science, God cannot be proved or disproved, so creationism can be science.

How the hell does evolution = religion? And by the way, you claim that something involving God can be scientific, so stating that really doesn't help your case.

Now you can say what you want about how everything began (I haven't researched the scientific theories too much myself), but denying evolution, in my mind, is idiotic. All the evidence we have points to it.

For instance, Creature A has genes which make it likely to survive. Creature B has genes which are conductive to survival as well. Creature C has genes which are not suitable for its environment, and ends up dying. In the end, Creature A and B mate, their offspring are similar to them, and most of them are similarly successful. On the other hand, Creature C is dead, and cannot pass on its traits, thus, that particular species is evolving.

This is only one kind of evolution, the kind they put in high school textbooks, and perhaps the kind you can understand.

Perhaps old earth/old universe creationism, which is a meaningless debate on 'What came before the Big Bang?' that is irrelevant and unprovable until more universes come along. But how does a young earth/young universe creationist possibly explain away the fact that there are structures whose light has been in transit for at least 2 million times the supposed age of Creation?

Easy. God shall confound the wise. Said it 'imself.

I don't see what a reptile being able to climb has anything to do with evolution.

well, the feathered dinosaurs in question didn't previously have that ability. heritable change over time...

If you're trying to prove something in regards to the Archaeopteryx, you can't say that it was a transitional animal. It is proven to be a tree-perching, flying bird, not some feathered transitional.

name me all the birds you can think of with teeth, claws on their wings, and long bony tails

Yes, they did.



Formed doesn't mean arranged or summoned. It means formed - ie. made. Not to mention that it states:



Adam would have been alone if God had not decided to form animals out of the ground. Are you really suggesting that God had buried all the already made animals and was now calling them forth from underground?

Of course, the second account also has Adam being formed before plants:



The first account, of course, has all of the plants being brought forth in the 3rd day, well before the advent of humankind:



In addition the plant and animal issues, the first account has male and female humans created together, while woman is an afterthought in the second account. The God of the first (priestly) account is all-powerful and aloof from the world while the God of the second (Yahwist) account can make mistakes and is much more personal. The first account focuses on humankind as the pinnacle of Creation while the second account focuses on Adam as the reason for Creation.

I'm not sure how anyone who really bothers to truly read Genesis can see these as anything but what they are - two different ancient accounts of Creation from very different points of view. This does not, of course, mean that one cannot have faith in God or even in the lessons embodied in the stories as they are told. It just means that one cannot see them as literal creation stories (unless one is going to posit that Creation happened at least twice).

Rocking, as always. *bows*

name me all the birds you can think of with teeth, claws on their wings, and long bony tails
Could be waiting a while.

Easy. God shall confound the wise. Said it 'imself.

I would. Messing with the heads of know-it-all types is no end of fun. :)

But then again, I'm not worshipped, am I?

...

Am I??? :eek:

name me all the birds you can think of with teeth, claws on their wings, and long bony tails

Ann Coulter. :)

*impatiently taps his feet*

Come on creationists. We know and understand you do not like evolution, because you believe it to be flawed reasoning without supporting evidence based on dogma. Fine.

Now explain why creationism is a superior alternative. In your reasoning do not refer to evolution. Or to any other religious explanation (you DO know that not all religions are Abrahamic I hope ?).
Just state why you believe that creationism fits the observable facts. Be sure to include many fields of science - like geology, physics and so on - in your explanation, unless you of course also believe that all those sciences are wrong.

name me all the birds you can think of with teeth, claws on their wings, and long bony tails

Hoatzin chicks have claws... but that's all I can think of.

It's really sad that the vast overwhelming majority of voters in this poll want schools to lie to our children about the origins of the earth and the universe (i.e. that they "evolved" or were the result of a "big bang" that took place of its own accord without any pre-existing thing triggering it, i.e. an effect without a cause).

Last time I checked your god was also an effect without a cause.

Apes have a few similar bone structures to humans. That doesn't make them human, or transitionals to humans, or ancestors of humans.

what would a transitional look like, and why?

There is no such thing as "natural selection" or "genetic drift"; those are parts of the fairy tale of evolution. Species reproduce AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, not after some other kind. A dog begets a dog, begets a dog, begets a dog, begets a dog, etc.

did dogs come from wolves?

I would. Messing with the heads of know-it-all types is no end of fun. :)

But then again, I'm not worshipped, am I?

...

Am I??? :eek:

Vanity, thy name is Lunatic Golfballs!
There really, really have been a few threads where it's been unequivocally determined that random people on tha interwebz worship you. In whichever fashion they desire ... even with mud, tacos, and nut-bashing. :)

Vanity, thy name is Lunatic Golfballs!
There really, really have been a few threads where it's been unequivocally determined that random people on tha interwebz worship you. In whichever fashion they desire ... even with mud, tacos, and nut-bashing. :)

Golfballs?

Ann Coulter. :)

http://nothingleftout.com/__oneclick_uploads/2007/06/coulter%20adams%20apple_thumb.jpg

not a bird

http://nothingleftout.com/__oneclick_uploads/2007/06/coulter%20adams%20apple_thumb.jpg

not a bird

Maybe she's a transitional. *nod*

Maybe she's a transitional. *nod*

ann coulter - proof of evolution!

I don't see what a reptile being able to climb has anything to do with evolution.

If you're trying to prove something in regards to the Archaeopteryx, you can't say that it was a transitional animal. It is proven to be a tree-perching, flying bird, not some feathered transitional.

*sigh*

Just to say this for the nth time, even though I'm sure you won't listen:

EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL SPECIES THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IS A "TRANSITIONAL ANIMAL." ALL OF THEM. YOU ARE A TRANSITIONAL ANIMAL.

Seriously, folks, please try to understand this. If something is both different from its ancestors and different from its descendants - as you are - it is necessarily a "transition" organism, or a "link," or whatever the heck you want to call it. It cannot, by definition, be anything else. This is really, really, really not complicated.

Just state why you believe that creationism fits the observable facts. Be sure to include many fields of science - like geology, physics and so on - in your explanation, unless you of course also believe that all those sciences are wrong.

Well you've asked for a decent explanation for Creationism. I'll attempt to give it to you - and anyone who is seriously interested in continuing this discussion will do well to take the time to read this lengthy explanation. I’ve put this together using a whole lot of different sources. Settle down and get ready for a long answer.


Let me explain the argument for Creation.

The basic idea of this argument is that, since there is a universe, it must have been caused by something beyond itself. It is based on the law of casualty, which says that every limited thing is caused by something other than itself.

The Universe was caused at the beginning

This argument says that the universe is limited in that it had a beginning and that its beginning was caused by something beyond the universe. It can be stated this way:

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe has caused by something else, and this cause was God.

In order to avoid this conclusion, some people say that the universe is eternal; it never had a beginning - it just always existed. Carl Sagan said "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be". But there's two ways to answer this objection. First, the scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that the universe had a beginning. The view usually held by those who claim that the universe is eternal, called the steady state theory, leads some to believe that the universe is constantly producing hydrogen atoms from nothing. It would be simpler to believe that God created the universe from nothing. Also, the consensus of scientists studying the origin of the universe is that it came into being in a sudden and cataclysmic way. This is called the Big Bang theory. The main evidence for the universe having a beginning is the second law of thermodynamics, which says the universe is running out of usable energy. But if it is running down, then it could not be eternal. What is winding down must have been wound up.

But beyond the scientific evidence that shows the universe began, there is a philosophical reason to believe that the world had a starting point. This argument shows that time cannot go back into the past forever. You see it is impossible to pass through an infinite series of movements. You might be able to imagine passing through an infinite number of dimensionless points on a line by moving your finger from one end to the other, but time is not dimensionless or imaginary. It is real and each moment that passes uses up real time that we can’t go back to. It is more like moving your finger across an endless number of books in a library. You would never get the last book…You can never finish an infinite series of real things. If the past is infinite (which is another way of saying, “If the universe had always existed without a beginning”). Then we could never have passed through time to get to today. But we have reached today: so time must have begun at a particular point in the past.

Argument for Design

This argument reason from some specific aspect of creation to a Creator who put it there. It argues from design to an intelligent Designer.

1. All designs imply a designer.
2. There is great design in the universe.
3. Therefore, there must ba a Great Designer of the universe.

The first premise we know from experience. Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers, building imply architects, paintings imply artists, and coded messages imply an intelligent sender. It is always our expectation because we see it happening over and over. This is another way of stating the principle of causality.
Also, the greater the design, the greater the designer. Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like Hoover Dam. Likewise, a thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters would never write Hamlet. But Shakespeare did it on the first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.

I should mention that there is a difference between simple patters and complex design. Snowflakes have simple patterns repeated over and over, but have completely natural causes. On the other hand, we don’t find sentences written in stone unless some intelligent being wrote them. That doesn’t happen naturally. The difference is that snowflakes and crystals have a simple repeated pattern. But language communicates complex information, not just the same thing over and over. Complex information occurs when the natural elements are given boundary conditions. So when a rockhound sees small round rocks in a stream, it doesn’t surprise him because natural erosion rounds them that way. But when he finds an arrowhead he realizes that some intelligent being has deliberately altered the natural form of the rock. He sees complexity here that cannot be explained by natural forces. Now the design that we are talking about in this argument is complex design, not simple patterns; the more complex that design is, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.

That’s where the next premise comes in. The design we see in the universe is complex. The universe is a very intricate system of forces that work together for the mutual benefit of the whole. Life is a very complex development. A single DNA molecule, the building block of all life, carries the same amount of information as one volume of an encyclopedia. No one seeing an encyclopedia lying in the forest would hesitate to think that it had an intelligent cause; so when we find a living creature composed of millions of DNA-based cells, we ought to assume that it likewise has an intelligent cause. Even clearer is the fact that some of these living creatures are intelligent themselves.

Even Carl Sagan admits:

“The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among neurons – about a hundred trillion (10 to the power of 14) bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world’s largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space. The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans.”

Some have objected to this argument on the basis of chance. They claim that when the dice are rolled any combination could happen. However, this is not very convincing for several reasons. First, the design argument is not really an argument from chance but from design, which we know from repeated observation to have an intelligent cause. Second, science is based on repeated observation, not chance. So this objection to the design argument is not scientific. Finally even if it were a chance (probability) argument, the chances are a lot higher that there is a designer.

Scientists have figured that the odds for a one-cell animal to emerge by pure chance are at 1 in 10 to the power of 400000. The odds for an infinitely more complex being to emerge by chance are too high to calculate! At any number above 10 to the power of 17, scientists conclude the odds to be impossible.


In reading this...would you believe someone if they told you that I, the author, wrote this essay....or would you believe that random computer calculations resulted in my username being logged onto this topic, and coherently defended the idea of Creationism in more than 1000 words? How much more complex is the universe, in comparision with what I just wrote?

The only reasonable conclusion is that there is a great Designer behind the design in the world.

Phew! That took a while! Well - these are only the philosophical evidences behind Creation. We can touch on science if you want. (ahh..I can see people cowering in that corner over there shouting 'no more lectures!!!')

Well you've asked for a decent explanation for Creationism. I'll attempt to give it to you - and anyone who is seriously interested in continuing this discussion will do well to take the time to read this lengthy explanation. I’ve put this together using a whole lot of different sources. Settle down and get ready for a long answer.


Let me explain the argument for Creation.

The basic idea of this argument is that, since there is a universe, it must have been caused by something beyond itself. It is based on the law of casualty, which says that every limited thing is caused by something other than itself.

The Universe was caused at the beginning

This argument says that the universe is limited in that it had a beginning and that its beginning was caused by something beyond the universe. It can be stated this way:

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe has caused by something else, and this cause was God.

In order to avoid this conclusion, some people say that the universe is eternal; it never had a beginning - it just always existed. Carl Sagan said "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be". But there's two ways to answer this objection. First, the scientific evidence strongly supports the idea that the universe had a beginning. The view usually held by those who claim that the universe is eternal, called the steady state theory, leads some to believe that the universe is constantly producing hydrogen atoms from nothing. It would be simpler to believe that God created the universe from nothing. Also, the consensus of scientists studying the origin of the universe is that it came into being in a sudden and cataclysmic way. This is called the Big Bang theory. The main evidence for the universe having a beginning is the second law of thermodynamics, which says the universe is running out of usable energy. But if it is running down, then it could not be eternal. What is winding down must have been wound up.

But beyond the scientific evidence that shows the universe began, there is a philosophical reason to believe that the world had a starting point. This argument shows that time cannot go back into the past forever. You see it is impossible to pass through an infinite series of movements. You might be able to imagine passing through an infinite number of dimensionless points on a line by moving your finger from one end to the other, but time is not dimensionless or imaginary. It is real and each moment that passes uses up real time that we can’t go back to. It is more like moving your finger across an endless number of books in a library. You would never get the last book…You can never finish an infinite series of real things. If the past is infinite (which is another way of saying, “If the universe had always existed without a beginning”). Then we could never have passed through time to get to today. But we have reached today: so time must have begun at a particular point in the past.

Argument for Design

This argument reason from some specific aspect of creation to a Creator who put it there. It argues from design to an intelligent Designer.

1. All designs imply a designer.
2. There is great design in the universe.
3. Therefore, there must ba a Great Designer of the universe.

The first premise we know from experience. Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers, building imply architects, paintings imply artists, and coded messages imply an intelligent sender. It is always our expectation because we see it happening over and over. This is another way of stating the principle of causality.
Also, the greater the design, the greater the designer. Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like Hoover Dam. Likewise, a thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters would never write Hamlet. But Shakespeare did it on the first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.

I should mention that there is a difference between simple patters and complex design. Snowflakes have simple patterns repeated over and over, but have completely natural causes. On the other hand, we don’t find sentences written in stone unless some intelligent being wrote them. That doesn’t happen naturally. The difference is that snowflakes and crystals have a simple repeated pattern. But language communicates complex information, not just the same thing over and over. Complex information occurs when the natural elements are given boundary conditions. So when a rockhound sees small round rocks in a stream, it doesn’t surprise him because natural erosion rounds them that way. But when he finds an arrowhead he realizes that some intelligent being has deliberately altered the natural form of the rock. He sees complexity here that cannot be explained by natural forces. Now the design that we are talking about in this argument is complex design, not simple patterns; the more complex that design is, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.

That’s where the next premise comes in. The design we see in the universe is complex. The universe is a very intricate system of forces that work together for the mutual benefit of the whole. Life is a very complex development. A single DNA molecule, the building block of all life, carries the same amount of information as one volume of an encyclopedia. No one seeing an encyclopedia lying in the forest would hesitate to think that it had an intelligent cause; so when we find a living creature composed of millions of DNA-based cells, we ought to assume that it likewise has an intelligent cause. Even clearer is the fact that some of these living creatures are intelligent themselves.

Even Carl Sagan admits:

“The information content of the human brain expressed in bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among neurons – about a hundred trillion (10 to the power of 14) bits. If written out in English, say, that information would fill some twenty million volumes, as many as in the world’s largest libraries. The equivalent of twenty million books is inside the heads of every one of us. The brain is a very big place in a very small space. The neurochemistry of the brain is astonishingly busy, the circuitry of a machine more wonderful than any devised by humans.”

Some have objected to this argument on the basis of chance. They claim that when the dice are rolled any combination could happen. However, this is not very convincing for several reasons. First, the design argument is not really an argument from chance but from design, which we know from repeated observation to have an intelligent cause. Second, science is based on repeated observation, not chance. So this objection to the design argument is not scientific. Finally even if it were a chance (probability) argument, the chances are a lot higher that there is a designer.

Scientists have figured that the odds for a one-cell animal to emerge by pure chance are at 1 in 10 to the power of 400000. The odds for an infinitely more complex being to emerge by chance are too high to calculate! At any number above 10 to the power of 17, scientists conclude the odds to be impossible.

The only reasonable conclusion is that there is a great Designer behind the design in the world.

Phew! That took a while! Well - these are only the philosophical evidences behind Creation. We can touch on science if you want. (ahh..I can see people cowering in that corner over there shouting 'no more lectures!!!')

See, this is a reasonable justification of old earth (i.e. "sane") creationism from a philosophical standpoint. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe.

It is, however, just not science. You should realize this; you even use phrases in your explanation like "we ought to assume." Science doesn't assume. Science tests - and there's simply no way to test for God.

Further, just to address the "random chance" issue - you're ignoring some rather important parts of this set-up. For things to happen just right at any given moment is indeed staggeringly unlikely - but there were billions of years worth of moments to work with. The odds of my dropping a coin and having it land on edge are very, very small - but if I drop that coin a hundred billion times, the odds of it landing on its edge at least once approach 1. The same goes for the development of life.

We should teach the other theory about the Holocaust too. You know, the one where it didn't happen...or perhaps the one where the Jews faked it to gain legitimacy for creating the fascist state of Israel!:rolleyes:

*sigh*

Just to say this for the nth time, even though I'm sure you won't listen:

EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL SPECIES THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IS A "TRANSITIONAL ANIMAL." ALL OF THEM. YOU ARE A TRANSITIONAL ANIMAL.

Seriously, folks, please try to understand this. If something is both different from its ancestors and different from its descendants - as you are - it is necessarily a "transition" organism, or a "link," or whatever the heck you want to call it. It cannot, by definition, be anything else. This is really, really, really not complicated.

Indeed, every animal that has ever existed was and is adapted for the environment it came to be in. When conditions changed, species either adapted, eventually changing little by little into something else (though often similar) or simply died.

well, the feathered dinosaurs in question didn't previously have that ability. heritable change over time...



name me all the birds you can think of with teeth, claws on their wings, and long bony tails

Not to mention the lack of a keeled sternum.

There is no such thing as "natural selection" or "genetic drift"; those are parts of the fairy tale of evolution. Species reproduce AFTER THEIR OWN KIND, not after some other kind. A dog begets a dog, begets a dog, begets a dog, begets a dog, etc. You don't get oranges from apple trees, or apples from a grapevine.

Jellyfish beget jellyfish, not catfish or sharks or whales. Lizards beget lizards, not frogs or monkeys. Species reproduce after their own kind.

So you are exactly the same as your grandfather then?

Two plus two does not now (nor ever will) be five. Stop saying it is.

Hmm...I could say something snide and unproductive about Creationists themselves being proof against evolution, as they haven't gotten more intelligent no matter how many generations of them there are...but I won't stoop that low.

Someone way at the top equated Creationism with ID. I don't see that as being necessarily true, although it certainly can be. I myself believe in a weird, twisted sort of ID...but then, my religious beliefs are stranger than space here will permit me to describe. In short...I believe in evolution. I also happen to believe that The Powers That Be had some kind of hand in it. In short, I believe that that the Universe ITSELF is the highest form of deity. The scientific laws which govern our Universe were set into motion, and then pretty much left alone, with perhaps the occasional slight nudge in the right direction where probability would have worked against us coming to be. That last point is negotiable. The odds of life existing as it is, in this place and time, might be beyond calculation...but given the size of the Universe, it becomes as inevitable that life would take this form, at this time, SOMEWHERE in the Universe as would landing a coin on edge if you dropped it enough times.

Before someone else says it, I KNOW that I overuse elipses, and I am also aware that I probably misspelled the word, but I don't feel like trying to figure it out right now.

Further, just to address the "random chance" issue - you're ignoring some rather important parts of this set-up. For things to happen just right at any given moment is indeed staggeringly unlikely - but there were billions of years worth of moments to work with. The odds of my dropping a coin and having it land on edge are very, very small - but if I drop that coin a hundred billion times, the odds of it landing on its edge at least once approach 1. The same goes for the development of life.

That sounds reasonable at first glance...though if you look more closely at your theory - you might see that it doesn't apply in the slightest. If you drop a coin 1 billions times...it might land on its edge. However, the universe didn't have 10 to the power of 400000 years to explode to be created, because there was no time then.

In your theory - there's a coin to start off with. In regards to the beginning, there is nothing to start off with. Unless, however, you are a Creationist and believe that there is an eternal God seperate to his creation, that is capable of creating the universe in less than a nano-second -or his given time-frame: 7 days.

It is, however, just not science. You should realize this; you even use phrases in your explanation like "we ought to assume." Science doesn't assume. Science tests - and there's simply no way to test for God.

The theory of creation is as scientific as it gets. If you'd like me to elaborate on this, give me 1-2 days to formulate the appropriate answer.

Settle down and get ready for a long answer.Only, this isn't an answer at all. It's a bunch of logical fallacies, dressed up as a pocketbook philosophy. No offence intended, but even if your points could be argued, they still would not belong in science education, as none of this has anything to do with that particular kind of philosophy. In a class about theology, perhaps. But you'd still need some firmer arguments, methinks.Let me explain the argument for Creation.

The basic idea of this argument is that, since there is a universe, it must have been caused by something beyond itself. It is based on the law of casualty, which says that every limited thing is caused by something other than itself.

The Universe was caused at the beginning

This argument says that the universe is limited in that it had a beginning and that its beginning was caused by something beyond the universe. It can be stated this way:

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe has caused by something else, and this cause was God.This doesn't hang together at all. Lemme see if I can point out why.

1. Assumption: deterministic causality is always true (hence the "Law" bit).

This assumption seems to be true on the macro-level of the universe. It does not appear to be a law on the micro-level, however, and if the generally accepted theories of the rapid expansion of the universe (that's the Big Bang thing) are true, it could have been caused at the micro-level. What that means, is that your first assumption isn't supported by the evidence.

2. Deduction: thus the universe must have (or have had) a cause.

A reasonable deduction, but only if the assumption about causality sticks.

3. Assumption: ??

The assumption or argument or whatever, that is necessary to go from "The universe had/has a cause" to "Not only have I just deduced the existence of an intelligent entity existing beyond reality, but this intelligent critter is exempt from my primary assumption about causality, so I can neatly dodge the issue of infinite regression", is missing.

4. Conclusion: thus the cause must be (or have been) an intelligent entity.

This isn't actually a conclusion. It's a postulate, and an unjustified one at that. How did you get from deterministic causality to an intelligent universe designer, who itself was not designed?In order to avoid this conclusion, some people say that the universe is eternal [...]This bit is a strawman, but since this isn't about non-Creationism/IDism, I'll skip it.If the past is infinite (which is another way of saying, “If the universe had always existed without a beginning”). Then we could never have passed through time to get to today. But we have reached today: so time must have begun at a particular point in the past.And that would be sophistry. There's an infinite number of numbers. This does not prevent you from counting to a million. Nor does it prevent anyone from counting from a million to two million. From your neat little office chair, to the even neater little office Xerox, is an infinite number of points. This does not mean that you will die of old age, before passing through this infinite number of points when you need to pick up a print of your favourite collection of logical fallacies. But more to the point: you did not exist a billion billion years ago, nor will you exist in a billion billion years. Neither of these facts means you do not exist now.Argument for Design

This argument reason from some specific aspect of creation to a Creator who put it there. It argues from design to an intelligent Designer.

1. All designs imply a designer.
2. There is great design in the universe.
3. Therefore, there must ba a Great Designer of the universe.Again there's a number of problems here. I'll have a go at crystallizing them:

1. Method: ??

To make the assumptions you make, it is necessary to have a method for determining whether something is intelligent design, design, or a probabilistic outcome. A subway is intelligent design. An anthill is design, though not by an intelligence. A cave system is a product of probability. All three are highly similar, so much so that had I a different frame of reference (not intelligence, just perspective and experience), I might not be able to tell which is which.

2. Deduction: the universe is intelligent design.

Hard to find fault with that deduction, beyond the fact that you didn't actually deduce it, but pulled it out of a hat.

3. Conclusion: thus an intelligent universe designer, who happens to be exempt from my law of deterministic causality, must exist and did in fact create the universe.

It does not follow that simply because the universe is intelligent design, one (or one thousand) eternal, intelligent universe designers, create every last bit of the universe, then, now and forever. If I create a random number generator, for example, I only specify the range of numbers and the frequency with which they appear. The exact results are completely probabilistic.

A much, much more complex example of the same, would be if I could - in an appropriate volume of space - create the sufficient number of stars (of varying types) to cause a mini-universe, almost identical to this one. Given some several billion years (around 8-10 or so), the combination of different stars with the pre-arranged proximity, would create star systems, complete with rock, gas and ice planets, comets and asteroid belts. The star systems themselves would have all the organic material necessary to create simple life, given the right circumstances (and depending on the scale of this experiment, the right chance of that might range from almost 0 to almost 1).

In a nutshell, you're ignoring the possibility that, assuming your wild guesswork up to this point is 100% accurate, intelligent universe designer(s) lack the knowledge and facility (or the desire) to create complex dynamic systems. Since even a simpleton like myself can create a dynamic system in the real world (I'm actually paid to do so these days), I think that assumption is very damn suspect. Now the design that we are talking about in this argument is complex design, not simple patterns; the more complex that design is, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.You're ignoring that the universe actually contains probabilistic products in abundance, and that (sane) human beings don't actually assume design unless an entity or entities known to be capable of such design, is already known to exist or to have existed. This is why the guy finding the rocks in the stream assumes on is a product of probability and the other of deliberate manufacture.That’s where the next premise comes in. The design we see in the universe is complex.No actually, the premise came a bit earlier. You just omitted to explain and justify it. The premise is that the universe can and has been designed. If you can't already demonstrate this to be the case with a great deal of certainty (and for that, you need to find the designer(s)), you can't start talking about the complexity of the design. Because you won't have a design.

And of course, you're ignoring that almost everything we know to exist, can be accurately and sufficiently explained (and predicted, even) as probabilistic events. But... Whatever.

I've skipped the rest of your strawmen because it mostly is strawmen, about shit that isn't too relevant to the arguments you tried to make.

That sounds reasonable at first glance...though if you look more closely at your theory - you might see that it doesn't apply in the slightest. If you drop a coin 1 billions times...it might land on its edge. However, the universe didn't have 10 to the power of 400000 years to explode to be created, because there was no time then.
You are using a gambler's fallacy that something MUST happen within the odds (Meaning that the universe needed your very long number to happen), the odds state the chances there of, but it can happen right off the bat.

Or to put it in an easily digestible way, just because last year you had a 100 years flood does not necessarily mean that it will be another 100 years until it happens again. It could happen this year just as well as 99 years hence.

Heavens no! We don’t want Creationism taught in our schools. We want our children to learn real science from men like Lord William Kelvin whose life work gave us the absolute temperature scale; and added much to the study of thermodynamics, or Sir Isaac Newton whose scientific contributions include calculus; reflecting telescope; dynamics; law of gravity. Maybe even Louis Pasteur, who is recognised for his work in bacteriology; law of biogenesis; vaccination and immunisation or Joseph Lister who is accredited with the introduction of antiseptic surgery Perhaps Michael Faraday who gave us the electric generator, or Robert Boyle the famous chemist, or Johannes Kepler renowned for his work in celestial mechanics, and or even Wernher von Braun who is highly regarded for his work on the space program with NASA. Oops… they were all creationists. No, lets throw their work out.

And while we are at it let not our children be exposed crazy religious lunatics like Dr. John Baumgardner, whose theory on plate tectonics was reported in Nature or Dr. Raymond Jones was described as one of the top scientists in Australia or Dr. Brian Stone has received numerous awards in his engineering field. We don’t want fellows like Raymond Damadian who invented MRI [magnetic resonance imaging] or Dr. A .E. Wilder-Smith who held three earned doctorates from three European universities anywhere near our kids. No we want them to learn from REAL scientists. Close the school doors to people like Dr. Melvin A. Cook who won the E. G. Murphee Award in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry from the American Chemical Society and Dmitri Kouznetsov, M.D, Ph.D., D.Sc., won the Komsomol Lenin Prize in 1983, distinguishing himself as one of the two most promising scientists in Russia at the time. God forbid (oops, I forgot we were trying to keep God or any thought that he might exist out of the schools) that men like Dr Andy C. McIntosh, Professor (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) in Combustion Theory at Leeds University, U.K. be let loose on our kids, No we want REAL scientists. Men who believe (doesn’t that sound like ‘faith' to you?) that rocks grow legs (Richard Dawkins – the God Delusion), who have observed these things so as to pass them on to our kids.

Then we will end up with fine young men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen who killed eight of his class mates in a school shooting because, in his words, “Life is just a coincidence … result of long process of evolution and many several factors, causes and effects….There are no other universal laws than the laws of nature and the laws of physics…. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, creationism is neither one… It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on track!”

Still, that’s better than letting those wretched creationists loose on our kids.

Then we will end up with fine young men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen who killed eight of his class mates in a school shooting because, in his words, “Life is just a coincidence … result of long process of evolution and many several factors, causes and effects….There are no other universal laws than the laws of nature and the laws of physics…. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, creationism is neither one… It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on track!”

It's slightly more poetic and thought inducing than "God told me to kill these people".

That sounds reasonable at first glance...though if you look more closely at your theory - you might see that it doesn't apply in the slightest. If you drop a coin 1 billions times...it might land on its edge. However, the universe didn't have 10 to the power of 400000 years to explode to be created, because there was no time then.

In your theory - there's a coin to start off with. In regards to the beginning, there is nothing to start off with. Unless, however, you are a Creationist and believe that there is an eternal God seperate to his creation, that is capable of creating the universe in less than a nano-second -or his given time-frame: 7 days.



The theory of creation is as scientific as it gets. If you'd like me to elaborate on this, give me 1-2 days to formulate the appropriate answer.

Incorrect. The Big Bang postulates that all matter and energy were existent, but in a tiny amount of space that then exploded.

Creation isn't scientific. There is no evidence for it. That's what science is about, observing hard evidence and then forming ideas and theories from that. This is not philosophy.

Heavens no! We don’t want Creationism taught in our schools. We want our children to learn real science from men like Lord William Kelvin whose life work gave us the absolute temperature scale; and added much to the study of thermodynamics, or Sir Isaac Newton whose scientific contributions include calculus; reflecting telescope; dynamics; law of gravity. Maybe even Louis Pasteur, who is recognised for his work in bacteriology; law of biogenesis; vaccination and immunisation or Joseph Lister who is accredited with the introduction of antiseptic surgery Perhaps Michael Faraday who gave us the electric generator, or Robert Boyle the famous chemist, or Johannes Kepler renowned for his work in celestial mechanics, and or even Wernher von Braun who is highly regarded for his work on the space program with NASA. Oops… they were all creationists. No, lets throw their work out.

And while we are at it let not our children be exposed crazy religious lunatics like Dr. John Baumgardner, whose theory on plate tectonics was reported in Nature or Dr. Raymond Jones was described as one of the top scientists in Australia or Dr. Brian Stone has received numerous awards in his engineering field. We don’t want fellows like Raymond Damadian who invented MRI [magnetic resonance imaging] or Dr. A .E. Wilder-Smith who held three earned doctorates from three European universities anywhere near our kids. No we want them to learn from REAL scientists. Close the school doors to people like Dr. Melvin A. Cook who won the E. G. Murphee Award in Industrial and Engineering Chemistry from the American Chemical Society and Dmitri Kouznetsov, M.D, Ph.D., D.Sc., won the Komsomol Lenin Prize in 1983, distinguishing himself as one of the two most promising scientists in Russia at the time. God forbid (oops, I forgot we were trying to keep God or any thought that he might exist out of the schools) that men like Dr Andy C. McIntosh, Professor (the highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) in Combustion Theory at Leeds University, U.K. be let loose on our kids,
A scientist's beliefs regarding the origins of life are irrelevant, provided they don't interfere with his/her application of the scientific method. In fact, everything about a scientist is irrelevant, provided it doesn't interfere with his/her application of the scientific method. But if you want to ignore this fact so you can play the victim, then far be it from me to stop you. You go right ahead and shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and yell loudly about how you're being oppressed or something.
No we want REAL scientists.
Well, scientists who exist outside the realm of reality are of no use to anyone.
Then we will end up with fine young men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen who killed eight of his class mates in a school shooting because, in his words, “Life is just a coincidence … result of long process of evolution and many several factors, causes and effects….There are no other universal laws than the laws of nature and the laws of physics…. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, creationism is neither one… It’s time to put NATURAL SELECTION & SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST back on track!”
You seem very well read up on notable religious figures in history, but you forgot all about a very famous Christian. Kinda shortish guy, dark hair, silly moustache, Austrian, had it in for the jews, went by the name of Adolf Hitler. I guess Christianity as a whole is as evil as this one person I have arbitrarily chosen to represent it, just like how everyone who acknowledges the huge amounts of evidence in favour of the theory of evolution must be as violent and crazy as Pekka-Eric Auvinen.

Oh wait, that's completely and utterly ridiculous, and I should judge ideas based on the ideas themselves, rather than the people who agree with them.

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. Anything that has a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe has caused by something else, and this cause was God.The flaw in this would be that while 1 leads to 2 and 2 does not lead to 3. For there is nothing in the first two premises that would imply that God is the cause of the universe, merely that there was some cause. (Note that this doesn't mean that God wasn't the cause, just that your argumentation doesn't imply what the cause was, merely that there was one).

1. All designs imply a designer.
2. There is great design in the universe.
3. Therefore, there must ba a Great Designer of the universe.The flaw here is that you base your argument (not here, later on in your elaboration) on complexity implying design. This is false. Design implies a designer, complexity does not.

Heavens no! We don’t want Creationism taught in our schools. We want our children to learn real science from men like Lord William Kelvin whose life work gave us the absolute temperature scale; and added much to the study of thermodynamics, or Sir Isaac Newton whose scientific contributions include calculus; reflecting telescope; dynamics; law of gravity. Maybe even Louis Pasteur, who is recognised for his work in bacteriology; law of biogenesis; vaccination and immunisation or Joseph Lister who is accredited with the introduction of antiseptic surgery Perhaps Michael Faraday who gave us the electric generator, or Robert Boyle the famous chemist, or Johannes Kepler renowned for his work in celestial mechanics, and or even Wernher von Braun who is highly regarded for his work on the space program with NASA. Oops… they were all creationists. No, lets throw their work out.
Interestingly, Newton (and all of his contemporaries) spent much more time playing around with alchemy and being sent mad by mercury fumes; fiddling around trying to work out the meaning of the stars, than they ever spend on anything resembling modern science.

But it's Newton, so finding the elixir of life is 'real science' right?

Interestingly, Newton (and all of his contemporaries) spent much more time playing around with alchemy and being sent mad by mercury fumes; fiddling around trying to work out the meaning of the stars, than they ever spend on anything resembling modern science.

But it's Newton, so finding the elixir of life is 'real science' right?

Whenever Newton was mentioned in Physics this year (specifically in Relativity) I always found time to mutter "bloody alchemist" under my breath. Although really if it wasn't for his trying to perform magic he probably wouldn't have come up with some of things he did.

But it's Newton, so finding the elixir of life is 'real science' right?Depends on the used methods.

Interestingly, Newton (and all of his contemporaries) spent much more time playing around with alchemy and being sent mad by mercury fumes; fiddling around trying to work out the meaning of the stars, than they ever spend on anything resembling modern science.

But it's Newton, so finding the elixir of life is 'real science' right?

So if a person believes idea A and idea B, if A proves to be true then B must be true also?

So if a person believes idea A and idea B, if A proves to be true then B must be true also?

Duh.

You seem very well read up on notable religious figures in history, but you forgot all about a very famous Christian. Kinda shortish guy, dark hair, silly moustache, Austrian, had it in for the jews, went by the name of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler was a Christian? Excuse me, but I think you will find he employed his experimentation on humans as a direct result of his belief in and propagation of Darwinian theory. He believed in developing a superior 'race" (that's an evolutionary term, not a creationist one), and this belief is a common thread in the development of evolutionary philosophy. Even recently an eminent evolutionist suggested the human race was going to evolve into a two tier structure with a strong athletic, intellectual breed over ruling a lower class of dim witted hobbits. Now, who really believes in fairy tales?

BTW the people I mentioned are not religious figures, they are science figures.

As long as creationism is taught in religion/worldview/cultural/whathaveyou class, then they can go for it as far as I care. But it can't be taught as science, since it's not science.

So if a person believes idea A and idea B, if A proves to be true then B must be true also?

Duh.

LOL. This proves the human factor in all beliefs...

Science in general (and evolution in this special case) is not something you need to believe in for it to exist and/or be true. It just is. Religions, on the other hand, largely rely on people believing in its tenents and/or simply following traditions.

Hitler was a Christian?
Yes. He stated that he believed he was doing God's work in fighting agaisnt the Jew.
Excuse me, but I think you will find he employed his experimentation on humans as a direct result of his belief in and propagation of Darwinian theory.
Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwin, aside from the name. Further, science is not a moral guide. No reasonable person thinks that it's 'wrong' for things to defy gravity. Just like no reasonable person thinks that natural selection equivels 'Kill the weak!'.
He believed in developing a superior 'race"
I thought he believed that the Germans were the Arayan master race.
(that's an evolutionary term, not a creationist one)
It's a social construct, actually.
, and this belief is a common thread in the development of evolutionary philosophy.
The theory of evolution is science, not philosophy. It is a matter of evidence, not belief.
Even recently an eminent evolutionist suggested the human race was going to evolve into a two tier structure with a strong athletic, intellectual breed over ruling a lower class of dim witted hobbits.
Which demonstrates considerable ignorance of the theory of evolution.
Now, who really believes in fairy tales?
I wouldn't know.

Oh, and before you further strain yourself, creationism is not incompatible with acknowledging the theory of evolution. The two things are quite unrelated, in fact.

One more thing: Your attempts to discredit the theory of evolution are pathetic, fallacious and laughable. Turn off your computer now before you make creationists look any worse.

EDIT: I meant that they were notable figures in history who were religious, sorry for the confusion.

Also, to the debate in general: personal views are one thing entirely, but forcing non-verifiable 'truths' onto another person, especially one in the learning period of life (generally known as school years), is not only irresponsible but censorship.

One should be allowed to learn of the world as it is, before having to choose whether or not they wish to believe the current scientific theory (yes, they're all theories, they just happen to fit the facts better than "because He made it so") of how it all began.

Also, if there are any real creationists still alive on NSG, answer me this: Why the parasitical wasps? :eek:

I think it's sad that some of these people are clearly quite intelligent. But instead of doing something with that brainpower, they stick their fingers in their ears, hum VERY loudly, call all other theories rubbish and occasionally shout their beliefs that all the earth was made by an invisible magic-man who lives in the sky.
It's a crying shame. Really is.

Yes. He stated that he believed he was doing God's work in fighting agaisnt the Jew.

Sound familiar? *cough*BUSH-and-muslim(terrorist)s*cough*

I thought he believed that the Germans were the Arayan master race.

I've been given to understand that he thought Aryans were the 'superior/master race' that were the 'original people that God created' and whose bloodlines were then infested by those of the 'inferior races'. In his vision Aryans were tall, blond and blue-eyed, beautiful people. Interestingly enough, Aryans as a people have existed, can't remember the place, but somewhere along the Silk Road of all places, but personally I think Hitler was just looking for the Vikings. :D

To quote a good friend of mine:

"Creation science?!
I thought The Flinstones was a cartoon, not a documentary!"

Also, if there are any real creationists still alive on NSG, answer me this: Why the parasitical wasps? :eek:

More importantly why the Candirú? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candirú)

Pay attention to the bit in bold in the tex below. Especially to all creationist-sympathizers, but also scientific folks. :)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, *SNIPs* here and there, original article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichneumonoidea

Ichneumon wasp

*SNIP*

The Ichneumon wasps are insects classified in the Parasitica group of the suborder Apocrita within the Order Hymenoptera. Often inaccurately called ichneumon flies, they are solitary insects, and most are parasitoids—the larvae feeding on or in another insect which finally dies. As with all hymenopterans, ichneumons are closely related to ants and bees.

*SNIP*

The female finds a host and lays an egg on, near, or inside the host's body. Upon hatching, the larval ichneumon feeds either externally or internally, killing the host when they themselves are ready to pupate.

*SNIP*

Charles Darwin found the grisly life histories of Ichneumons incompatible with the central notion of natural theology which saw the study of nature as a way to demonstrate God's benevolence. In a letter to American botanist Asa Gray, Darwin wrote "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."

*SNIP*

Sound familiar? *cough*BUSH-and-muslim(terrorist)s*cough*
They do say that history repeats itself.

I've been given to understand that he thought Aryans were the 'superior/master race' that were the 'original people that God created' and whose bloodlines were then infested by those of the 'inferior races'. In his vision Aryans were tall, blond and blue-eyed, beautiful people. Interestingly enough, Aryans as a people have existed, can't remember the place, but somewhere along the Silk Road of all places, but personally I think Hitler was just looking for the Vikings. :D

That does sound like a typical Nazi belief.

And I always found it amusing that Hitler was the polar opposite of his vision of the Arayan Superman. I expect that would speak volumes to a psychologist.

Sound familiar? *cough*BUSH-and-muslim(terrorist)s*cough*



I've been given to understand that he thought Aryans were the 'superior/master race' that were the 'original people that God created' and whose bloodlines were then infested by those of the 'inferior races'. In his vision Aryans were tall, blond and blue-eyed, beautiful people. Interestingly enough, Aryans as a people have existed, can't remember the place, but somewhere along the Silk Road of all places, but personally I think Hitler was just looking for the Vikings. :D

Actually, your right with the "muddying of the bloodline" thing.
It does go a little deeper, and even more ridiculous, however.

The Aryans were from the Russian Steppes area.
Hitler and his boys believed they were the decendants of ATLANTIS.
Thus, due to the breeding with lesser mortals, ie; Jews, gypsies, etc..
They had lost thier SUPERPOWERS.

Thus, by breeding the perfect German/russian/Aquaman, with such projects as the Lebensborn, his super-race would come to be.

Now perhaps, you see just how crazy Hitler and Co, really were.

And I always found it amusing that Hitler was the polar opposite of his vision of the Arayan Superman. I expect that would speak volumes to a psychologist.

Hehehe, it also speaks volumes that he didn't trust psychologists but preferred astrologists... :p :D

They do say that history repeats itself.



That does sound like a typical Nazi belief.

And I always found it amusing that Hitler was the polar opposite of his vision of the Arayan Superman. I expect that would speak volumes to a psychologist.

So would his bizarre sexual practices, reputedly.

Hitler and his boys believed they were the decendants of ATLANTIS.
Thus, due to the breeding with lesser mortals, ie; Jews, gypsies, etc..
They had lost thier SUPERPOWERS.

Heh, thanks. I knew there was some supernatural aspect there, but I'd forgotten what the reference was. The Aryans I mentioned are/were a historical fact, a real life people and something of a puzzle to historians, but then again, I doubt anyone would say that the old A.H. was the sanest person to ever have lived... :D

More importantly why theCandirú? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candirú)

I asked first. :p
If they can explain the wasps, then they can have a go at candirú. :D

I asked first. :p
If they can explain the wasps, then they can have a go at candirú. :D

What kind of loving God would create the candirú?

One who loves it when his creations suffer.

One who loves it when his creations suffer.

Nah, that's just us humans. :p

EDIT: Aww gotta go, keep this topic interesting, while I tackle the Real Life... :D

Heh, thanks. I knew there was some supernatural aspect there, but I'd forgotten what the reference was. The Aryans I mentioned are/were a historical fact, a real life people and something of a puzzle to historians, but then again, I doubt anyone would say that the old A.H. was the sanest person to ever have lived... :D

Wasnt just him, either it was his closest and highest ranking. Its the same reason they held stock in religious artifacts as well. The Spear of Longinus, Holy Grail etc...

It seems very much like these guys created the whole thing around a cult, that revolved around the Aryan race, Atlantis and Germany.
Pretty wild.

Heres a good book on it:

http://www.amazon.com/Occult-Roots-Nazism-Influence-Ideology/dp/0814730604/ref=pd_sim_b_title_2/105-2918553-1650022

Interestingly enough, Aryans as a people have existed, can't remember the place, but somewhere along the Silk Road of all places, but personally I think Hitler was just looking for the Vikings. :D
Aryans are an older name for the people we know call Indo-Europeans who meandered out of Asia Minor and split, one part take over Europe and becoming, well, the Europeans and the other becoming Indians (From India, not Native Americans), it's why a lot of the languages in Europe can be traced back to a common tongue that is related to Sanskrit and some of the Indian languages. The name got changed from Aryans to Indo-Europeans after Hitler borrowed the term.

And the fact that I can remember this from my history of linguistics class in college about 7 or so years back is sad. :p

Aryans are an older name for the people we know call Indo-Europeans who meandered out of Asia Minor and split, one part take over Europe and becoming, well, the Europeans and the other becoming Indians (From India, not Native Americans), it's why a lot of the languages in Europe can be traced back to a common tongue that is related to Sanskrit and some of the Indian languages. The name got changed from Aryans to Indo-Europeans after Hitler borrowed the term.

And the fact that I can remember this from my history of linguistics class in college about 7 or so years back is sad. :p

Rejoice, you skills at *cough*anal*cough* retention paid off. Yeah there's been quite a bit of speculation about how the migration of the Indo-Europeans actually occurred. If I remember correctly, the present best guess is that they actually emerged out of India, spread across Europe and Asia, and then "returned" to India to settle. Of course the person who told me this is also the same dumbass who showed me that article about the solar system being from another galaxy (my father), so I'd take it with a grain of salt until I have a chance to look it up and find a source (it's 8 AM here.)

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

But they can. In Religious Education, where it belongs.

Aryans are an older name for the people we know call Indo-Europeans who meandered out of Asia Minor and split, one part take over Europe and becoming, well, the Europeans and the other becoming Indians (From India, not Native Americans), it's why a lot of the languages in Europe can be traced back to a common tongue that is related to Sanskrit and some of the Indian languages. The name got changed from Aryans to Indo-Europeans after Hitler borrowed the term.

And the fact that I can remember this from my history of linguistics class in college about 7 or so years back is sad. :p

Hitler really ruined everything he touched, didn't he? I mean, from the Swastika to the square moustache(ok, that was crap anyway) to the word Aryan.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

School is not about learning different ideas, it is about trying to pass on the best understanding of things that we currently have. In terms of science creationism certainly isn't that.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

No. Schools should not equate myths and legends to science.
Creation is a myth. One can choose to believe it or not.
However, it is not the place of schools to encourage beliefs: it should encourage critical thinking and analysis of facts - and there is no fact supporting creationism, just belief.

Should schools be able to teach Creationism, of course why can't they. Schools are about learning different ideas is not it.

School is about learning what's true. Creation and Evolution can't both be true and Evolution is scientifically supported, so no, no creation in science class.

But they can. In Religious Education, where it belongs.

Teaching religion in religious education classes?!? Madness! :eek:

Creation and Evolution can't both be true

Actually they can, though this is a common misconception. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Creationism does.

Hitler really ruined everything he touched, didn't he?

Yep.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1333436537

:)

It doesn’t belong in science class. In comparative religions class, yes.

Looking past the fact it has no place in the science classroom; the problem is the teachers. Some would do it as you suggest and face complaints about Christian bashing. Worst there were be some that would use the opportunity to start proselytizing the kids.
Of course it doesn’t belong in a science classroom, it’s not as scientific theory. But it will be brought up in science classrooms, and it’d be foolish of teachers to dismiss it without explaining why.

There’s a worrying trend that suggests treating creationism as some kind of thoughtcrime. This does not educate children; and I truly believe that any averagely intelligent child will, after being calmly and clearly explained why creationism is being taught in religious education as opposed to the science classroom, very easily see that this is the correct course of action.

Attempting to somehow remove any mention of creationism from a child in a science classroom will only lead to big problems.

Teaching religion in religious education classes?!? Madness! :eek:

Madness? THIS IS NSG! *kicks LG down a well*

Of course it doesn’t belong in a science classroom, it’s not as scientific theory. But it will be brought up in science classrooms, and it’d be foolish of teachers to dismiss it without explaining why.

There’s a worrying trend that suggests treating creationism as some kind of thoughtcrime. This does not educate children; and I truly believe that any averagely intelligent child will, after being calmly and clearly explained why creationism is being taught in religious education as opposed to the science classroom, very easily see that this is the correct course of action.

Attempting to somehow remove any mention of creationism from a child in a science classroom will only lead to big problems.

I recommend escape hatches and smoke bombs. That way, when a student says,

Student: "But the Bible says that God created..."

Teacher: "Wait, look! Britney Spears!" *points*

Student: "Where? I don't see..."

*teacher throws the smoke bomb and escapes down the hatch*

Student: "Shit!"

I recommend escape hatches and smoke bombs.
Yes, these are the ‘big problems’ I was talking about...

:p

Madness? THIS IS NSG! *kicks LG down a well*

*survives due to a strong spiritual connection to the elements of earth and water*

Lassie! Go get help!

*survives due to a strong spiritual connection to the elements of earth and water*

Lassie! Go get help!

What's that Lassie? You want your dinner?

I think that school is for teaching knowlegde, not scientific overcomed theories.

Therefore, the only point of view in which creationism is posible to be teached at school, is the one of "history of science", in which I personaly believe that creationism is nothing but another of the many limitations that the catholic church has posed to human thought in history.

It should only be taught at school asimilating it to the geocentric model of the universe held by the church for so many years, punishing people for thinking different, before it was proven wrong.

I think that school is for teaching knowlegde, not scientific overcomed theories.
Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, one could argue that much of the science that kids are taught in school, especially in chemistry and physics, is itself out of date and not exactly knowledge.

Ten year-old theories and the like.

There are many scientists that support Creationism or Intelligent Design.

I say yes to Creationism in school. Teach that and Evolution in Philosophy, not Science though.

Are there this many wackos, or are two people creating new nations just for the purpose of making it look like there are a lot of them?

Did someone advertise this thread on JesusCamp.com? :confused:

Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, one could argue that much of the science that kids are taught in school, especially in chemistry and physics, is itself out of date and not exactly knowledge.

Ten year-old theories and the like.

Most of them work as special cases though. After recently finishing my first year of university, I can say that as much as I thought I would be annoyed by being taught that my school teachings are wrong, I wasn't. I found that using the simpler special cases and outdated theories were very good for understanding the more complicated ones.

Even in Chemistry where we were taught Lewis structures, then VSEPR theory, then Molecular Orbital theory progressively relegating the previous ones to simple cases I found that the simpler, wrong theories really helped my understanding still. Also it helps ones understanding of the scientific method as well.

I say yes to Creationism in school. Teach that and Evolution in Philosophy, not Science though.

But evolution has nothing to do with philosophy.

What's that Lassie? You want your dinner?

Damn collie. >.<

*starts digging*

There are many scientists that support Creationism or Intelligent Design.

No, there really aren't. There are scientists who believe in one or the other, but there is no way to scientifically support either.

I say yes to Creationism in school. Teach that and Evolution in Philosophy, not Science though.

I agree that a religious belief should be taught in a class on religion or philosophy, but why shouldn't a scientific theory be taught in a science class?

There are many scientists that support Creationism or Intelligent Design.There are more scientists named Steve that support evolution than the total number of scientists that don't.

Damn collie. >.<

*starts digging*

Dig up *nods*

Hell no. creationism = religion =/= science.



Quite. It says much for the breeding habits of certain areas of the USA, namely those where FAG and Conservative Morality are from, that creationism is even considered a viable alternative to evolution.

Much as I may hate to admit it, Fantastical Animals has a point, and I am not just saying that because they are my UN delegate. The whole debate connot be proven one way or the other and arguing about it is kind of stupid, very few people (if any) are going to change their view of the universe because of what is written on an internet forum.

What else do you propose we do on a debate forum other then debate?

Just give in? He is right that the chances of changing anybody's mind is slim to none

Just give in? He is right that the chances of changing anybody's mind is slim to none

That's never stopped us before, and it certainly won't now. We'll thrust our knowledge into the vast gaping orifice of ignorance, even if we haven't used enough of the lube of eloquence, or if the orifice of ignorance has a headache.


Debating: Kinky stuff.

I think teachers should bring apples for students for a change.

I think teachers should bring apples for students for a change.

When is the last time anyone ever brought their teacher an apple?

Could be waiting a while.

I seriously doubt that Oak will ever respond to that request with a list

...

Am I??? :eek:

Yup
*lays offering on altar; prays for reason to come to Oak*

That's never stopped us before, and it certainly won't now. We'll thrust our knowledge into the vast gaping orifice of ignorance, even if we haven't used enough of the lube of eloquence, or if the orifice of ignorance has a headache.


Debating: Kinky stuff.
Didn't mean to imply that we should stop us no harm in spreading knowledge.

Hell when I was on NSG before (as Baran-Duine) these discussions expanded my own knowledge of The Theory of Evolution, and Abiogensis

Hell when I was on NSG before (as Baran-Duine) these discussions expanded my own knowledge of The Theory of Evolution, and AbiogensisYou learned something on NSG? Uh, oh... :eek:

You learned something on NSG? Uh, oh... :eek:
Trying to follow the discussions prompted me to read up on the stuff, got tired of not being able to follow the science in said discussions

When is the last time anyone ever brought their teacher an apple?

Depends on where you live. In New York state, Washington state, and Virginia, probably every day.

That sounds reasonable at first glance...though if you look more closely at your theory - you might see that it doesn't apply in the slightest. If you drop a coin 1 billions times...it might land on its edge. However, the universe didn't have 10 to the power of 400000 years to explode to be created, because there was no time then.

In your theory - there's a coin to start off with. In regards to the beginning, there is nothing to start off with. Unless, however, you are a Creationist and believe that there is an eternal God seperate to his creation, that is capable of creating the universe in less than a nano-second -or his given time-frame: 7 days.

First: I was under the impression we were discussing the beginnings of life, not the beginnings of the universe. The same general logic holds, but there was quite unambiguously a LOT of time between the latter and the former for the conditions to become right for the development of life. (Regardless, neither of these discussions have a thing to do with evolution, seeing as it only begins to apply after both the universe and life already exist.)


The theory of creation is as scientific as it gets. If you'd like me to elaborate on this, give me 1-2 days to formulate the appropriate answer.

No, no it is not. First off, it's not even a theory. It's never been tested, and it's utterly unfalsifiable, which is the antithesis of scientific. We can't test for God; this should be obvious. Science, by definition, only deals with things that are testable and falsifiable. Creationism is not scientific in any way, shape, or form.

NO MORE OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!! You are all devils! thats what you all are the 85% of you. You just dont wanna admit the truth. there is a life after this. and there is a supernatural being. You are just to stupid to know.

Lets end all religion and controversial topics or else Jolt and nationstates will have problems.

NO MORE OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!! You are all devils! thats what you all are the 85% of you. You just dont wanna admit the truth. there is a life after this. and there is a supernatural being. You are just to stupid to know.

Lets end all religion and controversial topics or else Jolt and nationstates will have problems.

I suspect sarcasm or trolling here, but just in case..

Are you really under the impression that keeping religious beliefs out of a science class equates to not believing in a supernatural being or afterlife? Do you really need science to confirm your faith for you to hold it to be true? There are many of us who do not.

NO MORE OF THIS!!!!!!!!!!! You are all devils! thats what you all are the 85% of you. You just dont wanna admit the truth. there is a life after this. and there is a supernatural being. You are just to stupid to know.

Oh I agree that that is possible. I just vehemenly disagree with the silly notion that Christianity is the obvious only true one and that its stories fits the facts as we know them.

The Egyptian Atum still offers a far better story in my opinion.

I suspect sarcasm or trolling here, but just in case..

.

No actually I am SIck of religious topics being discussed on these boards. 30% are about religion that is just not right.

Lets end all religion and controversial topics or else Jolt and nationstates will have problems.

you're going to pray that god smites Max Barry or something?

No actually I am SIck of religious topics being discussed on these boards. 30% are about religion that is just not right.

Why not? You need not participate in any topic that you don't want to.

I, for one, quite enjoy discussing religion.

No actually I am SIck of religious topics being discussed on these boards. 30% are about religion that is just not right.

Religion is one of the most pervasive influences in our lives. Why would we not discuss it?

No actually I am SIck of religious topics being discussed on these boards. 30% are about religion that is just not right.

I daresay religion influences well over 30% of everyones lives. If only because societies are drenched with it.

No actually I am SIck of religious topics being discussed on these boards. 30% are about religion that is just not right.

And am I right in assuming by "not right" you mean not yours?

Hitler was a Christian? Excuse me, but I think you will find he employed his experimentation on humans as a direct result of his belief in and propagation of Darwinian theory. He believed in developing a superior 'race" (that's an evolutionary term, not a creationist one), and this belief is a common thread in the development of evolutionary philosophy. Even recently an eminent evolutionist suggested the human race was going to evolve into a two tier structure with a strong athletic, intellectual breed over ruling a lower class of dim witted hobbits. Now, who really believes in fairy tales?

BTW the people I mentioned are not religious figures, they are science figures.
Actually, Hitler favored Lamarckism. Lying is bad, mmkay?

What kind of loving God would create the candirú?

One who loves it when his creations suffer.
I recently read about a theory that the Devil created the world when God wasn't looking.

No actually I am SIck of religious topics being discussed on these boards. 30% are about religion that is just not right.

Right. Instead of discussing religion and coming to rational conclusions, everybody should just blindly follow whatever religion their parents raised them in. :rolleyes:
Of course, most people do that anyway...

If you're trying to prove something in regards to the Archaeopteryx, you can't say that it was a transitional animal. It is proven to be a tree-perching, flying bird, not some feathered transitional.

Tree-perching?

TREE-PERCHING?!

It's got no reversible hallux. How about you actually look at the skeleton?

(And then there's the bird bit. Archaeopteryx is most likely outside of Aves, and thus not a bird.)

There are more scientists named Steve that support evolution than the total number of scientists that don't.

There are more biologists named Steve that support evolution than journalists who claim to be scientists plus a handful of people that actually have degrees that don't.

Seriously, most of the people on those lists aren't even scientists. It's hilarious.

There are more biologists named Steve that support evolution than journalists who claim to be scientists plus a handful of people that actually have degrees that don't.

Seriously, most of the people on those lists aren't even scientists. It's hilarious.

There are probably more catholic priests that support evolution than scientists who don't. :p

There are probably more catholic priests that support evolution than scientists who don't. :p

Definitely since the Vatican has come out in favor of The Theory of Evolution, and has stated that the story in Genesis is a parable

There are probably more catholic priests that support evolution than scientists who don't. :p

Well, there are a lot of Catholic priests, and Catholicism supports evolution.

Definitely since the Vatican has come out in favor of The Theory of Evolution, and has stated that the story in Genesis is a parable

Yep. Roman catholic or not, you know you're on the wrong side of the stampede when the Pope is bearing down on you. :p

Yep. Roman catholic or not, you know you're on the wrong side of the stampede when the Pope is bearing down on you. :p

*dodges Popemobile*

*dodges Popemobile*
It's been reclassified the Palpatinemobile.

It's been reclassified the Palpatinemobile.

Damn, does that means my dodge failed? :(

They teach evoloution and there is no proof for that either.:headbang::headbang::headbang:

Alright...before we get into a deep discussion in science, lets first start off with the definitions. Lets do this maturely, without expletives or obvious hatred/slander against the other side. After all, we've now stepped into the realm of professional debators. I'm going to treat those with an evolutionist/other theory respectfully and maturely. If you would like my attention, I expect you to do the same.

I will admit that I am not, myself, scientifically enlightened. Therefore, I will be using the knowledge imparted by more qualified scientists, that support the theory of Creationism.

The following statements are courtesy of Ken Ham and Dr. Terry Mortenson:

Science or the Bible?

Ever heard one of these claims? Perhaps you’ve even said one yourself. Over the years, we’ve heard them all—but they’re all false, or at least they imply a falsehood.

Common claims by non-Christians:

“Science proves the Bible is wrong.”

“Evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.”

“Evolutionists believe in science, but creationists reject science.”

Common claims by Christians:

“I believe the Bible over science.”

“Creation is religion, but evolution is religion, too.”

“Creationists believe in the Bible and reject science.”

The Bible’s account of beginnings cannot be tested in a laboratory, so secular scientists—and even some Christians—believe it is not science and must be classified as religion.

Secular scientists claim that their view of beginnings (evolution) can be tested in a laboratory, so their view is scientific. For instance, they point to mutated fruit flies or speciation observed in the field (such as new species of mosquitoes or fish).

But this is where many people are confused—what is meant by “science” or “scientific.”

It is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth.

Before we get caught up in a debate about whether the Bible or evolution is scientific, we have learned to ask, “Could you please define what you mean by science?” The answer usually reveals where the real problem lies.

Defining Science

People are generally unaware that dictionaries give a root meaning, or etymology, of science similar to this one from Webster’s: “from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens ‘having knowledge,’ from present participle of scire ‘to know.’”

And most dictionaries give the following meaning of the word: “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
Although there are other uses of the word, the root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.” In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered sciences, and theology was even called the “queen of the sciences.”

But over the past 200 years, during the so-called Scientific Revolution, the word science has come to mean a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth. Moreover, many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover truth.

Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth.

Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth.

To help people clear up the confusion, we have found it helpful to distinguish between two types of modern science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth:

1. Operation science uses the so-called “scientific method” to attempt to discover truth, performing observable, repeatable experiments in a controlled environment to find patterns of recurring behavior in the present physical universe. For example, we can test gravity, study the spread of disease, or observe speciation in the lab or in the wild. Both creationists and evolutionists use this kind of science, which has given rise to computers, space shuttles, and cures for diseases.

2. Origin science attempts to discover truth by examining reliable eyewitness testimony (if available); and circumstantial evidence, such as pottery, fossils, and canyons. Because the past cannot be observed directly, assumptions greatly affect how these scientists interpret what they see.
So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.

The Nature of the Debate

At this point, most people realize that the debate is not about operation science, which is based in the present. The debate is about origin science and conflicting assumptions, or beliefs, about the past.
Molecules-to-man evolution is a belief about the past. It assumes, without observing it, that natural processes and lots of time are sufficient to explain the origin and diversification of life.

Of course, evolutionary scientists can test their interpretations using operation science. For instance, evolutionists point to natural selection and speciation—which are observable today. Creation scientists make these same observations, but they recognize that the change has limits and has never been observed to change one kind into another.

Until quite recently, many geologists have used studies of current river erosion and sedimentation to explain how sedimentary rock layers were formed or eroded slowly over millions of years. In the past few decades, however, even secular geologists have begun to recognize that catastrophic processes are a better explanation for many of the earth’s rock layers.
Also during this time, creation geologists have been identifying evidence that points to the catastrophic formation of most of the rock record during the unique global Flood of Noah’s day.

These present-day observations help us to consider the possible causes of past events, such as the formation of the Grand Canyon. But operation science cannot tell us with certainty what actually happened in the past.
After we explain these two types of science, people usually begin to recognize the potential problems with the statement “evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.” Molecules-to-man evolution is not proven by operation science; instead, it is a belief about the past based on antibiblical assumptions.

The Bible, in contrast, is the eyewitness testimony of the Creator, who tells us what happened to produce the earth, the different kinds of life, the fossils, the rock layers, and indeed the whole universe. The Bible gives us the true, “big picture” starting assumptions for origin science.

Different Histories

Thus, creationists and evolutionists develop totally different reconstructions of history. But they accept and use the same methods of research in both origin and operation science. The different conclusions about origins arise from different starting assumptions, not the research methods themselves.
So, the battle between the Bible and molecules-to-man evolution is not one of religion versus science. Rather, it is a conflict between worldviews—a creationist’s starting assumptions (a biblical worldview) and an evolutionist’s starting assumptions (an antibiblical worldview).

Can a Creationist be a scientist?

Only a tiny example of some of the now-living Creation scientists, many with phd's, that all support the theory of Creation:

Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics

(I won't go on...but we're up to 'H'). These are just some of the practicing Creation scientists of today.

Some very important Creation scientists of the past, some being the founding fathers of their field:

Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method.
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

Everyone accepts that evolutionists can be scientists too. But now that we've established that Creationists can in fact be scientists as well, I'll soon post about what these scientists have to say.

It's been reclassified the Palpatinemobile.
Yeah, he gets around in style these days:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v139/SithJada/Star%20Wars%20pics/Transports/ImperialLambdaClassShuttle.jpg
:D

Adam would have been alone if God had not decided to form animals out of the ground. Are you really suggesting that God had buried all the already made animals and was now calling them forth from underground?

They could have been in a cave . . . one filled with delicious pasta and golden apples.

...
Science or the Bible?

Ever heard one of these claims? Perhaps you’ve even said one yourself. Over the years, we’ve heard them all—but they’re all false, or at least they imply a falsehood.

Common claims by non-Christians:

“Science proves the Bible is wrong.”

“Evolution is science, but the Bible is religion.”

“Evolutionists believe in science, but creationists reject science.”
1 yes it does
2 also true
3 also true

The Bible’s account of beginnings cannot be tested in a laboratory, so secular scientists—and even some Christians—believe it is not science and must be classified as religion.
If it is untestable it is not scientific

Secular scientists claim that their view of beginnings (evolution) can be tested in a laboratory, so their view is scientific. For instance, they point to mutated fruit flies or speciation observed in the field (such as new species of mosquitoes or fish).
true

It is helpful to distinguish between operational science and origin science, and compare how each one seeks to discover truth.
operational science is scientific, where as origin "science" is not

Defining Science

People are generally unaware that dictionaries give a root meaning, or etymology, of science similar to this one from Webster’s: “from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens ‘having knowledge,’ from present participle of scire ‘to know.’”

And most dictionaries give the following meaning of the word: “the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.”
Although there are other uses of the word, the root meaning of science is basically “knowledge.” In fact, in the past, philosophy and theology were considered sciences, and theology was even called the “queen of the sciences.”

But over the past 200 years, during the so-called Scientific Revolution, the word science has come to mean a method of knowing, a way of discovering truth. Moreover, many people assume that modern science is the only way to discover truth.

Operational science uses observable, repeatable experiments to try to discover truth.
and thus is actually scientific
Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth.
and thusly is unscientific guesswork

Why is that even an ISSUE?

Evolution has evidence, creationism doesn't. Church must be separated from the state, ALWAYS. These are FACTS, people! The US is the only country that claims to be developed and yet has people trying to rape the state with church through teaching of creationism. You're a DEVELOPED country, people, you aren't supposed to act like goddamn Iran!

Why is that even an ISSUE?

Evolution has evidence, creationism doesn't. Church must be separated from the state, ALWAYS. These are FACTS, people! The US is the only country that claims to be developed and yet has people trying to rape the state with church through teaching of creationism. You're a DEVELOPED country, people, you aren't supposed to act like goddamn Iran!

unfortunately false, links proving this sprinkled throughout the thread

unfortunately false, links proving this sprinkled throughout the thread

What is false?

Different Histories

Thus, creationists and evolutionists develop totally different reconstructions of history. But they accept and use the same methods of research in both origin and operation science. The different conclusions about origins arise from different starting assumptions, not the research methods themselves.
So, the battle between the Bible and molecules-to-man evolution is not one of religion versus science. Rather, it is a conflict between worldviews—a creationist’s starting assumptions (a biblical worldview) and an evolutionist’s starting assumptions (an antibiblical worldview).

[
Actually no they don't. "Creation Scientists" start with an unfalsifiable conclusion (Goddidit) , cherry-pick some facts , and then attack the TOE w/o providing any evidence to support their beliefs.

Real Scientists form a Hypothesis, test it, possibly forming a theory or advancing another one, and then release their data for analysis and repeatability. If their hypothesis is found to be false or incomplete, it is rewritten and redone or thrown out.

See the difference?

"Origin science relies on relics from the past and historical records to try to discover truth." (The Narnian Council

and thusly is unscientific guesswork

Evolution is about origin science (carbon dating etc.) You've just called it unscientific guesswork.

1. So the problem with teaching it isn't Separation of Church and State, the fact that Creationism is non-scientific, and the fact that the teaching of a single religious tradition belonging to a single subset of religions is heavily biased in favor of that particular subset of religions? The major problem with teaching it is that the teachers involved would refuse to teach it, or be heavily biased against it? Did you forget to finish that paragraph as you'd have liked, or do you honestly believe that the personal feelings and teaching methodology of high school biology teachers is a bigger concern than the pushing of one religion over all others?

2. It has been shown, through experimentation by several independent researchers observing two separated cultures of Drosophila fruit flies, that when separated for a large number of generations (which, to correct the general misinformation on the subject, are what count, not time in particular. Therefore a fruit fly, with a two-week generation span will evolve at a significantly faster rate [and therefore, significantly easier to observe time span] than a human or other large animal) will result in two separate groups of fruit fly that are no longer capable of breeding with one another when mixed back together.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Stated_examples does a good job of listing and explaining the reduction of many of the supposedly irreducible systems put forward by Michael Behe and his cohorts.

4. The Anthropic Principle is an untestable philosophical argument, not a valid scientific theory, nor a valid line of scientific research.

5. I don't see how any of these could be called "flaws" in macroevolution, given their relation to the theory in the first place.

6. Evolution as a theory does not discuss, nor is it concerned with, the original emergence of living organic structures from inorganic matter. Abiogenesis and evolution are two separate lines of scientific research.

1. I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe that the Christian religious belief in Genesis should be taught in science class. I do think that the scientific objections to evolution should be mentioned, without mentioning or endorsing any particular religious belief. There are many credible scientists, such as Dr. John Baumgardner, the inventor of the Terra computer simulation model for plate tectonics, who don't believe in evolution. Their objections should be considered. Science is all about weighing the evidence. If intelligent design or creationism are rejected out of hand and no debate allowed, science is suppressed.

2. Your point about the fruit flies would fall under the experiments that I have already acknowledged as fact. I would argue that the new species of fruitfly, while now genetically isolated from the other kind, is still a fruitfly. It didn't evolve into a butterfly or a praying mantis. That is the kind of change that must be proven through observation if evolution is to be proven correct.

Also, the change in the fruitflies was a downgrade, not an upgrade. The fruitflies didn't gain anything useful through their evolution - they just lost something, the ability to reproduce with other fruitflies. In order for evolution to work, we need to see upward evolution, organisms becoming more complex over time, not becoming less well-designed.

3. If you are so confident that Behe's assertions can be disproved, why do you(I presume) oppose them being held to scrutiny in science class?

The explanation given in the Wiki article about the possible evolution of the eye is pure conjecture and speculation. Simply having an idea of how the eye might have evolved isn't any good if it can't be backed up with evidence!

4. Let me give you some examples of the Anthropic principle, which essentially suggests that the universe is too fine-tuned to have ever come about by chance.

The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, the distance of the Earth from the Sun, the size of the Moon, the composition of the atmosphere, ect. are all perfect to support life, just as if they had been designed that way. The probability of all the constants of the universe and the other facts I mentioned being completely by coincidence exactly perfect for life to evolve is so small its irrelevant.

5. Let's see, I believe what I mentioned here was genetics, information theory, and convergent evolution. Let me explain how those subjects contradict evolution.

We know from genetics that it is impossible for genes to change past a certain point. Genes have a certain amount of variability inherent inside them -hence, species changing over time do to natural selection. However, the genome will only tolerate so much change. You may have many different breeds of dogs and cross-breed them as much as you want for as long as you want, and you will never get a cow. This is obviously a problem for macroevolution.

Information theory is quite simple. It simply states that information must have an intelligent source. Information will always proceed from other information. Information will never simply appear. The genome is the most advanced system of information known to man, far superior to the best computers, yet evolutionists posit that if you go back far enough, all that information at one time simply didn't exist. That's impossible.

Convergent evolution - this isn't as well known as some other anti-evolutionary arguments, but it is a powerful point. We already know that the chances of evolution occuring are tiny. Even evolutionists concede that billions of years is required for evolution to theoretically work. The evolution of even one system is amazing - but we observe in nature that many completely different animals, whom evolutionists do not posit shared a common ancestor, utilize the same design! A good example is the eye of the human compared with the eye of the squid. The design of the two eyes, save for size, is completely identical! The squid and the human don't share a common ancestor, so how could they possibly have such a similar eye? The probability of the evolution of something so complex as the eye even once in one creature is astoundingly small - what are the chances that that process would happen twice!? That seems to point towards a common designer who was simply reusing a design that worked.

6. Evolution as a theory doesn't work if the point at which it all began can't be explained. Saying that abiogenesis isn't evolution is simply a cop-out. You don't want to have a debate about abiogenesis because you recognize that spontaneous generation has been credibly disproved since the 19th century. Life cannot come from non-life.

Time for a musical intermission:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1984449449

:)

the bolded section

I said "that claim to be developed". Iran isn't a developed country, for instance. Or do they teach creationist tripe in state schools in England, or Germany?

What is false?

the bolded section

There are many scientists that support Creationism or Intelligent Design.

They may CALL THEMSELVES scientists, but they aren't.

3. If you are so confident that Behe's assertions can be disproved, why do you(I presume) oppose them being held to scrutiny in science class?

The explanation given in the Wiki article about the possible evolution of the eye is pure conjecture and speculation. Simply having an idea of how the eye might have evolved isn't any good if it can't be backed up with evidence!

And saying it can't is pure conjecture as there is evidence of evolving eyes. Behe should be held up as an example of how people who know nothing about science can be fooled w/ lots of big words.

4. Let me give you some examples of the Anthropic principle, which essentially suggests that the universe is too fine-tuned to have ever come about by chance.

The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, the distance of the Earth from the Sun, the size of the Moon, the composition of the atmosphere, ect. are all perfect to support life, just as if they had been designed that way. The probability of all the constants of the universe and the other facts I mentioned being completely by coincidence exactly perfect for life to evolve is so small its irrelevant.



And you just made it completely unscientific, showing what we've been saying all along.

You have to show evidence for a "designer", not just "assume" there is one.

I said "that claim to be developed". Iran isn't a developed country, for instance. Or do they teach creationist tripe in state schools in England, or Germany?


there is a push for the EU and the UK. I provided some links earlier.

Evolution is about origin science (carbon dating etc.) You've just called it unscientific guesswork.

The scientific method was used in determining the effectiveness of carbon dating and The Theory of Evolution is not about origin science.

there is a push for the EU and the UK. I provided some links earlier.

Uhm, could you re-provide them? I don't feel like looking the whole thread over for it.

Also, they'll lose, and easily, if Europe doesn't want to be like Saudi Arabia.

Time for a musical intermission:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1984449449

:)

Thank you for bringing some humility to this discussion. It is sorely needed.

I must, however, it that was Monty Python skit why did I hear some non-metric units in there? Miles per minute? Bleck! I'll take meters per second any day.

So, for example, how was the Grand Canyon formed? Was it formed gradually over long periods of time by a little bit of water, or was it formed rapidly by a lot of water? The first interpretation is based on secular assumptions of slow change over millions of years, while the second interpretation is based on biblical assumptions about rapid change during Noah’s Flood.

except we know what fast canyon formation looks like - compare the channeled scablands to the grand canyon to see the difference.

Uhm, could you re-provide them? I don't feel like looking the whole thread over for it.

Also, they'll lose, and easily, if Europe doesn't want to be like Saudi Arabia.

Here:

http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/b8de8e630faf3631/id/285440/cs/1/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/3088444.stm

I think these were the ones I linked to.

If you are so confident that Behe's assertions can be disproved, why do you(I presume) oppose them being held to scrutiny in science class?

elementary school science classes are not the place to hold debates. why waste time doing the background work necessary to even explain behe's stupid argument just to then show that it is stupid?

Because if you tech it in school at all (even to disprove it) that will give it a certain legitimacy?

It also takes time away from teaching real science.

elementary school science classes are not the place to hold debates. why waste time doing the background work necessary to even explain behe's stupid argument just to then show that it is stupid?

Because if you tech it in school at all (even to disprove it) that will give it a certain legitimacy?

I support freedom of religion.

We can't teach Creationism in school because there's no right way to teach it. What is freedom of religion if you going to force that Catholic model into public schools?

At the same time I support teaching evolution in a more real life approach. Like selective breeding or the effects in abusing antibiotics. It makes more sense for people coming out of high school to know about real life situations than this whole fish evolve to human thing, while skimming through the most important part about natural selection and death. You end up with idiots coming out of high school never knowing what "fitness" means in "survival of the fitness". I think that's ultimately the root of all the confusion we have today.

I support freedom of religion.

We can't teach Creationism in school because there's no right way to teach it. What is freedom of religion if you going to force that Catholic model into public schools?

At the same time I support teaching evolution in a more real life approach. Like selective breeding or the effects in abusing antibiotics. It makes more sense for people coming out of high school to know about real life situations than this whole fish evolve to human thing, while skimming through the most important part about natural selection and death. You end up with idiots coming out of high school never knowing what "fitness" means in "survival of the fitness". I think that's ultimately the root of all the confusion we have today.

It's "fittest". I think that's the source of your confusion.

I support freedom of religion.

We can't teach Creationism in school because there's no right way to teach it. What is freedom of religion if you going to force that Catholic model into public schools?

At the same time I support teaching evolution in a more real life approach. Like selective breeding or the effects in abusing antibiotics. It makes more sense for people coming out of high school to know about real life situations than this whole fish evolve to human thing, while skimming through the most important part about natural selection and death. You end up with idiots coming out of high school never knowing what "fitness" means in "survival of the fitness". I think that's ultimately the root of all the confusion we have today.

Creationism isn't a Catholic model. :rolleyes:

It is however a christian oneNope. It's an almost entirely Protestant one. Protestants and their mainly US-American offshoot sects.

Creationism isn't a Catholic model. :rolleyes:

It is however a christian one

It's "fittest". I think that's the source of your confusion.

Yes survival of the fittest is referring to the fitness model. Naturally since you have all the knowledge to correct me I assume you will know what survival of the fittest means. So it might be a good idea for you to explain that here and clear up all the "evolution vs creationism" arguments.

If you want to learn about religion, read up on it during your own time or go to a private school. But public schools should be teaching science during science class, not fanciful fairy-tales.


They should be given the choice

and protestants are christians, therefore I am correctNope. Creationism is not an approach shared by all Christians, not even the majority thereof. The generalization is inappropriate.

Nope. It's an almost entirely Protestant one. Protestants and their mainly US-American offshoot sects.

and protestants are christians, therefore I am correct

Creationism isn't a Catholic model. :rolleyes:

I am pretty sure Creationism was included in the Old testament.

They should be given the choiceNo they shouldn't. They are not sufficiently competent to make that choice.

I am pretty sure Creationism was included in the Old testament.A creation story is included in the OT, that's all. That is not the same as pursuing an overstrict literal interpretation of the text as Creationism does.

Nope. Creationism is not an approach shared by all Christians, not even the majority thereof. The generalization is inappropriate.

Oh really .... what other approach is excepted by Christians?

Oh really .... what other approach is excepted by Christians?Ask the pope. He'll tell ya.

Btw the word is accepted. Learn English.

Yes survival of the fittest is referring to the fitness model. Naturally since you have all the knowledge to correct me I assume you will know what survival of the fittest means. So it might be a good idea for you to explain that here and clear up all the "evolution vs creationism" arguments.

Well being that you're using the term "fitness" for the phrase which included "fittest" from Herbert Spencer in 1864 it seems that you are confusing not only yourself but others by mixing terminology.

"survival of the fitness" makes no sense.

I am pretty sure Creationism was included in the Old testament.


I'm more then pretty sure, I know it is

A creation story is included in the OT, that's all. That is not the same as pursuing an overstrict literal interpretation of the text as Creationism does.

So you are saying that Catholics does not support teaching Genesis in public school? I assume when people ask for creationism to be taught that is what they will be referring to.

I'm more then pretty sure, I know it isWhich only proves that you have in fact no clue.

Ask the pope. He'll tell ya.

Btw the word is accepted. Learn English.


The Pope isn't here claiming this .... you are. By the way answer the question.

So you are saying that Catholics does not support teaching Genesis in public school? I assume when people ask for creationism to be taught that is what they will be referring to.Not at all. Protestant fringe groups are asking for Creationism to be taught in school. Catholics really aren't that retarded.

Well being that you're using the term "fitness" for the phrase which included "fittest" from Herbert Spencer in 1864 it seems that you are confusing not only yourself but others by mixing terminology.

"survival of the fitness" makes no sense.

Yea and I kindly asking you to explain survival of the fittest in my second post. You can continue bashing at my typo or actually do something constructive for a change.

Which only proves that you have in fact no clue.


I'm still waiting on the answer, do you have a clue?

Yea and I kindly asking you to explain survival of the fittest in my second post. You can continue bashing at my typo or actually do something constructive for a change.What's difficult to understand in "survival of the fittest" ?? The organism that is best adapted to its habitat survives and has offspring. That's how nature works.

Nope. Creationism is not an approach shared by all Christians, not even the majority thereof. The generalization is inappropriate.

No generalization at all, I never said that all christians believe in creationism; therefore I'm still correct :D

Yea and I kindly asking you to explain survival of the fittest in my second post. You can continue bashing at my typo or actually do something constructive for a change.

"For a change"? Really? kindly? Since you now recognize you provided the wrong terminology (not a typo BTW), you now resort to unsupported personal attacks.

"Survival of the fittest" is self-explanatory. I would like an explanation of "Survival of the Fitness". Is it some new workout gym in CA?

I'm still waiting on the answer, do you have a clue?Waiting for. Not on.

What was your question? Why there is a creation story in the bible and it still is not Creationism to know that story?

You can't answer the question because you know you are wrong

Not at all. Protestant fringe groups are asking for Creationism to be taught in school. Catholics really aren't that retarded.

Yes they are, it's just in different ways :p


And before anyone goes apeshit, the above is a joke

If you can't answer the question because you know you are wrongAre you Edwardis?

If you can't answer the question because you know you are wrong

Fine, provide verifiable evidence for Biblical Creationism. I'll wait.

What's difficult to understand in "survival of the fittest" ?? The organism that is best adapted to its habitat survives and has offspring. That's how nature works.

Nothing, I just want the guy who correct my typo to explain it for no particular reason.

This thread is the joke

Nothing, I just want the guy who correct my typo to explain it for no particular reason.


You didn't make a typo. You provided incorrect terminology.

At least you admit you're acting like an ass.

Fine, provide verifiable evidence for Biblical Creationism. I'll wait.You'll wait a long time.

This thread is the joke

Translation: I can't provide any evidence supporting BC.

You'll wait a long time.

I've asked that same question in many of these threads.
I've been waiting years.

Fine, provide verifiable evidence for Biblical Creationism. I'll wait.

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity or deities (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam), whose existence is presupposed.

Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

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


There is the proof that Creationism is christian

Oh really .... what other approach is excepted by Christians?

Evolution is accepted by many Christians. The Roman Catholic Church has even affirmed that evolution is correct.

Evolution is accepted by many Christians. The Roman Catholic Church has even affirmed that evolution is correct.

In order to be a christian you must believe in Jesus Christ and live by his teachings. Evolution is not included in those teachings .... so you figure it out.

There is the proof that Creationism is christian

Lots of creationist beliefs. Here's a few. It's true that in the US, the loudest are the NEC, but they're not the only ones.

"Scientific" Creationism from Other Religions

Islamic Creationism

Contemporary Islam has a greater tendency to literalism than Christianity does. The Koran is taken by almost all Muslims as the direct and unaltered word of Allah, and Genesis is considered a corrupted version of God's message. However, the creation accounts in the Koran are more vague and are spread among several surahs (chapters) (2:109-111, 7:52-57, 16:1-17, 40:66-70, 41:9-12, 42:28, 65:12), allowing a range of interpretations similar to those described in part 1. Most Islamic Young Earth Creationism is imported directly from the USA. (Edis 1994)
Vedic Creationism

Hinduism speaks of a very ancient earth. One book influenced by Hindu belief argues that anatomically modern humans have existed for billions of years.

* Cremo, Michael A. & Richard L. Thompson, Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race (Govardhan Hill, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994)

American Indian Creationism

The term "American Indian" refers to hundreds of groups with at least as many stories of creation. Deloria has put together a version of creationism which takes from many Native American cultures. It says that originally there was no essential difference between people and animals, that giant people and megafauna once coexisted, and that people and animals shrunk in stature after the golden age came to an end with the earth being ravaged by fire from volcanism.

American Indian Creationism has also come into American politics over the Kennewick Man. Kennewick Man is a 9000-year-old Caucasian fossil man found in Washington state. The fossil is of great interest to anthropologists because of its great age and its anatomical differences from indigenous North Americans. According to the creation beliefs of the Umatilla Indians, though, their ancestors have always been there, so Kennewick Man must be an Indian ancestor. Thus, under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, the fate of his remains should be for the Umatilla to determine (Morell 1998). Members of the Asatru religion have also filed suit to stop the repatriation on the grounds that Kennewick Man's possible European ancestry is important to their own religious views (Anon., 1999). A court decision in favor of the Umatilla could be the only Federal legal decision in decades to support one particular view of creationism over another.

* Deloria, Vine Jr., Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact (Scribner, New York, 1995)

"For a change"? Really? kindly? Since you now recognize you provided the wrong terminology (not a typo BTW), you now resort to unsupported personal attacks.

"Survival of the fittest" is self-explanatory. I would like an explanation of "Survival of the Fitness". Is it some new workout gym in CA?

Believe what you want, if you know what fitness means in evolution you wouldn't be surprise that someone made that kind of typing error.

But if you want to hear about survival of the fittest in terms of the fitness model, I can explain that. Fitness got nothing to do with the Gym, it's the calculation in the offspring of which you/your relative/your children/your relatives children/etc survives and how they are the similarity to ones own genetic makeup. It is use to explain evolution and animal behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29

Really, I don't get your definition for personal attack.

In order to be a christian you must believe in Jesus Christ and live by his teachings. Evolution is not included in those teachings .... so you figure it out.

Neither are advanced mathematics. So you figure it out.

In order to be a christian you must believe in Jesus Christ and live by his teachings. Evolution is not included in those teachings .... so you figure it out.

Jesus Christ never mentioned brushing your teeth either. Does that mean that Christians don't believe in brushing their teeth?

The answer is no, obviously. So that must mean that Christians can believe things that have nothing to do with religion, like evolution.

They may CALL THEMSELVES scientists, but they aren't.


Really? You might do well to read my last post - I posted a large list of scientists that support Creationism, and have all been approved as phd's, professers, doctors and, a bunch of other titles, by this world.


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399


It seems that this forum is crying out for Creationist evidence, scientifically speaking. I will supply it. Give me some time to put it all together.

Really? You might do well to read my last post - I posted a large list of scientists that support Creationism, and have all been approved as phd's, professers, doctors and, a bunch of other titles, by this world.


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399


It seems that this forum is crying out for Creationist evidence, scientifically speaking. I will supply it. Give me some time to put it all together.


They don't really want proof, they just want to spread their lies without having to prove their claims.

Believe what you want, if you know what fitness means in evolution you wouldn't be surprise that someone made that kind of typing error.

But if you want to hear about survival of the fittest in terms of the fitness model, I can explain that. Fitness got nothing to do with the Gym, it's the calculation in the offspring of which you/your relative/your children/your relatives children/etc survives and how they are the similarity to ones own genetic makeup. It is use to explain evolution and animal behaviors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29

Really, I don't get your definition for personal attack.

Boy you're thick. You made a claim that HS students didn't understand "survival of the fitness" and I pointed out that that's not the correct phrase which makes no sense so no wonder that they're confused.

Now I'm just making fun of you.

They don't really want proof, they just want to spread their lies without having to prove their claims.

Seems all the proof has been on our side.

Really? You might do well to read my last post - I posted a large list of scientists that support Creationism, and have all been approved as phd's, professers, doctors and, a bunch of other titles, by this world.


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399


It seems that this forum is crying out for Creationist evidence, scientifically speaking. I will supply it. Give me some time to put it all together.

What is the scientific mechanism that allows for microevolution but not macroevolution?

Seems all the proof has been on our side.


Funny I'm still waiting to see your proof.

Really? You might do well to read my last post - I posted a large list of scientists that support Creationism, and have all been approved as phd's, professers, doctors and, a bunch of other titles, by this world.


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399


It seems that this forum is crying out for Creationist evidence, scientifically speaking. I will supply it. Give me some time to put it all together.

Now remember, disproving elements of the TOE is not evidence for creationism.

You have to provide evidence FOR biblical creationism, and that includes evidence for the creator, not just assumptions of "design".

The missing link is still missing

Funny I'm still waiting to see your proof.

What, exactly, would you like proven?

Evolution is a very big thing. If you can point out one thing that is wrong, we can talk about it. That would be easier than talking about evolution in general.

Funny I'm still waiting to see your proof.

Try reading the thread. Quite a few links have been provided.

Just for fun, here's one I linked to earlier:

http://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html

I'll keep waiting for yours.

The missing link is still missing

And which "link" would that be?

Come on, provide your evidence.

Neither are advanced mathematics. So you figure it out.

Nor are donuts. Snacktime is a bleak affair in both the Old and New Testament.

The missing link is still missing

of course, if it wasn't missing anymore it wouldn't be called the missing link

Now remember, disproving elements of the TOE is not evidence for creationism.

You have to provide evidence FOR biblical creationism, and that includes evidence for the creator, not just assumptions of "design".


The truth is you all just like to dance around pretending you are experts and hoping no one notices you are really clueless.

Boy you're thick. You made a claim that HS students didn't understand "survival of the fitness" and I pointed out that that's not the correct phrase which makes no sense so no wonder that they're confused.

Now I'm just making fun of you.

I am thick because you ask for an explanation and I offer one? If you don't care what fitness means then don't ask.

The truth is you all just like to dance around pretending you are experts and hoping no one notices you are really clueless.

I'm no "expert" but I am obviously much more educated on the topic than you.

Still waiting.

Creationism isn't based on falsehoods. Its an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.

you actually believe what you just said don't you?

I am thick because you ask for an explanation and I offer one? If you don't care what fitness means then don't ask.

I didn't ask. I was making fun of you.

of course, if it wasn't missing anymore it wouldn't be called the missing link


The point is that without the missing link evolution is just a theory.

To be fair, they should teach creationism. It would only take about 10 seconds, though: "Either God created the universe or not. If not, let's explore the other theories for the rest of the semester."


Not only is that completely biased towards other religions but not informative at all.

The point is that without the missing link evolution is just a theory.

Which missing link are you talking about? Is there a big hole in the fossil record? Can you give me a source that talks about it, or tell me more so I can google it?

Creationism isn't based on falsehoods. Its an alternative interpretation of the available evidence.you actually believe what you just said don't you?

probably, it's kind of sad how ignorant some people are isn't it?

The point is that without the missing link evolution is just a theory.

Of course it's a theory. Just like gravity.

Now go back and read what a theory is instead of us having to play whack-a-mole by repeating ourselves over and over.

I'm no "expert" but I am obviously much more educated on the topic than you.

Still waiting.


The proof is Gods word, here's a thought try reading the scriptures.

The point is that without the missing link evolution is just a theory.

And it will always be a scientific theory, whether the "missing link" is found or not because that's how science works, a scientific theory remains a scientific theory until there is no possibility of it being disproven, in whole or in part

The proof is Gods word, here's a thought try reading the scriptures.

Which scriptures? Which version? What "proof"?

The proof is Gods word, here's a thought try reading the scriptures.

I've read them, it proves nothing

The point is that without the missing link evolution is just a theory.

Do you want science to prove Creationism? Where is your faith, man?

I've read them, it proves nothing


So you say, what does teaching a theory like evolution in school as if it is a fact prove?

1. I think you misunderstood me. I don't believe that the Christian religious belief in Genesis should be taught in science class. I do think that the scientific objections to evolution should be mentioned, without mentioning or endorsing any particular religious belief. There are many credible scientists, such as Dr. John Baumgardner, the inventor of the Terra computer simulation model for plate tectonics, who don't believe in evolution. Their objections should be considered. Science is all about weighing the evidence. If intelligent design or creationism are rejected out of hand and no debate allowed, science is suppressed.

What are their stated, scientific objections to evolution? There obviously must be something, somewhere, written down that is both scientific and critical of evolution. Not theological in nature, not purely philosophical. Something that can actually be tested in the way that evolution has been tested for the last century and a half.

2. Your point about the fruit flies would fall under the experiments that I have already acknowledged as fact. I would argue that the new species of fruitfly, while now genetically isolated from the other kind, is still a fruitfly. It didn't evolve into a butterfly or a praying mantis. That is the kind of change that must be proven through observation if evolution is to be proven correct.

Which is fine, since no self-respecting scientist would suggest this would be possible, and evolution does not suggest this either. It only suggests that, over the course of multiple generations, successive selected mutations will result in divergence of species, generally in response to changes in the original species' habitat. Those members of the species who evolve mutations beneficial to their new surroundings will over time displace those who are less fit to survive (and breed), and will ultimately become a new species unto themselves (something you yourself acknowledge).

I honestly suggest you read further on the particulars of the theory of evolution. You appear to be drawing conclusions from it that no one in the scientific community draws, and furthering your understanding of the material will give you a better foundation on which to base your own belief, and to debate this.

Also, the change in the fruitflies was a downgrade, not an upgrade. The fruitflies didn't gain anything useful through their evolution - they just lost something, the ability to reproduce with other fruitflies. In order for evolution to work, we need to see upward evolution, organisms becoming more complex over time, not becoming less well-designed.

Except that the ability to interbreed isn't really a downgrade. It's merely a consequence of speciation. I would hardly call humanity's inability to interbreed with our closest genetic relatives, the chimpanzees, a disadvantage, since we are better suited (largely by virtue of our greater intelligence) to survival. Similarly the traits gained by the two new species of fruit flies in their adaptation to their respective new environments is a benefit that far outweighs the inability to interbreed.

3. If you are so confident that Behe's assertions can be disproved, why do you(I presume) oppose them being held to scrutiny in science class?

For the same reason I don't advocate an in-depth critique of Lamarckism, or any of the other truly scientific objections to evolution that have cropped up over the years, in grade school. The platform for scientific debate must necessarily be among the scientific community itself, not among children. The purpose of a grade school education in science is to inform them and teach them on the state of science as it is now, not on the failures of science that have been discarded in the past.

Though at the same time, I do advocate a "Failures of Science"-type class for college level students in the sciences.

The explanation given in the Wiki article about the possible evolution of the eye is pure conjecture and speculation. Simply having an idea of how the eye might have evolved isn't any good if it can't be backed up with evidence!

And where is your scientific basis for concluding this? Or are you simply reacting to it on gut instinct, rather than analysis? It's certainly easier to discard something as conjecture, than to read up further on the subject.

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye is a very nice place to start.

4. Let me give you some examples of the Anthropic principle, which essentially suggests that the universe is too fine-tuned to have ever come about by chance.

The strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force, the distance of the Earth from the Sun, the size of the Moon, the composition of the atmosphere, ect. are all perfect to support life, just as if they had been designed that way. The probability of all the constants of the universe and the other facts I mentioned being completely by coincidence exactly perfect for life to evolve is so small its irrelevant.

Except that the probability of all these occurring in exactly they way they occurred is irrelevant, for two principle reasons.

1: We know for a fact that they happened/they exist. The probability of them occurring they way they did matters not because they already occurred.

2: The conclusion you draw requires an additional premise: that the occurrence of all of these phenomena in this particular fashion is somehow significant. The validity of this premise has not been shown, nor do I feel will it be shown to be true. After all, why must we assign some significance to the state of the universe as it is now, when it could just as easily have been otherwise. It strikes me as either anthropocentrism or pure wishful thinking, and neither have a place in scientific discourse.

5. Let's see, I believe what I mentioned here was genetics, information theory, and convergent evolution. Let me explain how those subjects contradict evolution.

We know from genetics that it is impossible for genes to change past a certain point. Genes have a certain amount of variability inherent inside them -hence, species changing over time do to natural selection. However, the genome will only tolerate so much change. You may have many different breeds of dogs and cross-breed them as much as you want for as long as you want, and you will never get a cow. This is obviously a problem for macroevolution.

Except that there isn't, because again you are speaking from a flawed understanding of evolution. The theory of evolution does not suggest that dogs will magically give birth to cows, nor does it suggest that similar fantastic phenomena will occur. It simply does not work that way, and I again recommend you read further on the subject.

Information theory is quite simple. It simply states that information must have an intelligent source. Information will always proceed from other information. Information will never simply appear. The genome is the most advanced system of information known to man, far superior to the best computers, yet evolutionists posit that if you go back far enough, all that information at one time simply didn't exist. That's impossible.

Quoting directly from wikipedia:
Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics and engineering involving the quantification of information. Historically, information theory developed to find fundamental limits on compressing and reliably communicating data. Since its inception it has broadened to find applications in statistical inference, networks other than communication networks, biology, quantum information theory, and other areas, although it is still widely used in the study of communication.

A key measure of information that comes up in the theory is known as information entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed for storage or communication. Intuitively, entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved in a random variable. For example, a fair coin flip will have less entropy than a roll of a die

Nowhere in there does it state that an existing intelligence is required for the information to exist. In fact, were what you said true, it would be impossible for anything to have existed in the universe before humanity. Which is frankly an absurdly foolish conclusion.

Convergent evolution - this isn't as well known as some other anti-evolutionary arguments, but it is a powerful point. We already know that the chances of evolution occuring are tiny. 1. Even evolutionists concede that billions of years is required for evolution to theoretically work. The evolution of even one system is amazing - but we observe in nature that many completely different animals, whom evolutionists do not posit shared a common ancestor, utilize the same design! 2. A good example is the eye of the human compared with the eye of the squid. The design of the two eyes, save for size, is completely identical! 3. The squid and the human don't share a common ancestor, so how could they possibly have such a similar eye? The probability of the evolution of something so complex as the eye even once in one creature is astoundingly small - what are the chances that that process would happen twice!? That seems to point towards a common designer who was simply reusing a design that worked.

1. Except not. Evolution does not require billions of years. It generally requires a large number of generations, which, as they differ in time from species to species based on reproductive cycles, necessarily lead to differing speeds of adaptation and evolution. We see this every day with drug-resistance in bacteria. Their rate of reproduction is so much faster than ours that they can, over periods of time that are short to humans, evolve resistance to antibiotics.

2. I find this highly unlikely to be true. Do you have a source to back this up?

3. Except that they do, given that every organism alive today generally shares a common ancestor somewhere along the line. All mammals have a common ancestor that broke away, by evolution from what its ancestors would have been. Go back far enough, and the connections can be made all the way back to the first single and multi-cellular organisms.

6. Evolution as a theory doesn't work if the point at which it all began can't be explained. Saying that abiogenesis isn't evolution is simply a cop-out. You don't want to have a debate about abiogenesis because you recognize that spontaneous generation has been credibly disproved since the 19th century. Life cannot come from non-life.

Not even remotely true. Evolution is a process that explains the adaptation and development of life over the ages. WHERE the first organisms came from is, frankly, irrelevant to the theory itself.

So you say, what does teaching a theory like evolution in school as if it is a fact prove?

That the evidence supports it.

Still waiting.

I'm going to post this again because it bears repeating:

Stars! (http://www.jonathanminard.com/EarthSpace/Hubble_Ultra_Deep_Field_Black_point_edit.jpg)

I rest my case. :)

Not just stars... those points of light are all GALAXIES. Which, as far as I am concerned, proves that the Christian God doesn't exist.



By the way, I LOVE that picture, it fills me with wonder every time I see it. Thanks for reposting the link.

So you say, what does teaching a theory like evolution in school as if it is a fact prove?

That we use science classes to...teach...science?

There is the proof that Creationism is christianYou confuse "creation story" with "creationism", honey.

That we use science classes to...teach...science?

Well we can't do that, it makes people like Kormanthor feel all icky and uncomfortable.