NationStates Jolt Archive

You confuse "creation story" with "creationism", honey.

No I didn't

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

Evolution isn't science

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

So far, 11 078 members of the clergy have signed this.

The Clergy Letter Project. (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm)

The proof is Gods word, here's a thought try reading the scriptures.What a rubbish. Your God is but a Jewish lie. The scripture you refer to isn't any god's word but that of esoteric fanatics.

Evolution isn't science

How exactly is the Theory of Evolution not science?

No I didn'tYes, you do.

Supporters of evolution cite mutation as proof, when that proves nothing. Mutation proves the ability of (for example) a dog to become another species of dog. Evolution calls for a rock to evolve over billions of years to become a dog, which is impossible to examine scientifically.

There are little to no fossil evidence showing transitional stages from (for example) a fish becoming an amphibian.

Most of the "missing links" from ape-to-human are recognized hoaxes.

If life can derive from non-life in the past, why hasn't it happened more than once? Why don't we still observe that happening now?

Wow, you really don't understand the theory of evolution do you?

Evolution isn't science

"Whack". (http://www.molepro.com/products/game.htm)

Do you just go around making inane comments and never supporting yourself?

Oh, right, nevermind. You're an NEC.

Evolution isn't science

What a funny joke.

Next you'll tell me General Relativity isn't science. Bwa-ha.

Yes, you do.

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.

Once again, no I didn't. I provided a definition (the one above in fact) and then provided proof that it was a christian belief.

If you have an alternate definition of creationism then lets see it

What a rubbish. Your God is but a Jewish lie. The scripture you refer to isn't any god's word but that of esoteric fanatics.


Can you prove that?

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.

And tigers only begets a tiger... oh wait, no it doesn't.

http://www.hemmy.net/2006/06/19/top-10-hybrid-animals/

And trees... we all know that trees never mix... oh hang on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grafting#Natural_grafting

However, while this all indicates that the possibility of cross species reproduction is an actual reality, it does not directly address your point.

You are trying to argue that drastic steps in evolution don't occur in one generation so they cannot happen at all, which we all know is ridiculous. Small changes that worked were reinforced because those changes allowed the particular individuals with the small change to have better breeding success. When multiplied over hundreds of thousands of generations, small changes become big changes. Evolution does not happen over night.

A theory is a projection of something that is not yet adequately proven through observation of experimentation.


How can one be an evolutionist and not believe in an origin of life? That's literally saying, "I believe life can become other life, but not that non-life can become life." In other words, you're a creationist.

incorrect, you gave the definition for a hypothesis which shows you really don't understand evolution theory. A theory is something that is tested over time to show direct and indirect causation. Theories have been tested over time and are verifiable by their ability to be recreated in separate instances. For instance, gravity is a theory that has an incredible amount of causal evidence. After all it's just a theory, but it's hypothesis has been shown to be correct time and time again. This is why it is called a scientific law. Even laws are theories that have been tested over time. Here is where "Basic Scientific Method" class ends. As someone else has already said, go back and educate yourself before trying to debate grown up stuff with us, mmkay?

Can you prove that?

Can you prove it's not true?

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".

Part II coming soon.

That is what I will be doing. The disproving of the evolution and/or chance theory should be enough to prove the existence OF a design, which implies a designer. However, I will also give evidence FOR the biblical account of Creation.


If you haven't done so already, feel free to read the first part, in the meantime:

Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=399

Your link is broken.

So you're saying it's stupid to accept that mutation happens because it actually has evidence? To me, that's a pretty stupid line of reason.


Gain some maturity and try coming back here again.


See above.

You managed an ad homenim but nothing to debunk what he said.

That is what I will be doing. The disproving of the evolution and/or chance theory should be enough to prove the existence OF a design, which implies a designer. However, I will also give evidence FOR the biblical account of Creation.


If you haven't done so already, feel free to read the first part, in the meantime:

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

Yes, I've read everything you've posted. Disproving a portion of the TOE is NOT evidence for design or a designer. If you claim one, you have to provide evidence for one. You claim you have evidence for biblical creationism. That means you have verifiable and repeatable evidence of the judeo-christian god. Otherwise it's all unsupportable assertions.

I'm sure I won't be surprised.

Can you prove it's not true?


I don't need to prove it, I have the one thing you need ... faith.

Your link is broken.

Oops! It should be good now.

I don't need to prove it, I have the one thing you need ... faith.

I don't need faith

You managed an ad homenim but nothing to debunk what he said.

I wasn't (and am still not) holding my breath.

Your link is broken.

:( I thought it was a joke...

Part II coming soon.

That is what I will be doing. The disproving of the evolution and/or chance theory should be enough to prove the existence OF a design, which implies a designer. However, I will also give evidence FOR the biblical account of Creation.


If you haven't done so already, feel free to read the first part, in the meantime:

Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

Except the fact that you have proved nothing other than your flawed understanding

I don't need to prove it, I have the one thing you need ... faith.

Well isn't that magical. The rest of us generally use things like "brains." Not sure if you've heard of them.

I don't need to prove it, I have the one thing you need ... faith.



I have faith that neither you nor Narnian Council will provide any actual evidence.

Soon, I'll have evidence to support my faith.

Yes, I've read everything you've posted. Disproving a portion of the TOE is NOT evidence for design or a designer. If you claim one, you have to provide evidence for one. You claim you have evidence for biblical creationism. That means you have verifiable and repeatable evidence of the judeo-christian god. Otherwise it's all unsupportable assertions.


As is Evolution, yet you demand it be taught as fact.

Time for a musical intermission:

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

:)

I think the last line of the song must have been about Creationists. :D

I don't need to prove it, I have the one thing you need ... faith.

Faith isn't thought. Faith is the avoidance of thought.

I don't need to prove it, I have the one thing you need ... faith.

Thank you for succinctly expressing why Creationism cannot be taught in schools as science.

It is a matter of faith, not science.

Teaching faith violates the separation of Church and State.

EDIT: BTW, even in America, a substantial majority (70%) understand that belief in creation and belief in evolution are both possible at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive.

An even larger majority believes evolution should be taught in school (83%) and that creationism should not be taught as science (70%+). (linky (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2097))

As is Evolution, yet you demand it be taught as fact.

I do? Really? I demand it be taught as the science it is. Something I've provided evidence for and you've provided nothing but trolling.

Not that I'm surprised really. I have faith in that.

Once again, no I didn't. I provided a definition (the one above in fact) and then provided proof that it was a christian belief.

If you have an alternate definition of creationism then lets see itYou were implying that Christianity, because it has a creation myth, is inherently creationistic, as if the only interpretations of the creation story were literal ones. Btw the creation story is an arbitrary combination of various (older) traditions merged into one crude narrative by Jews, not by Christians.

Faith isn't thought. Faith is the avoidance of thought.sigged

I do? Really? I demand it be taught as the science it is. Something I've provided evidence for and you've provided nothing but trolling.

Not that I'm surprised really. I have faith in that.


Provide the missing link thats the only way to prove evolution

I have faith that neither you nor Narnian Council will provide any actual evidence.

Soon, I'll have evidence to support my faith.

:D Nice comeback! I'll do the best I can to cover as much ground possible in Part II - expect Parts III, IV etc.

Btw, what is your faith Kecibukia? Humanist...relativist...or other?


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

Oops! It should be good now.

Thank you.

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).

This is wrong. Evolutionary theory came about without any preconceived assumptions. In fact, it questioned preconceived assumptions so much that people rejected it.

Well isn't that magical. The rest of us generally use things like "brains." Not sure if you've heard of them.
Dear Apple God, that was very nasty of you. :D

You were implying that Christianity, because it has a creation myth, is inherently creationistic, as if the only interpretations of the creation story were literal ones.

No I figure that intelligent christians realize that it is nothing more than a story

Btw the creation story is an arbitrary combination of various (older) traditions merged into one crude narrative by Jews, not by Christians.

And accepted by christians for two thousand years

Can you prove it's not true?
Well, it's obvious, isn't it? The Jewish people are those who believe the lie, whereas its inventor clearly isn't Jewish if they made it up themselves. How can you be a fanatic to a cause that you've made up yourself?

Whether or not it is a lie, the Religion devoted to it must come after the lie itself.

Provide the missing link thats the only way to prove evolution

Thank you for showing you not only have not read this thread but even the parts that you've posted in. Besides the fact that you know little if anything about the scientific method.

Not like we haven't gone over this already in this very thread.

Show your god. That's the only way to prove biblical creationism.

sigged


Oh really .... my faith in Jesus Christ healed my eyes, eyes that your science said was impossible to heal.

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.

Galaxies indeed. Even if each of them had a measly 1 billion stars each(as compared to the Milky Way's 100 Billion or so), there are over 46,000,000,000,000 stars in that picture.

As a christian, I accept it as proof that science and faith have no business interacting.

:D Nice comeback! I'll do the best I can to cover as much ground possible in Part II - expect Parts III, IV etc.

Btw, what is your faith Kecibukia? Humanist...relativist...or other?

The closest definition would be agnostic.

Oh really .... my faith in Jesus Christ healed my eyes, eyes that your science said was impossible to heal.

Prove it.

How can you be a fanatic to a cause that you've made up yourself?If that cause declares you God's chosen people, why not be fanatic about it? That's religion.

Oh really .... my faith in Jesus Christ healed my eyes, eyes that your science said was impossible to heal.Fuck yourself. You are a waste of my time and the atmosphere's oxygen.

Provide the missing link thats the only way to prove evolution

link between what and what? in your thinking, is there only one?

in any case, i'm game. before we start, tell me what level of organism you think that there are not and cannot be links between. what are the fundamental 'kinds' under your particular version of creationism?

The closest definition would be agnostic.

Nice. I'll get to you via telegram if you'd like...after this very hectic discussion closes, of course. Then, I might be able to tailor my messages to perhaps better refute your own personal ideals.

Well, want me to show my God, after all. Are you open for that?



Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

Prove it.


Its the truth I experienced it .... the burden of proof is on you.

Nice. I'll get to you via telegram if you'd like...after this very hectic discussion closes, of course. Then, I might be able to tailor my messages to perhaps better refute your own personal ideals.

Well, want me to show my God, after all. Are you open for that?



Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

If you can show evidence for it, you'll be the first. Why don't you post it here for all to see?

Its the truth I experienced it .... the burden of proof is on you.

No, the burden of proof is on you, anyone can claim anything they want on an internet forum, if you expect people to believe your claim you need to be able to provide proof

Its the truth I experienced it .... the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on me to prove your unsubstantiated claims?

My faith is even stronger w/ this new evidence.

Fuck yourself. You are a waste of my time and the atmosphere's oxygen.


To bad God doesn't agree with you isn't it

The burden of proof is on me to prove your unsubstantiated claims?

My faith is even stronger w/ this new evidence.

My unsubstantiated claim that we have no reason to believe that your eyes were magically fixed?

I don't believe Creationism should be taught in science class, but I will believe in a Creator until science comes up with a viable answer as to how the universe originated, or prove that it was always there.

a substantial majority (70%) understand that belief in creation and belief in evolution are both possible at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive

of course, the only way to make that work is to abandon any grounding for a belief in creation (as limited and shaky as it was to begin with) and just toss it on as a sort of pointless ad hoc move.

To bad God doesn't agree with you isn't it

which god?

and yes, yes it is; which actually should make you happy because then I would probably believe in god

To bad God doesn't agree with you isn't it

So you're hearing voices telling you things?

The burden of proof is on me to prove your unsubstantiated claims?

My faith is even stronger w/ this new evidence.


My eye doctor has substantiated my claims as you call it. But I doubt that you would even believe him if I choose to give you his name.

I don't believe Creationism should be taught in science class, but I will believe in a Creator until science comes up with a viable answer as to how the universe originated, or prove that it was always there.What kind of Creator? And what reasoning is your belief based on?

So you're hearing voices telling you things?


Have you ever heard of praying?

My eye doctor has substantiated my claims as you call it. But I doubt that you would even believe him if I choose to give you his name.

WHich means you won't nor provide evidence that it was your faith that did it. Can you prove that? Repeat it in an experiment? Provide quantifiable data?

I don't need to prove it, I have the one thing you need ... faith.
The last thing you want in a science classroom.

My eye doctor has substantiated my claims as you call it. But I doubt that you would even believe him if I choose to give you his name.

With good reason

My eye doctor has substantiated my claims as you call it. But I doubt that you would even believe him if I choose to give you his name.

Not without proof that he was indeed your eye doctor and not just someone that you convinced to lie for you

Have you ever heard of praying?

Yep, and I've also heard of schizophrenia.

Here's a challenge:

Prove it wasn't Loki answering your prayers as a joke.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1440097282

:)

Have you ever heard of praying?

Yup, you didn't answer the man's question tho...

which god?

and yes, yes it is; which actually should make you happy because then I would probably believe in god

The one spoke of in the Bible .... who is the only true God that there is.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1440097282

:)

*Bows to the shrine of Lunatic Goofballs*

What kind of Creator? And what reasoning is your belief based on?

The kind that...creates.:p

What I mean by Creator is something/someone/someforce that initiated the formation of the Universe. This is based off my reasoning that the current theories on the matter don't make any sense, and since I am not a scientist(yet?) and definitely not a scientist studying the origins of the universe, I will settle for a belief which many view as irrational.

If that cause declares you God's chosen people, why not be fanatic about it? That's religion.
Well, yeah, I guess, but the people who "invent the lie" (inverted commas to indicate the assumption that it is indeed invented) don't really believe it. They've just made it up. Doesn't that set them as devoted to the cause rather than devoted to the religion itself?

I just find it weird to think of the inventors as being members of their own system. If, for example, Paul was just telling stories about this Christ figure composed of all sorts of other messiah mythologies, you couldn't really call him a Christian, since although what he was talking about was this singular figure, what he actually adhered to was the mixture of ideas that preceeded the construction. To call it a Christian Lie would thus be mistaken, because the lie itself wasn't the creation of a Christian.

The one spoke of in the Bible .... who is the only true God that there is.

Prove it.

The one spoke of in the Bible .... who is the only true God that there is.

Blasphemer, the only true God is Lunatic Goofballs

Provide the missing link thats the only way to prove evolutionlink between what and what? in your thinking, is there only one?

in any case, i'm game. before we start, tell me what level of organism you think that there are not and cannot be links between. what are the fundamental 'kinds' under your particular version of creationism?

well?

Yup, you didn't answer the man's question tho...

God answers my prayers, does he answer yours?

The kind that...creates.:p

What I mean by Creator is something/someone/someforce that initiated the formation of the Universe. This is based off my reasoning that the current theories on the matter don't make any sense, and since I am not a scientist(yet?) and definitely not a scientist studying the origins of the universe, I will settle for a belief which many view as irrational.

Well stated

God answers my prayers, does he answer yours?

Still no proof? I have faith that it was Zues that answered your prayers. Prove me wrong.

Prove it.


He will one second after each of us dies. I am ready .... are you?

God answers my prayers, does he answer yours?

Occaisionally



Wait, we are talking about Lunatic Goofballs aren't we?

He will one second after each of us dies. I am ready .... are you?

So, no proof, eh?

My faith is stronger than ever.

BTW, Occam's razor is considered a fallacy.

He will one second after each of us dies. I am ready .... are you?

Yup

*waits for Kormanthor to die and report back with his proof*

The one spoke of in the Bible .... who is the only true God that there is.
What about the God that you think about? That's not the same thing as the God that actually exists (since you know that you're going to miss things about it through the limited subjective perspective), yet you can't deny that it has a verifiable existence of its own.

I'm posting Part II of the Creationism theory here soon, because its applicable. The whole agnostic thing...thats worthy of another thread. I'm not afraid of starting one up, in fact its a great idea!

However, I thought you may have wanted to discuss this 1on1. If not, I'm fine with that.


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

If it's a "Theory" it's been tested and has supportable evidence for it. Once again you're claiming you have quantifiable evidence for "God".

If you can show evidence for it, you'll be the first. Why don't you post it here for all to see?

I'm posting Part II of the Creationism theory here soon, because its applicable. The whole agnostic thing...thats worthy of another thread. I'm not afraid of starting one up, in fact its a great idea!

However, I thought you may have wanted to discuss this 1on1. If not, I'm fine with that.


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

Blasphemer, the only true God is Lunatic Goofballs

It's okay. Unlike some other deities I could mention, I don't suffer from insecurity issues. :)

It's okay. Unlike some other deities I could mention, I don't suffer from insecurity issues. :)

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:
:D

If it's a "Theory" it's been tested and has supportable evidence for it. Once again you're claiming you have quantifiable evidence for "God".

In reference to how I used 'theory': in scientific terms, it means that yes, it has been tested and has supportable evidence for it.

You must understand that Biblical Creationism is not the proving of the existence of God. The very name of it should tell you: It is the theory of the fact that the universe was created in the manner described in the Bible. Which includes a God who created it in 7 days.

Once we start with the Bible's account of the beginning, and once I can provide evidence that it is very accurate, the foundation has been laid - and then we might look at what the Bible says about God himself.

That is what I am refuting soon in Part II. If you'd like to see an argument relating to the very existence of God, this will be the wrong place for me to post it.

Again, would you prefer a 1on1 discussion later?

Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

In reference to how I used 'theory': in scientific terms, it means that yes, it has been tested and has supportable evidence for it.

You must understand that Biblical Creationism is not the proving of the existence of God. The very name of it should tell you: It is the theory of the fact that the universe was created in the manner described in the Bible. Which includes a God who created it in 7 days.

That is what I'm refuting here. If you'd like to see an argument relating to the very existence of God, this will be the wrong place for me to post it.

Again, would you prefer a 1on1 discussion later?

You just contradicted yourself. You say it's a theory that contains a non-disprovable element, something that has not and can not be tested for. Therefore it is not a theory nor even a hypothesis. It is a conclusion that has had pieces of evidence cherry-picked to support it.

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.

Where is the proof for the law of causality (I assume that is what you meant, not casualty) voiding evolution? The cause that started evolution (on this planet at least) has been posited to be an electrical discharge that sparked something in the primordial soup.

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.

That is an interesting idea, not related to science in any way, and has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, which doesn't touch the formation of the universe, only the development of life in it.

It also makes some assumptions that are completely unproven and unprovable. And it quickly falls apart when we reach the paradox of "If everything must have been caused by something else, who created the creator?"

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.

One theory posits an ever cycling universe that expands and collapses and expands again. That would satisfy this particular concern, and not involve a God, and is something that might be possible to prove someday, unlike God.

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.

Again, your assumptions lack substantiation. Yes, the world around us provides examples of man made things which we designed. It also provides examples of natural things which are just as complex, but that doesn't prove anything. It is vastly egocentric to assume simply because WE exhibit intelligence in designing things that don't appear in nature, that intelligence is REQUIRED for complex things to exist.

And "Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer." is not proven. We are surrounded by complexity that there is no way we could create. Can we design DNA? No, and there is no evidence at all that it WAS designed, simply, creationism simply insists that it could not have occurred without design. But there is no proof that this is true, merely an assertion from those who believe 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.


The atom, we are discovering, is as complex as the universe, design wise. A snowflake is too. So if 'simple' designs like the snowflake can be natural, there is no reason why complex ones like the universe can't be. It is all a matter of looking at the scale. We assume that things that are really big are necessarily more complex, but this is not true.

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.

"We ought to assume..." in this case is the same as saying "I don't have an answer, so the answer MUST be God did it." I prefer, "We ought to examine all the evidence and find an answer." So far, examination of every single piece of actual physical evidence has yet to provide 'God' as the answer.

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.”

Where in that quote does he say "I don't know how that happened, so God did it"? All this quote says is that humans are not yet able to create that complex a design. It does not require that the design itself have a designer.

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.

No, rather which creationists insist has an intelligent cause. This is still unproven.

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.

Eternity is a big place. Once you divide the possibility of "a one-cell animal emerg[ing] by pure chance.. at 1 in 10 to the power of 400000" by the number of times that could happen in eternity, the odds change from unlikely to inevitable.


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.

Again, the problem here is one of hubris. You assume that because YOU have the intelligence to create something, that somehow intelligence is REQUIRED in creation. This is not proven. It makes intelligence a trait that seems important in the universe, certainly, and since this is the one trait that we as humans have in (usually) greater supply than other living things we can see it puts us closer to a posited God, but that is all speculation and unproven, just as is the existence of God.

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!!!')

Wait... I could have saved myself the grief of this entire reply and simply said "We all KNOW that creationism is a philosophical and NOT a scientific point of view... and there ARE no scientific evidences that cannot be refuted both by known science and by the very fact that creationism IS a philosophical point of view." The philosophy (at its core) is "We don't know how it happened, so God did it" but unfortunately, just about every time a scientific proof in favor of creationism is offered (those all being along the lines of "Here is a point that science cannot explain..."), science says "Yes, we do know how that happened. Here it is."

What about the God that you think about? That's not the same thing as the God that actually exists (since you know that you're going to miss things about it through the limited subjective perspective), yet you can't deny that it has a verifiable existence of its own.


My Gods existence will be proven to each of us upon our deaths. Until then he has said that we must believe in him without proof. He says we must have faith in his son Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Unforunately it will be to late to change your mind after you are dead. I am giving you a chance to except him and save yourself. I know you don't believe me now but what if I am correct? If you are right and there is no god then we lose nothing. However if I am right then we are all in the same position and the choices we make now will decide our fate after we leave this life. Just make sure the choices you make during your life is the one that will save you.

In reference to how I used 'theory': in scientific terms, it means that yes, it has been tested and has supportable evidence for it.

You must understand that Biblical Creationism is not the proving of the existence of God. The very name of it should tell you: It is the theory of the fact that the universe was created in the manner described in the Bible. Which includes a God who created it in 7 days.

That is what I'm refuting here. If you'd like to see an argument relating to the very existence of God, this will be the wrong place for me to post it.

Again, would you prefer a 1on1 discussion later?
How exactly can you compose a theory which relies on an unprovable actor?

You may be trying to prove the biblical story true or false but in the end it rely on an un provable component and to do that you have to prove that the actor (God) can and did fulfill or did not fulfill the claims.

You cant do one without the other ... its like me making a theory on earths heat being caused by gravity compression when the idea of gravity is not even quantified yet ... it does not make sense to have a theory reliant on something we can not measure or know how at this time to measure

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.

Huh?

Jesus Christ never explicitly said, "Hey, don't go on Myspace and try to trick kids into having sex with you" - does that mean Christians can have no opinion on whether or not one should do so? Jesus Christ never explicitly said, "Ladies, make sure to get regular mammograms to prevent breast cancer" - does that mean Christians can have no opinion on whether or not one should do so? Seriously, you've got to be able to make better arguments than this, especially considering that the official position of the Catholic Church is that there is nothing in evolutionary theory that contradicts the Bible.

The missing link is still missing

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I answered this already. Try reading the thread.

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

Ha. Out of curiosity, are you deliberately endeavoring to cover all the most trite "criticisms" of evolutionary theory ever concocted?

Because I'm feeling ridiculously generous, I'll go ahead and restate my earlier posts for your benefit:

1. Every single species that has ever existed is as much a "missing link" as every other. Every. Single. One. By definition. Unless you are identical to both your ancestors and your offspring, you are, by definition, a "link" between them. I have no freaking idea what you mean by "the" missing link, of course - the link between what and what?

2. The phrase "just a theory" MAKES NO SENSE. There is no status in science above "theory." A theory is something that has been tested and tested and tested and tested and has never, ever, EVER been shown to be in any way false. In layman's terms, we call such a thing a "fact."

My Gods existence will be proven to each of us upon our deaths. Until then he has said that we must believe in him without proof. He says we must have faith in his son Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Unforunately it will be to late to change your mind after you are dead. I am giving you a chance to except him and save yourself. I know you don't believe me now but what if I am correct? If you are right and there is no god then we lose nothing. However if I am right then we are all in the same position and the choices we make now will decide our fate after we leave this life. Just make sure the choices you make during your life is the one that will save you.

Occam's razor. What if we're both wrong and the Hindu's are correct?

What about the God that you think about? That's not the same thing as the God that actually exists (since you know that you're going to miss things about it through the limited subjective perspective), yet you can't deny that it has a verifiable existence of its own.Just ask Enki. He'll tell you that K's god is a fabrication...

Oh really .... my faith in Jesus Christ healed my eyes, eyes that your science said was impossible to heal.

Correlation≠Causation.

Just because you beleived in Jesus and your legs were healed doesn't mean that one caused the other.

My Gods existence will be proven to each of us upon our deaths. Until then he has said that we must believe in him without proof. He says we must have faith in his son Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Unforunately it will be to late to change your mind after you are dead. I am giving you a chance to except him and save yourself. I know you don't believe me now but what if I am correct? If you are right and there is no god then we lose nothing. However if I am right then we are all in the same position and the choices we make now will decide our fate after we leave this life. Just make sure the choices you make during your life is the one that will save you.

Oh come on seriously you are going to pull out pascals wager? You have over 4000 posts you have had to see that piece of trash wager hashed a hundred times by now

No it isn't, this thread attacks creationism which is taught in the bible. Therefore this thread is a place to talk about it.

No it isn't, this thread attacks creationism which is taught in the bible. Therefore this thread is a place to talk about it.

This thread was designed to talk about its placement in the science class room. Weather you believe in it or not you would have to be an idiot to think that it qualifies as "science" and belongs in the class room

Maybe a religious study or comparative mythology or creation class maybe but not science.

Occam's razor. What if we're both wrong and the Hindu's are correct?

Then Occam's razor makes a handy wrist-cutter. :p

Occam's razor. What if we're both wrong and the Hindu's are correct?

God has said that all will be given their chance to choose him or not before Jesus returns. Everyone who has read my posts in this thread has now had one chance, choose well.

No it isn't, this thread attacks creationism which is taught in the bible. Therefore this thread is a place to talk about it.

The silliness that is creationism wouldn't be attacked (who would care?) if it weren't for people trying to insert it into places (science class) where it doesn't belong.


I'm so bored.

God has said that all will be given their chance to choose him or not. Everyone who has read my posts in this thread has now had one chance, choose well.

:eek:

*looks up*
:D

Then Occam's razor makes a handy wrist-cutter. :p
I shave with Occam's razor every morning.

*Thinks of what the metaphor He just used actually means.*

hey kor, care to actually talk about those missing links?

My Gods existence will be proven to each of us upon our deaths. Until then he has said that we must believe in him without proof. He says we must have faith in his son Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Unforunately it will be to late to change your mind after you are dead. I am giving you a chance to except him and save yourself. I know you don't believe me now but what if I am correct? If you are right and there is no god then we lose nothing. However if I am right then we are all in the same position and the choices we make now will decide our fate after we leave this life. Just make sure the choices you make during your life is the one that will save you.

Occam's razor. What if we're both wrong and the Hindu's are correct?

Right idea, wrong term. Occam's razor says that we should not make unnecessary assumptions. You're looking for "Pascal's Wager," which I believe I refuted earlier in this thread. (Or was it the Christian Conspiracy Theories therad?) Anyway, I'll repeat it.
What if Islam is correct? What if Buddhism is correct? or Hinduism? or Sikhism?

Hell, what if there exists a God that we've never heard of before, who rewards intellectual honesty, and only sends people to hell who are intellectually dishonest? Then it's creationists who are screwed! I know that if I was a God, I'd much prefer an honest search for the truth over blind faith.

Right idea, wrong term. Occam's razor says that we should not make unnecessary assumptions. You're looking for "Pascal's Wager," which I believe I refuted earlier in this thread. (Or was it the Christian Conspiracy Theories therad?) Anyway, I'll repeat it.
What if Islam is correct? What if Buddhism is correct? or Hinduism? or Sikhism?
You didn't really refute his wager, it still stands. However, you showed the answer was not as obvious as Pascal said it was.

God has said that all will be given their chance to choose him or not before Jesus returns. Everyone who has read my posts in this thread has now had one chance, choose well.

You didn't answer his question.

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.

What you have failed to note is that time is only one dimension. We have three others that we can experience, and the universe is rather large in all those directions. So the chance of life happening in any one instant at any one point in this very large universe is what makes the chances larger than you posit.

If we only gave life the window of, say, one square inch in all of the universe, then yes, it would be unlikely in the time the universe has existed. But the chance of one cell out of everything in the entire universe developing into life? There are a LOT of cells out there... considerably more than 10 to the power of 400000. So many more, I would hazard, that the probability of other life out there is rather high.

Never the less... no matter how improbable life may be, that chance has actually occurred. We are here, and that is the proof that it happened. Why it happened is, as yet, unproven, but since God cannot be proven, it is impossible to say that God did it with anything other than a "or so I believe" level of certainty, which is simply not science, it is philosophy (and religion).

In reference to how I used 'theory': in scientific terms, it means that yes, it has been tested and has supportable evidence for it.

You must understand that Biblical Creationism is not the proving of the existence of God. The very name of it should tell you: It is the theory of the fact that the universe was created in the manner described in the Bible. Which includes a God who created it in 7 days.

Once we start with the Bible's account of the beginning, and once I can provide evidence that it is very accurate, the foundation has been laid - and then we might look at what the Bible says about God himself.

That is what I am refuting soon in Part II. If you'd like to see an argument relating to the very existence of God, this will be the wrong place for me to post it.

Again, would you prefer a 1on1 discussion later?

Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

This post makes me ask one question...

Do you even know what a scientific theory is?

God has said that all will be given their chance to choose him or not before Jesus returns. Everyone who has read my posts in this thread has now had one chance, choose well.

Actually God told me otherwise. I heard him in my head and this proves it was him. Gonna dispute God's word? Else you'll be burning in hell.

My Gods existence will be proven to each of us upon our deaths. Until then he has said that we must believe in him without proof. He says we must have faith in his son Jesus Christ in order to be saved. Unforunately it will be to late to change your mind after you are dead. I am giving you a chance to except him and save yourself. I know you don't believe me now but what if I am correct? If you are right and there is no god then we lose nothing. However if I am right then we are all in the same position and the choices we make now will decide our fate after we leave this life. Just make sure the choices you make during your life is the one that will save you.

Sometimes it upsets me that the angry volcano god with his narcissistic need for the adulation of us mere mortals and his willingness to send otherwise good people to eternal torment after their deaths is often mistaken for my own who sent His son and messenger Jesus Christ to let us know that how we live our lives and treat our fellow man are far more important than some stupid guidebook or those that would use it as a tool to lord over their fellow man.

Maybe we should number them. Angry volcano God can be God-1 and 'Love is all you need' God can be God-A.

:)

Where is the proof for the law of causality (I assume that is what you meant, not casualty) voiding evolution? The cause that started evolution (on this planet at least) has been posited to be an electrical discharge that sparked something in the primordial soup.

Thats where the law of causality provides more problems for evolution. Your answer just needs to be backed up one step....

Where did that electrical charge come from? Where did that primordial soup come from?

We can keep backing up into eternity if you want, because we know that something not eternal must have been caused (law of causality - if not so, it is eternal) by something else....which must have been caused by something else....which was caused by something else.....and on and on into an illogical infinity.

Unless...you believed in an ETERNAL Creator, that was neither created nor has an end, and exists outside of his own creation (including time itself). Because God is eternal, he's not limited by time or causality (he was not caused), therefore we can easily and comfortably state that all creation began with God.

That is an interesting idea, not related to science in any way, and has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, which doesn't touch the formation of the universe, only the development of life in it.

Try reading Part I of my 'essays'. I'm tailoring the messages to suit science, because this is a thread on science. Part II coming soon.

It also makes some assumptions that are completely unproven and unprovable. And it quickly falls apart when we reach the paradox of "If everything must have been caused by something else, who created the creator?"

I've already explained this. God is eternal. He is not caused, therefore he needs no creator. He has always been, and always will be. Why is that hard to understand? Because we live inside a creation that is not eternal, and consists of the dimension of time. God is outside his creation.

One theory posits an ever cycling universe that expands and collapses and expands again. That would satisfy this particular concern, and not involve a God, and is something that might be possible to prove someday, unlike God.

How did that cycle get set into motion? What caused it? And what caused that cause? And what caused....ok you get the point.

And "Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer." is not proven. We are surrounded by complexity that there is no way we could create. Can we design DNA? No, and there is no evidence at all that it WAS designed, simply, creationism simply insists that it could not have occurred without design. But there is no proof that this is true, merely an assertion from those who believe it.

You probably can't begin to make these statements, unless you can provide an answer regarding what caused that DNA, and what caused that cause, and so on. I have my answer. And I will elaborate on it in Part II.

Where in that quote does he say "I don't know how that happened, so God did it"? All this quote says is that humans are not yet able to create that complex a design. It does not require that the design itself have a designer.

I did not suggest that Sagan admitted a God. I am showing you that even Sagan does not understand the fundamentals that his theory he supports. He is confounded. Creationists understand their theory.

Eternity is a big place.

Do you believe that the universe is eternal? This goes against evolution.

The philosophy (at its core) is "We don't know how it happened, so God did it" but unfortunately, just about every time a scientific proof in favor of creationism is offered (those all being along the lines of "Here is a point that science cannot explain..."), science says "Yes, we do know how that happened. Here it is.

No, we do know what happened. God did it. Statement of a fact. I'm not throwing this upon 'God' because I can't explain. I can explain. God did it. Its logical, because he's eternal, he doesn't need a cause. Logically, God, an eternal being, did it.

As for science saying 'yes we do know how that happpened, here it is' - explain to me my first question:

Can science explain what caused that first spark? How did that soup get there?



Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

The one spoke of in the Bible .... who is the only true God that there is.

Eris?

Do you believe that the universe is eternal? This goes against evolution.

No, it doesn't. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the universe.



No, we do know what happened. God did it. Statement of a fact. I'm not throwing this upon 'God' because I can't explain. I can explain. God did it. Its logical, because he's eternal, he doesn't need a cause. Logically, God, an eternal being, did it.

That's not a fact, it's a belief. That shouldn't be an insult, and there's nothing wrong with believing that. There's no evidence to support the idea of a creator God, and no evidence against said creator God, because one cannot test for a supernatural being.

As for science saying 'yes we do know how that happpened, here it is' - explain to me:

Can science explain what caused that first spark? How did that soup get there?

With certainty? No, not yet, no more than you can. Given infinite time, absolutely.

Dear Apple God, that was very nasty of you. :D

Hehe.

Apple God, eh? Time to go smite Steve Jobs, then.

With certainty? No, not yet, no more than you can. Given infinite time, absolutely.

Then we back up the question again....

What caused that time to exist?

And no, I don't even attempt to explain this irrational supposition.


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

You didn't really refute his wager, it still stands. However, you showed the answer was not as obvious as Pascal said it was.

Actually, I did refute it. Pascal's wager says "Believe in the Christian God, because if you're right, you get into heaven, and if you're wrong, then nothing bad happens, whereas if you're wrong about the Christian God not existing, you go to hell, and if you're right, nothing good happens."
I refuted it by pointing out that the premise "If Christians are wrong, then they lose nothing" is an unwarranted assumption, just as "if atheists are wrong, they go to Hell for eternity."
Essentially, I just took a more verbose way of pointing out the false dichotomy. :)

Actually, I did refute it. Pascal's wager says "Believe in the Christian God, because if you're right, you get into heaven, and if you're wrong, then nothing bad happens, whereas if you're wrong about the Christian God not existing, you go to hell, and if you're right, nothing good happens."
I refuted it by pointing out that the premise "If Christians are wrong, then they lose nothing" is an unwarranted assumption, just as "if atheists are wrong, they go to Hell for eternity."
Essentially, I just took a more verbose way of pointing out the false dichotomy. :)

No, his wager is "a matter bet on, a gamble." The wager still stands, everyone who lives is forced to decide what they're going to bet on. However, unlike Pascal believed, there are more than two potential bets, which makes his hot tip on "Christian Livin'" (now there's a good horse name) slightly less reliable.

Right idea, wrong term. Occam's razor says that we should not make unnecessary assumptions. You're looking for "Pascal's Wager," which I believe I refuted earlier in this thread. (Or was it the Christian Conspiracy Theories therad?) Anyway, I'll repeat it.
What if Islam is correct? What if Buddhism is correct? or Hinduism? or Sikhism?

Hell, what if there exists a God that we've never heard of before, who rewards intellectual honesty, and only sends people to hell who are intellectually dishonest? Then it's creationists who are screwed! I know that if I was a God, I'd much prefer an honest search for the truth over blind faith.

Oops.

Then we back up the question again....

What caused that time to exist?

And no, I don't even attempt to explain this irrational supposition.


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

So basically you're dodging around avoiding presenting your evidence.

To bad God doesn't agree with you isn't it

GOD IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT YOU EXPECT OF HIM!!!

GOD IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT YOU EXPECT OF HIM!!!

That's true, but I think Kormanthor was saying God did not agree with UB that he, Kormanthor, was a waste of oxygen. If God is anything the way I think He is, Kormanthor has a point.

GOD IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT YOU EXPECT OF HIM!!!

All are accountable, even God!

GOD IS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO WHAT YOU EXPECT OF HIM!!!

All are accountable, even God!

AMEN!

If 'creationism' is going to be taught in science classes then potions, transfiguration, divination and defense against the dark arts should also be taught...

That would be awesome.

No, what would be awesome is if there were actually some kind of reaction other than gales of laughter when I pointed my wand, flicked my wrist, and said Alamahora.

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.

King Arthur: Old woman.
Dennis: Man.
King Arthur: Man, sorry. What knight lives in that castle over there?
Dennis: I'm 37.
King Arthur: What?
Dennis: I'm 37. I'm not old.
King Arthur: Well I can't just call you "man".
Dennis: Well you could say "Dennis".
King Arthur: I didn't know you were called Dennis.
Dennis: Well you didn't bother to find out did you?
King Arthur: I did say sorry about the "old woman", but from behind you looked...
Dennis: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior.
King Arthur: Well I am king.
Dennis: Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
King Arthur: Bloody peasant!
Dennis: Oh, what a giveaway! Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about! Did you see him repressing me? You saw him, Didn't you?

He will one second after each of us dies. I am ready .... are you?

faith or science, you decide? You are basing your argument in faith with no basis in science. You are made of fail.

Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
The list after you take out the dentists, philosophers, and other people who have no degree is biology or a related field.

Here is the other list presented, after you get rid of the scientists alive before Darwin's theory.
[...]

Yup

*waits for Kormanthor to die and report back with his proof*

Precisely, I can't wait for the rapture to get rid of some of these Mfing people

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.

Please reread what you wrote. It flies in the face of reason.

I believe I observed Creationism in my science class once.
There was a petri dish being used as the control with only the nutrient base and no organism. A week later, after the petri dish was in completely stable and sanitary conditions, there was growth on the dish.
Wait, nevermind, that's spontaneous generation.
Oh...wait..

Alright...before we get into a deep discussion in science, lets first start off with the definitions...

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:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/t_mortenson.asp

Here are links to these two, one from wiki and the other from answersingenesis.

May I point out Dr. Terry Mortenson's degree... M.Div is Master of Divinity, and Ph.D. is Doctor of Philosophy (which is the degree given to those studying religion...) so his primary area of study was religion, not science. Just pointing that out, not drawing any conclusions...

***EDIT
Apparently I did not read down far enough... to be fair, his doctorate is in geology. The focus of his Ph.D. he states thusly

"In the first half of the 19th century, there were a number of Christian writers who raised Biblical, logical and geological objections to old-earth theories and to the reinterpretations of Scripture to harmonize with them. These men became known as the ‘Scriptural geologists,’ and were the focus of my Ph.D. research."

Your conclusions are your own. ****

Also, Ken Ham is a young earth creationist. Again, draw your own conclusions people...

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:

1) “Science proves the Bible is wrong.”

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

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

While I have never heard non-Christians claim #1, I suppose some do. However my answers to these claims would be:

1) Only in cases where the actual facts presented in the Bible are wrong. Facts are important in the definition of science. The Bible is literature, not science.
2) This one is correct all the time, although I would change the "but" to "and"
3) The first part is true (although science does not require belief, it is what it is whether anyone believes it or not), the second is partially true... many creationists reject evolution science, they may accept other things (like gravity and nuclear science for instance)

Common claims by Christians:

1) “I believe the Bible over science.”

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

3) “Creationists believe in the Bible and reject science.”

1) is true, Christians sometimes say that, and they do believe it. It does not make them right in their beliefs.

2) No, evolution is not a religion (we will probably come back to this point, so I will let it go with...) as has been shown many times in this very thread.

3) That would be partially true, as in #3 above. Some creationists believe in the Bible, and many reject evolution. Some creationists think God did it, then we evolved after that.

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.


It must. That is the difference between science and 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...


The rest of this bit talks about "operational" science (going to a lab and studying it directly) and "origin" science (divining ideas from bits left behind and historical accounts). However, since evolution involves (by the first paragraph of this portion) "operational" science and creationism is based entirely in in "origin" science, I think that this part is its own worst enemy.

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.
And here is where the entire concept of creationism as a science shoots itself in the foot. Science is not about beliefs. Creationism is (by its own admission, here), and so creationism is religion.

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.

Which really should be the end of this discussion. But we can go on...

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.
Because they refuse to accept places where it HAS been shown to do so, such as the aforementioned fruitfly. Young Earth creationists believe the world is only 6000 years old, and the changes that occur in the fruitfly's life span are impossible to equate to man in that time frame. They also don't accept carbon dating (or any other measure that says their timeline is invalid, such as the expansion of the universe or any of the other methods commonly used).


[omitted bit about Noah and the Flood and geology]

Which is interesting on its own, but not relevant to the discussion at hand, which is evolution. Perhaps we can tackle geology in another thread.

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.”
Really not, since the Biblical interpretation provided by Young earth creationists is nothing more than a denial of the "operation" science that scientists use to prove the science.

Molecules-to-man evolution is not proven by operation science; instead, it is a belief about the past based on antibiblical assumptions.


Many parts of the "molecules-to-man" (at least they are not calling it mud-to-man) evolution HAVE been proven. There are still gaps, but science gets closer to filling them daily. And they are not based on "antibiblical assumptions". Scientists can believe anything they want, but science itself is based on the research of FACTS. Facts don't care one way or the other about the existence of the bible or whether anyone believes in it.

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.

This whole statement has nothing whatsoever to do with 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.

No, they don't. See above.

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).


Wrong again. A Biblical worldview has nothing to do with science. A scientist can personally believe that the universe is made of belly button lint, but unless actual facts can be produced to prove it, the assumption has no scientific importance.

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. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher

(I won't go on...but we're up to 'H'). These are just some of the practicing Creation scientists of today.
****NOTE I edited this list down for brevity, and it does contain other scientists whose fields actually relate to this discussion****

No one is claiming that there are not creationist scientists. This whole discussion would be pointless if there were not.

However, we could equally start a list of important scientists who are not creationists, and list as many as you have here, and not get past those starting with Ab... Number of believers is not your strongest argument here.

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


*** another list I cut***

Again, so what? And these people were not necessarily "Creation scientists" (implying that they were using creationism for their scientific work) but rather were scientists who happened to also be creationists (which may have had absolutely NOTHING to do with what they were studying)

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.

This point was never under debate. Creationists can be scientists in the same way that Belgians can be architects and tall people can be opera lovers. So what?

The attempt to prove that creationism is science, however, has failed.

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

That is because, get this, apes and humans have a common ancestor. They are divergent branches from the hominid branch of mammalia.

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Summer_2003/ling001/images/human_evolution.gif
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/Summer_2003/ling001/images/gorilla-chimp-human.jpg

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangelo
http://www.oreworld.org/grafting.htm

So, you can get hybridized fruit, or even grow mangos on a different kind of tree.

And you can create new dog breeds, by crossing existing dog breeds.

You can create a mule by crossing two different animals -- the horse and the donkey.

Your point is seriously flawed.

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

Carbon dating is "operational" science... going into a lab and testing things. Thus NOT unscientific guesswork.

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:

By some. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangelo
http://www.oreworld.org/grafting.htm

So, you can get hybridized fruit, or even grow mangos on a different kind of tree.

And you can create new dog breeds, by crossing existing dog breeds.

You can create a mule by crossing two different animals -- the horse and the donkey.

Your point is seriously flawed.

and I'll take KAT for the WIN!

Carbon dating is "operational" science... going into a lab and testing things. Thus NOT unscientific guesswork.

There is no room for science in this debate.

and I'll take KAT for the WIN!

I have two, giant rebuttals in this thread that took me a half hour each to write.

Fucking brown-noser :p

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 was television, airplanes, dentistry, coloring books, plastic, Thailand, the internet, Cheerios, post offices... need I go on?

Where in the bible does it say "If Jesus didn't talk about it, it ain't true!"

Where did Jesus talk about creationism for that matter?

:rolleyes:

Evolution isn't science

Yes it is.


Well, that exchange was pointless.

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

:( Wherez mah applez? I nvr git applez.

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

So don't read them. Simple enough; simpler than throwing a tantrum.

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

Agreed. And Lutheran ministers, as well. ;)

Provide the missing link thats the only way to prove evolution

Provide God. That is the only way to prove creationism.

Oh really .... my faith in Jesus Christ healed my eyes, eyes that your science said was impossible to heal.

That's nice. What does it have to do with the current discussion?

Provide the missing link thats the only way to prove evolution

Here it is, the missing link (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/).

Someone's probably already done that, but I didn't see the post so it doesn't exist.

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.

It means the organism with the most beneficial mutations survive to pass them on, and the ones that cannot compete because they have not gotten those mutations or have gotten harmful ones, die.

It has nothing to do with "fitness".

To bad God doesn't agree with you isn't it

Not to belabor a point or anything... but what the heck...

Prove it.

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

Evolution, for a start?

It means the organism with the most beneficial mutations survive to pass them on, and the ones that cannot compete because they have not gotten those mutations or have gotten harmful ones, die.

It has nothing to do with "fitness".

um, yeah, it does...

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

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html
Does that answer the question? Yes, the Pope said it. MULTIPLE popes said it.

I don't believe Creationism should be taught in science class, but I will believe in a Creator until science comes up with a viable answer as to how the universe originated, or prove that it was always there.

That is perfectly reasonable. Along the exact same lines, I don't believe Creationism should be taught in science class and I will continue not to believe in a Creator until religion comes up with viable proof that one does exist. :D

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

Funny, you've avoided answering several questions from United Beleriad. Should we then posit that the reason you avoid questions and ask more and tell people they are wrong is because YOU don't have the answer and you know it too?

Seems logical, if that's your line of thinking.

This thread is the joke

It is, but not for the reason you imply.

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

Very nice. But where is the proof that it is science?

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.

One of those was to judge not lest ye be judged -- so you figure that out.

So, no proof, eh?

My faith is stronger than ever.

BTW, Occam's razor is considered a fallacy.

I think you meant Pascal's Wager. Occam's Razor says that "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best" which is generally accepted to be true (generally, not always specifically).

No, what would be awesome is if there were actually some kind of reaction other than gales of laughter when I pointed my wand, flicked my wrist, and said Alamahora.

I think the problem is that you have the pronunciation wrong. I'm pretty sure it's "Alo-ham-ora" (all a's short) It would probably also help if your wand were made of the proper materials.

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

One source versus millions.
If your wrote a research paper based on a single source for which there were millions of refutations, it would get a failing grade.

Which is the one desperate "to spread their lies without having to prove their claims?"

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

The truth is you are expert at insulting people rather than actually providing an argument of any worth.

That's against the rules, by the way. So either provide proof for your claims, or don't -- but stop the personal attacks.

Thats where the law of causality provides more problems for evolution. Your answer just needs to be backed up one step....

Where did that electrical charge come from? Where did that primordial soup come from?

Unless...you believed in an ETERNAL Creator, that was neither created nor has an end, and exists outside of his own creation (including time itself). Because God is eternal, he's not limited by time or causality (he was not caused), therefore we can easily and comfortably state that all creation began with God.

How did that cycle get set into motion? What caused it? And what caused that cause? And what caused....ok you get the point.

Do you believe that the universe is eternal?

As for science saying 'yes we do know how that happpened, here it is' - explain to me my first question:

Can science explain what caused that first spark? How did that soup get there?


I find it quite interesting that Upper Botswavia failed to provide an answer for ANY of the questions I put foward to him. Instead, it seems he has frantically decided to dissect my own words from yesterday, in order to make up for his lost ground today...

May I remind him that if he expects me to begin answering his own questions in post 632, I would first like to see what he has to say about my previous questions regarding very fundamental aspects of his theory.

I put forward the primary questions again. In the beginning:

What caused that electric charge? Where did that 'soup' come from?


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I - Part II coming soon):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399[/QUOTE]

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

Knock it off.

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

Try reading books other that the scriptures.

I find it quite interesting that Upper Botswavia failed to provide an answer for ANY of the questions I put foward to him. Instead, it seems he has frantically decided to dissect my own words from yesterday, in order to make up for his lost ground today...

May I remind him that if he expects me to begin answering his own questions in post 632, I would first like to see what he has to say about my previous questions regarding very fundamental aspects of his theory.

I put forward the primary questions again. In the beginning:

What caused that electric charge? Where did that 'soup' come from?


Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

How would it matter where the soup came from, at least in respect to the theory of evolution

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

Knock it off.

How would it matter where the soup came from, at least in respect to the theory of evolution
Right. As far as I know, there is nothing about the theory of evolution that says God did not create each creature by Hand, individually. Evolution deals with what happened after life began. So, while it doesn't deny Divine Creation, it does deny the things at the Divine Creation are all still in their same form.

Evolution isn't science

http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-3707376-2991825?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=science+and+evolution&x=0&y=0

I don't need to prove it, I have the one thing you need ... faith.

And we have reason as well as faith.

I think the problem is that you have the pronunciation wrong. I'm pretty sure it's "Alo-ham-ora" (all a's short) It would probably also help if your wand were made of the proper materials.

*sighs*

Back to Olivander's, I suppose.

What caused that electric charge? Where did that 'soup' come from?

same thing causes sparks and chemical formation today. fundamental laws of the universe and initial conditions, basically.

Thats where the law of causality provides more problems for evolution. Your answer just needs to be backed up one step....

Where did that electrical charge come from? Where did that primordial soup come from?

We can keep backing up into eternity if you want, because we know that something not eternal must have been caused (law of causality - if not so, it is eternal) by something else....which must have been caused by something else....which was caused by something else.....and on and on into an illogical infinity.


You raise an interesting point, that evolution does not propose to answer. However, since creationism cannot answer it scientifically either, it doesn't really matter. Creationism is still not science.

Unless...you believed in an ETERNAL Creator, that was neither created nor has an end, and exists outside of his own creation (including time itself). Because God is eternal, he's not limited by time or causality (he was not caused), therefore we can easily and comfortably state that all creation began with God.

You can easily state it. It does not go anywhere near making it true.

Try reading Part I of my 'essays'. I'm tailoring the messages to suit science, because this is a thread on science. Part II coming soon.


I refuted Part I at great length.

I've already explained this. God is eternal. He is not caused, therefore he needs no creator. He has always been, and always will be. Why is that hard to understand? Because we live inside a creation that is not eternal, and consists of the dimension of time. God is outside his creation.


This is your personal belief. It has nothing to do with science.

How did that cycle get set into motion? What caused it? And what caused that cause? And what caused....ok you get the point.

I don't know. Neither do you. This does not prove that God did it, it merely proves that neither you nor I have the answer.

And if you insist that everything have a cause (and that I be able to list them all), you must stop complaining that I don't accept your assertion that God does not have one.



You probably can't begin to make these statements, unless you can provide an answer regarding what caused that DNA, and what caused that cause, and so on. I have my answer. And I will elaborate on it in Part II.


You cannot begin to prove creationism unless you can provide God.

I did not suggest that Sagan admitted a God. I am showing you that even Sagan does not understand the fundamentals that his theory he supports. He is confounded. Creationists understand their theory.
He is confounded? Where does he say that? He simply said that humans could not (yet) create something that complex. And creationists understand their theory but (as keeps being repeated) they have no proof for it. So it is not science. You are trying to compare apples to lawn furniture here, and they do not relate.


Do you believe that the universe is eternal? This goes against evolution.


It does not. Also, what I explained is the idea that the universe is constantly collapsing and re-expanding, so evolution is probably happening over and over and over and over....
No, we do know what happened. God did it. Statement of a fact. I'm not throwing this upon 'God' because I can't explain. I can explain. God did it. Its logical, because he's eternal, he doesn't need a cause. Logically, God, an eternal being, did it.


You cannot prove God, so no, God did it is a conjecture, not a statement of fact. It is not logical, as we have nothing tangible that would lead us to the conclusion that a God actually exists. By your theory, it is just as logical to claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it...

As for science saying 'yes we do know how that happpened, here it is' - explain to me my first question:
Can science explain what caused that first spark? How did that soup get there?

Evolution is not working on that problem. There are sciences that are, but we are not debating that. Evolution deals with what happened from the moment life appeared through what life has become today.

But yes, we can take it back as far as an instant after the universe was created. Which is considerably before evolution. If all you wanted to argue was that God set off the Big Bang and then got the heck out of the way and let everything else after that first microsecond happen by itself, I would say "sure, why not? That is as provable as any other idea right now..." Of course it makes much less sense, but we don't have observable, testable data to support either idea. But if you want to tell me that God created the universe as it currently exists 6000 years ago (as do the people you are quoting in support of creationism), well, you have a long way to go to prove that one.

I find it quite interesting that Upper Botswavia failed to provide an answer for ANY of the questions I put foward to him. Instead, it seems he has frantically decided to dissect my own words from yesterday, in order to make up for his lost ground today...

May I remind him that if he expects me to begin answering his own questions in post 632, I would first like to see what he has to say about my previous questions regarding very fundamental aspects of his theory.

I put forward the primary questions again. In the beginning:

What caused that electric charge? Where did that 'soup' come from?





I am a she, which is, of course, entirely beside the point.

I am not frantic... and if you will note I am responding to posts that occurred between the last time I was here and this time. And doing so fairly quickly, but hold your horses.

First, the answer to your (implied) question (where did the universe come from) is "I don't know, and neither do you." You can say that God did it, but as you have no proof, the discussion continues to bite itself in the ass.

Read my previous post (#663) for further discussion of how "I don't know, God did it" relates to EVOLUTION.

Biblical Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I - Part II coming soon):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

Part I refuted rather completely.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230236&postcount=632

Bring on Part II.

You raise an interesting point, that evolution does not propose to answer. However, since creationism cannot answer it scientifically either, it doesn't really matter.

Who says that one must provide explanations of quantum physics or carbon dating to 'prove' the origin of life? Do you? Or some other previous evolutionist? What makes this assumption absolute, and true? Because it works? Well, who's saying that it works? If you are a relativist (whats 'right' for you might not be 'right' for me), which you should be (because you have no higher being to set an absolute truths), then you will believe that there are no absolutes truths, which means that you cannot be making absolute statements/decisions about truth, such as:

"Evolution happened."
"There is no God."
"You are wrong."

I can, however, because I know absolute truths exist. What/who makes an absolute truths? A perfect being. Outside morality.

However, that discussion is for another thread.

This is your personal belief. It has nothing to do with science.

Aside from the fact that you cannot in fact be making absolute statements: You believe that the Origin of Species, and perhaps the 'Humanist Manifesto I & II' are correct. You believe that evidence supports it. I believe that the Bible is correct. I believe that evidence supports it (this is what my essays are for).


I don't know. Neither do you. This does not prove that God did it, it merely proves that neither you nor I have the answer.

It proves that there is, yet again, an 'assumption' that evolutionary scientists cannot prove to be true. Despite that this is taught as fact in school textbooks...

Despite the fact that you don't, I have the answer - that is what my essays are for.

And if you insist that everything have a cause (and that I be able to list them all), you must stop complaining that I don't accept your assertion that God does not have one.

The difference is: I have a logical explanation for it. You've admitted that you don't (see above).


You cannot begin to prove creationism unless you can provide God.

Thats like saying: "You cannot prove evolution unless you can provide the Big Bang." Charles Darwin (and I), work the other way. I will prove God by providing evidence for creationism.

Also, what I explained is the idea that the universe is constantly collapsing and re-expanding, so evolution is probably happening over and over and over and over....

But you said that you don't have the slightest idea how it could have possibly started....


You cannot prove God, so no, God did it is a conjecture, not a statement of fact. It is not logical, as we have nothing tangible that would lead us to the conclusion that a God actually exists. By your theory, it is just as logical to claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it...

Is the flying spaghetti monster outside of his creation? Is he eternal? Is he outside of morality? Is he perfect, so he can provide absolute truths? Then you're referring to the Biblical God. It doesn't really matter what his name is.

Evolution is not working on that problem. There are sciences that are, but we are not debating that. Evolution deals with what happened from the moment life appeared through what life has become today.

I didn't ask if evolution was working on that problem. I asked you to explain it. If the appearance of this electric charge and this soup cannot be explained, then the whole evolutionary theory is useless, and should not be taught in school textbooks.

You have no idea how the soup got there (you admitted it), so the theory falls flat. This theory should not be taught at school.

But if you want to tell me that God created the universe as it currently exists 6000 years ago (as do the people you are quoting in support of creationism), well, you have a long way to go to prove that one.

That is what I intend to do in my next essay.


Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I - Part II coming soon):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

You probably can't begin to make these statements, unless you can provide an answer regarding what caused that DNA...

I am going to revisit this question.

Here is a possibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

I could restate it all, but you might as well go read it yourself.

and what caused that cause, and so on.

This part of the answer remains the same.

Creationism vs. Evolution (Part II)

Welcome to Part II of Creationism vs. Evolution. First off, I'd sincerely like to thank Upper Botswavia for being one of the best and most decent-mannered opponents I have come across at NationStates yet - and I am certainly happy to debate with her.

This does not mean that I agree with her theory (see above:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230560&postcount=665 and Part I: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399 )

Now, I'm going to begin with one of Evolutions 'strongest' evidences. The issue of carbon dating. Does it really, accurately disprove a young earth?

As I have said before, I lack the extensive scientific knowledge required to formulate an essay based upon my own skill, therefore, I have made references to this international institute of scientists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

The topic in itself is a little complicated, but hopefully, by reading carefully, you'll be able to understand it. Unless you're naturally scientifically minded.

Lets begin on the topic of Carbon dating:

Scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to estimate the ages of rocks, fossils, and the earth. Many people have been led to believe that radiometric dating methods have proved the earth to be billions of years old. This has caused many in the church to reevaluate the biblical creation account, specifically the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1. With our focus on one particular form of radiometric dating—carbon dating—we will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth.

Basics

Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry. Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. Atoms are made up of much smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons make up the center (nucleus) of the atom, and electrons form shells around the nucleus.

The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines the element. For example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all atoms of nitrogen have 7 protons, and all oxygen atoms have 8 protons. The number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary in any given type of atom. So, a carbon atom might have six neutrons, or seven, or possibly eight—but it would always have six protons. An “isotope” is any of several different forms of an element, each having different numbers of neutrons. The illustration below shows the three isotopes of carbon.

The atomic number corresponds to the number of protons in an atom. Atomic mass is a combination of the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. (The electrons are so much lighter that they do not contribute significantly to the mass of an atom.)


Some isotopes of certain elements are unstable; they can spontaneously change into another kind of atom in a process called “radioactive decay.” Since this process happens at a known rate, scientists attempt to use it like a “clock” to tell how long ago a rock or fossil formed. There are two main applications for radiometric dating. One is for dating fossils (once-living things) using carbon-14 dating, and the other is for dating rocks and the age of the earth.

Carbon-14 Dating

Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.1

When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)?
Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?
Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe?
Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate?
All radiometric dating methods use scientific procedures in the present to interpret what has happened in the past. The procedures used are not necessarily in question. The interpretation of past events is in question. The secular (evolutionary) worldview interprets the universe and world to be billions of years old. The Bible teaches a young universe and earth. Which worldview does science support? Can carbon-14 dating help solve the mystery of which worldview is more accurate?

The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds contain carbon-14). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.

There are three different naturally occurring varieties (isotopes) of carbon: 12C, 13C, and 14C.

Carbon-14 is used for dating because it is unstable (radioactive), whereas 12C and 13C are stable. Radioactive means that 14C will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. During this process (called “beta decay”) a neutron in the 14C atom will be converted into a proton. By losing one neutron and gaining one proton, 14C is changed into nitrogen-14 (14N = 7 protons and 7 neutrons).

If 14C is constantly decaying, will the earth eventually run out of 14C? The answer is no. Carbon-14 is constantly being added to the atmosphere. Cosmic rays from outer space, which contain high levels of energy, bombard the earth’s upper atmosphere. These cosmic rays collide with atoms in the atmosphere and can cause them to come apart. Neutrons that come from these fragmented atoms collide with 14N atoms (the atmosphere is made mostly of nitrogen and oxygen) and convert them into 14C atoms (a proton changes into a neutron).

Once 14C is produced, it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere (12C behaves like 14C and also combines with oxygen) to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Because CO2 gets incorporated into plants (which means the food we eat contains 14C and 12C), all living things should have the same ratio of 14C and 12C in them as in the air we breathe.

How the Carbon-14 Dating Process Works

Once a living thing dies, the dating process begins. As long as an organism is alive it will continue to take in 14C; however, when it dies, it will stop. Since 14C is radioactive (decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead organism gets less and less over time. Therefore, part of the dating process involves measuring the amount of 14C that remains after some has been lost (decayed). Scientists now use a device called an “Accelerator Mass Spectrometer” (AMS) to determine the ratio of 14C to 12C, which increases the assumed accuracy to about 80,000 years. In order to actually do the dating, other things need to be known. Two such things include the following questions:

How fast does 14C decay?

What was the starting amount of 14C in the creature when it died?
The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. For example, a jar starting with all 14C atoms at time zero will contain half 14C atoms and half 14N atoms at the end of 5,730 years (one half-life). At the end of 11,460 years (two half-lives) the jar will contain one-quarter 14C atoms and three-quarter 14N atoms.

Since the half-life of 14C is known (how fast it decays), the only part left to determine is the starting amount of 14C in a fossil. If scientists know the original amount of 14C in a creature when it died, they can measure the current amount and then calculate how many half-lives have passed.

Since no one was there to measure the amount of 14C when a creature died, scientists need to find a method to determine how much 14C has decayed. To do this, scientists use the main isotope of carbon, called carbon-12 (12C). Because 12C is a stable isotope of carbon, it will remain constant; however, the amount of 14C will decrease after a creature dies. All living things take in carbon (14C and 12C) from eating and breathing. Therefore, the ratio of 14C to 12C in living creatures will be the same as in the atmosphere. This ratio turns out to be about one 14C atom for every 1 trillion 12C atoms. Scientists can use this ratio to help determine the starting amount of 14C.

When an organism dies, this ratio (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change. The amount of 12C will remain constant, but the amount of 14C will become less and less. The smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. The following illustration demonstrates how the age is estimated using this ratio.

Percent 14C Remaining Percent 12C Remaining Ratio Number of Half-Lives Years Dead(Age of Fossil)

100 100 1 to 1T 0 0
50 100 1 to 2T 1 5,730
25 100 1 to 4T 2 11,460
12.5 100 1 to 8T 3 17,190
6.25 100 1 to 16T 4 22,920
3.125 100 1 to 32T 5 28,650

T = Trillion

A Critical Assumption

A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

Magnetic Field of the Earth

Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.

The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4
Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed.... The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5
Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6
If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.

Genesis Flood

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

The RATE Group Findings

In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
Steven Austin, PhD Geology
Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies

The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. Samples were taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. These coal samples were collected from major coalfields across the United States. The coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples in all three “time periods” displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.

Because the lifetime of C-14 is so brief, these AMS [Accelerator Mass Spectrometer] measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer.

Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed in chapter 9. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.

Because of C-14’s short half-life, such a finding would argue that carbon and probably the entire physical earth as well must have a recent origin.

Conclusion

All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.

The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago,

“The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.

References

Earth Science (Teachers Edition), Prentice Hall, 2002, 301. Back
W. Libby, Radiocarbon Dating, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1952, 8. Back
C. Sewell, “Carbon-14 and the Age of the Earth,” 1999. www.rae.org/bits23.htm. Back
M. Stuiver and H. Suess, On the relationship between radiocarbon dates and true sample ages, Radiocarbon, Vol. 8, 1966, 535. Back
R. Humphreys, The mystery of earth’s magnetic field, ICR Impact, Feb 1, 1989. www.icr.org/article/292. Back
J. Roach, National Geographic News, September 9, 2004. Back
J. Baumgarder, C-14 evidence for a recent global Flood and a young earth, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, Institute for Creation Research, Santee, California, 2005, 618. Back
Ibid., 587. Back
Ibid., 609. Back
D. DeYoung, Thousands ... Not Billions, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005, 61. Back


Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

Creationism vs. Evolution (Part II)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230594&postcount=667

You have no idea how the soup got there (you admitted it), so the theory falls flat.

bullshit.

the theory of evolution does not care in the slightest about ultimate origins. like not at all. hell, as i said earlier in this thread if god came down today and specially created some living thing, its descendants would evolve in a branching bush-like pattern based on natural selection and genetic drift.

Schools these days are all about teaching openness and looking at different opinions and such. Homosexuality is being taught under this openness bill. Feminism is being taught for openness. Liberalism of all forms is being pressed upon our children. People are ridiculed for not being open and not being accepting of these things.

Why then does this not extend to creationism and other religious things? If you are going to teach students feminism and gay rights in the name of being fair and open, then stop being hypocritical and banning religious teachings such as creationism!

Who says that one must provide explanations of quantum physics or carbon dating to 'prove' the origin of life? Do you? Or some other previous evolutionist? What makes this assumption absolute, and true? Because it works? Well, who's saying that it works? If you are a relativist (whats 'right' for you might not be 'right' for me), which you should be (because you have no higher being to set an absolute truths), then you will believe that there are no absolutes truths, which means that you cannot be making absolute statements/decisions about truth, such as:

"Evolution happened."
"There is no God."
"You are wrong."

I can, however, because I know absolute truths exist. What/who makes an absolute truths? A perfect being. Outside morality.

However, that discussion is for another thread.

Acknowledgement of rational fact necessarily implies moral relativism? That's an....uh...interesting assertion.

Anyway, if anyone here has been making such absolute statements, they aren't following the scientific method. Accurate statements would be as follows:

"There is, as yet, absolutely no evidence which contradicts evolutionary theory as it presently stands. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution happened in at least roughly the manner in which it has been modeled."

"God may or may not exist. Given his status as a supernatural being, it is impossible to test for God; thus, the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is a matter of personal faith, not science."

"You are wrong about some of the things you have said; others are matters of opinion or personal belief and cannot logically be concluded to be 'right' or 'wrong.'"

Better?

Aside from the fact that you cannot in fact be making absolute statements: You believe that the Origin of Species, and perhaps the 'Humanist Manifesto I & II' are correct. You believe that evidence supports it. I believe that the Bible is correct. I believe that evidence supports it (this is what my essays are for).

Speaking for myself (and, in this case, for the scientific community at large), I "believe" no such thing. I know, based on specific and falsifiable experimentation, that the general theory outlined in The Origin of Species is largely correct, though some of the details are wrong. I know that evidence supports this conclusion, at least to the extent that I know anything. (While we could get into a philosophical discussion about the whether or not it is impossible truly to "know" anything, any discussion of pretty much anything rests on the implied assumption that it is possible to know things, and so that would really, really be a topic for its own thread.) You may very well "believe" that the Bible's creation story is literally true, but the only ways you could believe that evidence supports that belief are either through complete ignorance of said evidence, or, frankly, delusion. You could, I suppose, believe that said evidence was planted by God himself to trick us - that's a valid belief, if, to my mind, a very silly one.




It proves that there is, yet again, an 'assumption' that evolutionary scientists cannot prove to be true. Despite that this is taught as fact in school textbooks...

Um, no. Anyone familiar with the scientific method will tell you that assumptions are not a part of that process. People may make assumptions, and badly written textbooks may make assumptions, but science does not. I'm also unclear as to how you got this from UB's post.



The difference is: I have a logical explanation for it. You've admitted that you don't (see above).

No, you really don't. I understand that you perceive your explanation as logical, but it essentially boils down to "everything must have a cause, except for God, because I say so."



Thats like saying: "You cannot prove evolution unless you can provide the Big Bang." Charles Darwin (and I), work the other way. I will prove God by providing evidence for creationism.

Oy. There are so many things wrong with this.

1. You still cannot scientifically "prove" things. I think this has been pointed out about twenty times in this thread.
2. Seeing as evolution and the Big Bang have zilch to do with each other, you seem to be suggesting that God and creationism have nothing to do with each other. I rather suspect this was not your intent.
3. Charles Darwin never endeavored to "prove" anything, let alone the Big Bang.
4. You still cannot prove things. Hey, now it's 21!
5. You especially cannot "prove" the existence of a supernatural agency, by definition.



But you said that you don't have the slightest idea how it could have possibly started....


So what?


Is the flying spaghetti monster outside of his creation? Is he eternal? Is he outside of morality? Is he perfect, so he can provide absolute truths? Then you're referring to the Biblical God. It doesn't really matter what his name is.

...at least, that's what you happen to believe. I can assert that the BIblical God is a spoiled, jealous, evil bastard who isn't fit to lick the FSM's noodles, and it would be just as valid a statement, seeing as it has no basis in anything but a theoretical personal opinion.



I didn't ask if evolution was working on that problem. I asked you to explain it. If the appearance of this electric charge and this soup cannot be explained, then the whole evolutionary theory is useless, and should not be taught in school textbooks.

You have no idea how the soup got there (you admitted it), so the theory falls flat. This theory should not be taught at school.

You know, the theory of universal gravitation also has no input on abiogenesis. Neither has the theory of relativity. Let's trash them, too! The periodic table gives no input on this subject - throw it out! Neuroscientists haven't done a thing to figure out how exactly the "primordial soup" came into being - what a bunch of hacks!

Do you not understand how silly this argument is? Evolutionary theory is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BRANCH OF SCIENCE than the study of how life may have come into being. Rejecting it because it doesn't explain something that has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution is like throwing out your vacuum cleaner because it won't microwave your food.

...

blah blah blah

even if your arguments about c14 were not stupid (which they most assuredly are), they wouldn't affect all the other radiometric dating methods. these have to all vary by radically different amounts over time, because they all fucking agree with each other despite being completely and utterly independent.

oh yeah, and counting would have to change over time too. what with the annual layers in lakes and ice and the rings of trees and all. a young earth is impossible. completely and utterly inconsistent with every single piece of relevant evidence ever encountered by anyone ever.

blah blah blah

even if your arguments about c14 were not stupid (which they most assuredly are), they wouldn't affect all the other radiometric dating methods. these have to all vary by radically different amounts over time, because they all fucking agree with each other despite being completely and utterly independent.

oh yeah, and counting would have to change over time too. what with the annual layers in lakes and ice and the rings of trees and all. a young earth is impossible. completely and utterly inconsistent with every single piece of relevant evidence ever encountered by anyone ever.

b-b-but... Kent Hovind TOLD me that the Bible is 100% true!

Who says that one must provide explanations of quantum physics or carbon dating to 'prove' the origin of life? Do you? Or some other previous evolutionist? What makes this assumption absolute, and true? Because it works? Well, who's saying that it works? If you are a relativist (whats 'right' for you might not be 'right' for me), which you should be (because you have no higher being to set an absolute truths), then you will believe that there are no absolutes truths, which means that you cannot be making absolute statements/decisions about truth, such as:

"Evolution happened."
"There is no God."
"You are wrong."

I can, however, because I know absolute truths exist. What/who makes an absolute truths? A perfect being. Outside morality.

However, that discussion is for another thread.


Who insists on proof? Well, science. And since what we are discussing here is the teaching of creationism as science, it is necessary for creationism to be shown to BE science, which has not ever been the case.

Your "knowledge of absolute truth" is very nice for you, and I am sure it keeps you warm at night, but it has no bearing at all on the matter we are discussing. What you call "absolute truth" is nothing more than what you personally believe to be true. I could say the same thing, and be just as right as you are, and hold diametrically opposed beliefs. What we are discussing here, however, is testable science.

It is not, actually, a discussion for another thread. It is at the heart of this discussion. If you want your beliefs to be taught as science, you must prove they ARE science. To prove that, you must prove your God exists. Failing that, your theory is lovely poetry, but has no place in a science class.

Aside from the fact that you cannot in fact be making absolute statements: You believe that the Origin of Species, and perhaps the 'Humanist Manifesto I & II' are correct. You believe that evidence supports it. I believe that the Bible is correct. I believe that evidence supports it (this is what my essays are for).


Again, still waiting for the scientific part of your essay to show up. My particular set of beliefs is not an issue, as science is about things that are testable. Evolutionary theory is testable, has been tested, and has been shown to work. Not to mention the fact that evolutionary theory has advanced from what Darwin first wrote, taking into account new information, and letting go of things that have been proven false. Whether you believe it or not (and even whether I believe it or not) does not matter, it has the support of actual science behind it.

I am waiting for the science that shows God to be real.

It proves that there is, yet again, an 'assumption' that evolutionary scientists cannot prove to be true. Despite that this is taught as fact in school textbooks...

Despite the fact that you don't, I have the answer - that is what my essays are for.

Wrong on several points. First, evolution does not attempt to address the origins of the universe. Second, your answer is not provable, so not science. How many times does that need to be said? If you want your answer to be accepted as science, you must prove that it IS science. Your essay so far has not done so.

The difference is: I have a logical explanation for it. You've admitted that you don't (see above).

Your answer does not begin to approach logical. Logical answers have a foundation laid that points to only one conclusion. You have not done so. You have merely asserted that because we don't have an answer for something, God must have done it. For it to be logical, we would need some proof that 1) God exists, 2) God is the sort of being that would actually create things, 3) God has created things in the past... and we have none of those foundation points to lay the conclusion on.

Thats like saying: "You cannot prove evolution unless you can provide the Big Bang." Charles Darwin (and I), work the other way. I will prove God by providing evidence for creationism.

No, in fact, it is not. Evolution does not care where the universe came from. Evolution would be satisfied to have the universe come from a mail order catalogue. Evolution starts with the assertion that once life happened, it developed in a certain way. That is ALL it deals with. Creationism, however, starts with the assertion that God created everything. If you START from there, you have to show that God is real, or else your entire theory falls to pieces before it gets off the ground.

I would, however, be interested to see the proof of creationism that proves God. So go ahead with that one, please.

But you said that you don't have the slightest idea how it could have possibly started....


In that particular model it didn't 'start'. It is an explanation of a universe that is eternal, which was what you were asking for.

Is the flying spaghetti monster outside of his creation? Is he eternal? Is he outside of morality? Is he perfect, so he can provide absolute truths? Then you're referring to the Biblical God. It doesn't really matter what his name is.

For argument, let's say that he is all of those things, up to "absolute truths?" When he goes on to be someone who says that Jesus never existed, that we should all bow before his noodly appendage, and that the way to get into heaven is simply by dressing like a pirate, is he still your "Biblical" god?

Probably not.

I didn't ask if evolution was working on that problem. I asked you to explain it. If the appearance of this electric charge and this soup cannot be explained, then the whole evolutionary theory is useless, and should not be taught in school textbooks.

You have no idea how the soup got there (you admitted it), so the theory falls flat. This theory should not be taught at school.


Again, you are wrong. Evolutionary science is no more interested in the Big Bang than plant physiology is interested in astronomy. They are different branches of science, looking at different issues.

However, the soup got there when, after the Big Bang, atoms coalesced into planets and suns. For proof of that, read up on astronomy and the Big Bang, it is too long to go into here. The spark was caused by lightning, which has to do with charged particles in the atmosphere. For proof of that, stand out under a tree during a thunderstorm. If you want me to pin down the origin of the universe, I will again say "I don't know". And I will again say "Neither do you." You have your beliefs on the subject, but no more proof than I do about the actual reality of that particular event.

That is what I intend to do in my next essay
OK.
Creationism vs. Evolution (Part I - Part II coming soon):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399

Part I refuted rather completely.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...&postcount=632

Bring on Part II.

Schools these days are all about teaching openness and looking at different opinions and such. Homosexuality is being taught under this openness bill. Feminism is being taught for openness. Liberalism of all forms is being pressed upon our children. People are ridiculed for not being open and not being accepting of these things.

Why then does this not extend to creationism and other religious things? If you are going to teach students feminism and gay rights in the name of being fair and open, then stop being hypocritical and banning religious teachings such as creationism!

1) If your school system is ridiculing your children because of their beliefs, they are wrong and it should be stopped.

2) Teaching children that everyone has equal rights under the law is not only a good idea, it is also what the law says. Do you think we should not teach children about the laws of our land?

3) Tolerance is not a science issue. Neither is creationism. Neither is religion. Many times throughout this thread it has been said that the teaching of comparative religion (which would include equal time for other major religions as well) is not a bad idea, but trying to inject religion into science class is. Creationists are not pushing for comparative religion to be a school subject, but rather for only one religious creation myth to be taught in a class where it clearly does not belong. If there were alternate SCIENTIFIC theories, they should certainly be taught. There are not any.

Why not? They teach science in creationism class these days. Why not reciprocate?

Why not? They teach science in creationism class these days. Why not reciprocate?

...what on earth is "creationism class"? :confused:



("Okay, students, take out your universes. Today, we're going to be making people out of mud.")

Is the flying spaghetti monster outside of his creation? Is he eternal? Is he outside of morality? Is he perfect, so he can provide absolute truths? Then you're referring to the Biblical God. It doesn't really matter what his name is.

That depends, is spending most of creation week so drunk and/or hung-over that you forgot you created Earth and created a second one perfect?

Creationism vs. Evolution (Part II)

Welcome to Part II of Creationism vs. Evolution. First off, I'd sincerely like to thank Upper Botswavia for being one of the best and most decent-mannered opponents I have come across at NationStates yet - and I am certainly happy to debate with her.

This does not mean that I agree with her theory (see above:http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230560&postcount=665 and Part I: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13229173&postcount=399 )

Now, I'm going to begin with one of Evolutions 'strongest' evidences. The issue of carbon dating. Does it really, accurately disprove a young earth?

As I have said before, I lack the extensive scientific knowledge required to formulate an essay based upon my own skill, therefore, I have made references to this international institute of scientists:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/



First, thanks! And I think you have been very civil too, even though you are incorrect in many of your assumptions. :D

Second, I deleted the remainder of your post because people can follow the link to read the original.

As they can follow these links to read opposing views.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html
http://www.answersincreation.org/radiometricdating.htm (which has many links!)
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm (also many links, including those that address the Flood)

Unfortunately, the proof against the "strongest" evidence seems to be based on picking out specific inaccuracies that do not sufficiently prove the point. Rather, it turns out that the biggest inaccuracies in carbon dating tend to fall on the side of being too conservative, that is dating things YOUNGER than they actually are, which shoots the YEC theory all to pieces.

Also, carbon dating is not the strongest evidence. It is one of many evidences. Others include the fruitfly mutation experiments, observations of moth mutations caused by pollution, scientific explorations of creating life from primordial soup in the lab, paleontology and comparative anatomy studies, virus mutations and antibiotics, and many others.

Interestingly (although not related to evolution), Young Earth Creationists also argue that God created the universe in the state it is today with the light from stars already on its way to us (they say this to disprove the science that shows the speed of light and the observable distance between the stars proves that the universe is considerably older than 6000 years). Here is a link I ran across in this research that refutes this belief.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm


Oh, also, could you stop this linking to your own posts thing? It makes me have to link back to mine (or look as though I agree with yours by letting them get by with no comment). Anyone who is interested will go back and read the thread. Also, (although I am assuming you do not mean it to) it appears arrogant and pretentious. Thanks!

'Creationism' is just yet another attempt by a religion loosing relevance in the modern world trying to replace an objective and rational discourse in scientific truth with the peddling of conspiracy theories. I made a thread about this recently, how evangelicals are making immensely complicated conspiracy theories regarding revelations and the end of world, some so strange that they include the UN, Middle east etc. Creationism is just another example of evangelicals to try and update their own delusions into a modern context. Christianity is loosing ground in the face of secularism, there aren't enough churches to fit everyone in America who tells pollsters they go to church every Sunday.

Why not? They teach science in creationism class these days. Why not reciprocate?

Errr... what? They do? The point we are making here is they should not. So what needs to be reciprocated?


*EDIT* Never mind... I read the post wrong, forget I said anything. I must be asleep, so I had better go to bed now. Goodnight all!

Golfballs?

Oddly enough, i didn't start that one. I think Fiddleysticks did 3 or 4 years ago. *gasp*
Has it been THAT long?!?
Besides, the image connotation is funnier on that one, imnsho.

The theory of creation is as scientific as it gets.Utterly, horribly, humiliatingly, painfully wrong.
:(
If you'd like me to elaborate on this, give me 1-2 days to formulate the appropriate answer.translation:
Give me 1-2 days for my Sunday group circle to get back to me with bullshit from their pastors, and the televangelists and their websites. So i can put it into a circular reasoning perspective that seems airtight as long as we go on assumptions for the "argument". Oh, wait ....

*honourable SNIP*

Oh, also, could you stop this linking to your own posts thing? It makes me have to link back to mine (or look as though I agree with yours by letting them get by with no comment).Remember, circular reasoning isn't just a tactic ... it's the way and the light!

Oh, also, could you stop this linking to your own posts thing? It makes me have to link back to mine (or look as though I agree with yours by letting them get by with no comment). Anyone who is interested will go back and read the thread. Also, (although I am assuming you do not mean it to) it appears arrogant and pretentious. Thanks!

Ah. I see what you mean - I just don't want the difficulty of having to provide a link for every person that takes me wrong because they haven't bothered to read my previous statements...but I see what you mean. I'll stop :).

Its time for bed for me too now anyway...you probably won't hear from me for the next 12 hours.

My Gods existence will be proven to each of us upon our deaths.
No, God's existence will (assuming, for the moment, it will). This is not the same as the thing you think about and assert things about, which was the point I was trying to make.

You are human, yes? Therefore, you do not know exactly what God is, just like you do not know exactly what I am, because we humans are restricted in knowledge to what we perceive and imagine and remember. When you talk about "your God", you're not actually referring to the God that is, because you know everything there is to know about "your God". Rather, you refer to a conceptual construct that has been elaborately created to Explain God, because this is much easier for people to come to grips with than God himself (much, I don't doubt, to His frustration).

I'm not holding this against you. It's something that humans naturally have a tendency to do. But it's something that we all need to be reminded of, the fact that our attempted explanations are just that: attempted explanations. It is folly to hold any such explanation, whether theological or scientific, with unshakeable faith, because all it is in the end is an idea designed to help us get by in a world as complex as this one. The laws of nature and of God are things that are solid and hard-written into the world (probably), but we can't trust our systems of understanding sufficiently to allow them to drive our actions independently of these laws.

I made a thread about this recently, how evangelicals are making immensely complicated conspiracy theories regarding revelations and the end of world, some so strange that they include the UN, Middle east etc. Creationism is just another example of evangelicals to try and update their own delusions into a modern context.

That reminds me - was i anywhere near the mark on a few of my assessments there?
Please pardon me if i hadn't.

Oddly enough, i didn't start that one. I think Fiddleysticks did 3 or 4 years ago. *gasp*
Has it been THAT long?!?
Besides, the image connotation is funnier on that one, imnsho.

A lot of people did that. Apparently, there is a subset of the NSG population that has golfballs on the brain. :p

Well, that exchange was pointless.

:fluffle:
*sigworthy*

A lot of people did that. Apparently, there is a subset of the NSG population that has golfballs on the brain. :p

It might be the balls ... and/or it might be the washers of said balls :eek: on the brain.
<.<
>.>

I didn't see the post so it doesn't exist.

Again, sigworthy.

Anyone, in all of this, bother bringing up ambulocetus natans, any of the anophales offshoots, the Afarensi, or staph yet?

It might be the balls ... and/or it might be the washers of said balls :eek: on the brain.
<.<
>.>

I would never use one of those; They are too high above crotch level.

My Gods existence will be proven to each of us upon our deaths.Because, as was made painfully obvious throughout the OT, s/he was simply too immature and emotionally fragile to handle life itself.
Thus the despair of life for mere mortals, to be without compassionate, sharing, and most of all PRESENT deity.
Thus, the vicarious and cowardly act of scapegoating Jesus.

I would never use one of those; They are too high above crotch level.

Not even a flying leap-at?
Many, many people have suggested such to me. Many.

Not even a flying leap-at?
Many, many people have suggested such to me. Many.

Recently, there was a Darwin Award winner involving one of those. A drunken golfer climbed onto one to use the ball washer in such a personal manner. Then he fell off and... well, he hit the ground and his balls stayed in the washer. :eek:

He lived, but he fulfilled the Darwin Awards requirement by removing himself from the genepool. :p

Edit: Dammit, Snopes! Okay, maybe there wasn't. ...

Recently, there was a Darwin Award winner involving one of those. A drunken golfer climbed onto one to use the ball washer in such a personal manner. Then he fell off and... well, he hit the ground and his balls stayed in the washer. :eek:

He lived, but he fulfilled the Darwin Awards requirement by removing himself from the genepool. :p

Did he fall off due the inebriation, or because those things TWIST on the way down?

EDIT: I hope this "edit"ing thing isn't a common occurrence. I'm hurt.

If you are right and there is no god then we lose nothing.

However if I am right then we are all in the same position and the choices we make now will decide our fate after we leave this life.Just make sure the choices you make during your life is the one that will save you.

Changing the way you live your life is losing nothing?

Changing the way you live your life is losing nothing?

I suspect living your life to its fullest would be winning everything .. that is, until it's taken away from you by inevitabilities and the like.
Or you give it freely, without dishonour, bitterness and despair ... which would come, again, from having lived it to its fullest.
That just may mean simply not giving it away to something that doesn't deserve it.

Did he fall off due the inebriation, or because those things TWIST on the way down?

EDIT: I hope this "edit"ing thing isn't a common occurrence. I'm hurt.

You know, while I applaud Snopes for their sifting of fact from fiction, sometimes they are real party poopers. :p

Utterly, horribly, humiliatingly, painfully wrong

Aha........I see........
Is that all?

translation:
Give me 1-2 days for my Sunday group circle to get back to me with bullshit from their pastors, and the televangelists and their websites. So i can put it into a circular reasoning perspective that seems airtight as long as we go on assumptions for the "argument". Oh, wait ....

Hmmm....

Because, as was made painfully obvious throughout the OT, s/he was simply too immature and emotionally fragile to handle life itself.
Thus the despair of life for mere mortals, to be without compassionate, sharing, and most of all PRESENT deity.
Thus, the vicarious and cowardly act of scapegoating Jesus.

Well folks, this is the type of person that is certainly not worthy of attention in this debate....and I'm quite fortunate that my current opponent is far too skilled to fire off silly little pointless insults....

If The Brevious would like to participate in this debate, and would like my further attention in the matter, I would suggest that he speak a little more maturely and actually attempt to sound a little more coherent, and maybe even provide something of substance.

What a joke.

You know, while I applaud Snopes for their sifting of fact from fiction, sometimes they are real party poopers. :p

I really haven't spent enough time there, for as WYTYG, it's a lot more fun to make people look stuff up to see if i'm making it up or not.
Like Anafranil and Limbaugh's draft-dodging pilonidal cyst operation.
What about StraightDope?

Well folks,Hahaha! Appeal to what exactly? You're the orator here, and we should follow you? Yes, delusions of grandeur.
this is the type of person that is certainly not worthy of attention in this debate....See above.
and I'm quite fortunate that my current opponent is far too skilled to fire off silly little pointless insults....See above, again.
I don't care enough if you think of yourself as "opponent". Truth and reason have already beat you to the punch on that one.


If The Brevious would like to participate in this debate, and would like my further attention in the matter, I would suggest that he speak a little more maturely and actually attempt to sound a little more coherent, and maybe even provide something of substance.....Try reading back a few pages. Or years. Besides, you're already chasing enough shadows as it is. Better clear that up before you start assigning things to anyone around here.
What a joke.What a whelp.
You don't know what you're talking about. If you like, i can do something so you can catch up though ....
*brb*
:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230747&postcount=678
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230827&postcount=690
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230450&postcount=662
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230459&postcount=663
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230505&postcount=664
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230578&postcount=666
*omg it's 666! :eek: *
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230599&postcount=668
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230610&postcount=670
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13230649&postcount=673

I find it quite interesting that Upper Botswavia failed to provide an answer for ANY of the questions I put foward to him. Instead, it seems he has frantically decided to dissect my own words from yesterday, in order to make up for his lost ground today...... and i find it quite interesting that you got your own pompous, misguided, redundant ass handed back to you with change to spare, and you're interested in lil' ol' moi? Charmed, i'm sure.
Here's a concept for you ... the conversation was fine *before* you. It didn't come to any particular brilliance *because* of you. Most, if not all issues won't be resolved *because* of you. And, people continue to post in whichever fashion they see fit based on their beliefs (however delusional they may be) *after* you. A select few, perhaps, *in spite of* you, but i kinda doubt that.

You know, I just have a gut feeling that if Creationism was still "the mainstream science", the Evangelical community would stop the needless and incessant rant about how their views are "being supressed" and how "people really need to know both sides"; because, as we all know, this whole idea of "teaching the controversy" is really just a rouse for the Creationists to keep an idea "out there" that everyone else has so rightly forgotten about.

YES! And while we're at it, I say we bring Woodworking to Gym class!

You know, that's not such a bad idea...woodworking really can be quite the workout.

Schools these days are all about teaching openness and looking at different opinions and such. Homosexuality is being taught under this openness bill. Feminism is being taught for openness. Liberalism of all forms is being pressed upon our children. People are ridiculed for not being open and not being accepting of these things.

Why then does this not extend to creationism and other religious things? If you are going to teach students feminism and gay rights in the name of being fair and open, then stop being hypocritical and banning religious teachings such as creationism!

I have no problem with teaching children about creationism. As long as it's taught in an appropriate class, i.e. a religion class.

Evangelicals aren't Christians in the proper interpretation of the gospel, conservatism, family values, anti-abortion and feminism, homophobic, opposition to scientific truth, none of these were even spoken about by Jesus. Jesus spoke about social and economic justice and that 'good' was not based on meaningless religious superstition but on practical good works and on material benefits to those less well off, 'by your deeds you will be judged'.

Evangelicalism is a mixture of anti-modern ultraconservatism, clerical fascism and masculine personality cults centered around charismatic preachers as well as regimen of strict personal morality.

I'm a scientist. I love science. I think everybody should do science. It's cool.

I hope some day Creationist stop being lazy and dishonest, and start doing science. They'd be much cooler if they did. Also, if they actually did some science then they'd be welcome in science class.

As it stands, I don't really see the point of having Creationism taught in school. It would take, what, 1 minute? "Some people say the God of the Bible created the universe. They've got no information about how or why this occured, nor does their theory provide any scientific insights of any kind, but they think it would be lovely if you agreed with them. Now, back to Algebra."

As it stands, I don't really see the point of having Creationism taught in school. It would take, what, 1 minute? "Some people say the God of the Bible created the universe. They've got no information about how or why this occured, nor does their theory provide any scientific insights of any kind, but they think it would be lovely if you agreed with them. Now, back to Algebra."

Wait, why is creationism being taught in a maths class? Some kind of compromise?

Wait, why is creationism being taught in a maths class? Some kind of compromise?
Makes as much sense as putting it in any other class.

Does it strike anyone here as ironic that over 2k years ago the Greeks were doing maths, science etc and even they knew that religion was just a tradition and didn't treat it seriously?

Does it strike anyone here as ironic that over 2k years ago the Greeks were doing maths, science etc and even they knew that religion was just a tradition and didn't treat it seriously?Yeah, but Jews were no Greeks. The religious nutjobs had always rejected the achievements of Hellenistic culture, just as they had disregarded the achievements of all high cultures. But I suppose this bunch of goatherds with their own faked little godhead just didn't know any better...

Well I can see it having a place in a religion class. Comparing different creation myths and what not.

Bletch, now we have to have an entire CLASS about religions? Better be an elective. That kind of time-wasting is better left to one's undergrad years. Comp Rel classes are perfect for napping because they spend the whole lecture telling stories.

Makes as much sense as putting it in any other class.
Well I can see it having a place in a religion class. Comparing different creation myths and what not.
Does it strike anyone here as ironic that over 2k years ago the Greeks were doing maths, science etc and even they knew that religion was just a tradition and didn't treat it seriously?

I see no irony in that, but maybe I'm just missing it.


Though the greeks weren't terribly good scientists. Philosophy they could do, but science, not so much. I think it was Pliny the Elder who blindly stated that buzzards have three testicles. That's some pretty crappy biology right there. I mean, even Kormanthor, who is as much as scientist as I am a space cowboy, can recognise what testicles are and count how many of them an animal has.

Bletch, now we have to have an entire CLASS about religions? Better be an elective. That kind of time-wasting is better left to one's undergrad years. Comp Rel classes are perfect for napping because they spend the whole lecture telling stories.

Of course it'd be an elective. We have to have something for the poor unfortunates who didn't get enough sleep the night before. Couldn't have them napping in a science lecture.

I was watching quite a good science series last night - Visions of the future
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/visions-future.shtml
The presenter Professor Michio Kaku said something that struck me as very significant in relation to advances in science and technology - he said something along the lines of "the present generation needs to be making decisions about how we handle advances in nanotechnology, genetics now".

Shame then that there seem to be people who are still trying to have a nineteenth century argument, trotting out the same tired old phrases about 'there must be a designer' or 'the bible proves', rather than actually learning anything about science. There are important decisions to be made and staying ignorant of science and making choices based on religious beliefs are not going to help.

I'm a scientist. I love science. I think everybody should do science. It's cool.

Agreed. I may be a lowly History major, but if I wasn't, I'd definitely have to be a science major. I forget who he was quoting, but Dawkins once quoted an interview in which the guy said "We think science is interesting, and if you don't agree, then you can fuck off." :D


I hope some day Creationist stop being lazy and dishonest, and start doing science. They'd be much cooler if they did. Also, if they actually did some science then they'd be welcome in science class.

Indeed. If they did actual science, that'd be a lot more interesting.


As it stands, I don't really see the point of having Creationism taught in school. It would take, what, 1 minute? "Some people say the God of the Bible created the universe. They've got no information about how or why this occured, nor does their theory provide any scientific insights of any kind, but they think it would be lovely if you agreed with them. Now, back to Algebra."

When I took Biology, both at high school and university level, some of the ideas were mentioned in passing, that is, something like, "Darwin was influenced by some of the new geological ideas about the age of the earth that replaced earlier ideas that people had gotten from the Bible." Very similar, really, to mentioning the earlier theory of spontaneous generation when discussing Pasteur's experiments, or the theory that a heavier object falls faster than a light one when discussing gravity.

Bletch, now we have to have an entire CLASS about religions? Better be an elective. That kind of time-wasting is better left to one’s undergrad years. Comp Rel classes are perfect for napping because they spend the whole lecture telling stories.
As an atheist, I found my lectures on religion and the philosophy of religion incredibly interesting.

Why not learn about religion? Religion has influenced a vast part of human history and a large amount of humans follow some religion or other. Surely we should at least educate ourselves about these belief systems and how they have shaped our lives?

I find there’s an undercurrent among many of my fellow atheists to try and remove any mention of religion from the education system, right up to and including university/college level. Make it some sort of thoughtcrime. It’s as if there’s a fear that anyone who even discusses religion will suddenly be swayed to becoming a fanatical zealot.

Everyday, thousands of students talk about economic systems, schools of philosophy, political theories, etc. that go directly against what they hold to be true. Does the education of different theories suddenly sway these students round to opposing points of view? In the most part, of course not.

Why should religious education be any different? And who the hell (pun very much intended) are we to suggest a certain mode of thought shouldn’t even be discussed in the appropriate classrooms?

The thought police? Now that's fundamentalist thinking.

As an atheist, I found my lectures on religion and the philosophy of religion incredibly interesting.

Why not learn about religion? Religion has influenced a vast part of human history and a large amount of humans follow some religion or other. Surely we should at least educate ourselves about these belief systems and how they have shaped our lives?

I find there’s an undercurrent among many of my fellow atheists to try and remove any mention of religion from the education system, right up to and including university/college level. Make it some sort of thoughtcrime. It’s as if there’s a fear that anyone who even discusses religion will suddenly be swayed to becoming a fanatical zealot.

Everyday, thousands of students talk about economic systems, schools of philosophy, political theories, etc. that go directly against what they hold to be true. Does the education of different theories suddenly sway these students round to opposing points of view? In the most part, of course not.

Why should religious education be any different? And who the hell (pun very much intended) are we to suggest a certain mode of thought shouldn’t even be discussed in the appropriate classrooms?

Religion =/= Creationism.

Universities are not remotely coming anywhere close to prohibiting religious studies.

There are many interesting topics that are not included in high school lesson plans, and it's not because of "thought police."

Next?

Religion =/= Creationism.
Well done for pointing out the blindingly obvious.

Of course religion isn’t the same as creationism, but (ignoring the Christian-centred view that seems to be floating about this thread that creationism=Christian creationism) most religions have a creation myth that’s almost always central to that religion’s view of the world. It would be foolish to try and understand the history of Europe without understanding Catholicism and Protestantism and how their dogma and creation myth shaped our history, and similarly it would be foolish to try and understand Asian history without looking at the Eastern religions and in turn their respective creation myths.

Universities are not remotely coming anywhere close to prohibiting religious studies in any way, shape, or form.
And I never said they were. But many people like you or me, atheists who believe organised religion can be detrimental to individuals/society, seem to show distaste that any discussion of religion could be in any way educational or helpful.

You yourself seemed to be disgusted (jauntily, I realise) at the thought of attending a class on religion.

I just want to separate, as you yourself may be doing, a warranted desire to remove Christian creationism from the science classroom, from a desire to remove religion from education altogether.

There are many interesting topics that are not included in high school lesson plans, and it’s not because of “thought police.”
I, again, realise this.

I’m just always wary when folks suggest they know what kids, and adults, should and shouldn’t be educated on.

I have two, giant rebuttals in this thread that took me a half hour each to write.

Fucking brown-noser :p

I frequently agree with you and your posts were wonderful. Kat, however made the material simplistic enough for even the slightly literate to understand. Good show Sir, but Kat wins only for simplicity. Interestingly enough we are all from the NY/NJ area. Must be something in the water that promotes brilliance. :p

I frequently agree with you and your posts were wonderful. Kat, however made the material simplistic enough for even the slightly literate to understand. Good show Sir, but Kat wins only for simplicity. Interestingly enough we are all from the NY/NJ area. Must be something in the water that promotes brilliance. :p

Except in your selection of politicians. :)

I frequently agree with you and your posts were wonderful. Kat, however made the material simplistic enough for even the slightly literate to understand. Good show Sir, but Kat wins only for simplicity. Interestingly enough we are all from the NY/NJ area. Must be something in the water that promotes brilliance. :p

*gnashes teeth* Alright, I'll give you that. Kat certainly did dumb it down for the common Creationist.

There's certainly something in the water, but I'm fairly sure the jury's still out on whether or not it's brilliance or luminescence it gives us. :D

Except in your selection of politicians. :)

In my defense, I didn't vote for Corzine. His stance on seatbelt laws was a turn-off :p

Well done for pointing out the blindingly obvious.

Then why did you respond to my comments about CREATIONISM with a whole post about RELIGION?

If you're just going to talk about something totally different, why quote me?


Of course religion isn’t the same as creationism, but (ignoring the Christian-centred view that seems to be floating about this thread that creationism=Christian creationism) most religions have a creation myth that’s almost always central to that religion’s view of the world. It would be foolish to try and understand the history of Europe without understanding Catholicism and Protestantism and how their dogma and creation myth shaped our history, and similarly it would be foolish to try and understand Asian history without looking at the Eastern religions and in turn their respective creation myths.
Bunk. I learned all about the history of Europe without having one single class about the Biblical creation myth. Wasn't remotely a problem.


And I never said they were. But many people like you or me, atheists who believe organised religion can be detrimental to individuals/society, seem to show distaste that any discussion of religion could be in any way educational or helpful.

So you're arguing over a point I didn't make? Have fun with that.


You yourself seemed to be disgusted (jauntily, I realise) at the thought of attending a class on religion.

No, a class on CREATIONISM. We've been over this. Remember the bit about it being "blindingly obvious"?


I just want to separate, as you yourself may be doing, a warranted desire to remove Christian creationism from the science classroom, from a desire to remove religion from education altogether.

From public, pre-university education? Yep, you bet. I'm fine with it being an elective option, like shop or bowling were in my high school, but there's no reason to force anybody to waste their time on it.

Then why did you respond to my comments about CREATIONISM with a whole post about RELIGION?



So you're arguing over a point I didn't make? Have fun with that.


I think perhaps the misunderstanding has come about because you used the word religion rather than creationism in the quoted post that started all this

Originally Posted by Bottle
Bletch, now we have to have an entire CLASS about religions? Better be an elective. That kind of time-wasting is better left to one's undergrad years. Comp Rel classes are perfect for napping because they spend the whole lecture telling stories

I think perhaps the misunderstanding has come about because you used the word religion rather than creationism in the quoted post that started all this
Ahh, I see. I kinda figured it came across that that was a joke, especially since the person it was directed at responded in kind.

Okay, here, let me spell it out for the sake of clarity:

Creationism is boring. It takes less than a minute to explain it, and it provides no useful information whatsoever unless you are pursuing a literary discussion about Biblical symbolism or some such.

I don't think there should be any required class or classes "about" Creationism, because it's an extremely simple topic that won't actually provide any useful skills to students.

Religious studies can be useful if the course is designed properly, though my experience has been that most such classes are more fluff than substance (typically because everybody reflexively tip-toes around criticism of religion). In all honesty, I don't think any American public school could run a decent religious studies class, because any good class would end up drawing the ire of some radical religious nut parent who'd immediately demand that they stop teaching Little Billy to think.

Universities are not remotely coming anywhere close to prohibiting religious studies.Which is a shame. They should instead endorse the study of real history and archeology, instead of allowing the pursuit of theologically/ideologically re-interpreted history and archeology.

Schools these days are all about teaching openness and looking at different opinions and such. Homosexuality is being taught under this openness bill. Feminism is being taught for openness. Liberalism of all forms is being pressed upon our children. People are ridiculed for not being open and not being accepting of these things.

Why then does this not extend to creationism and other religious things? If you are going to teach students feminism and gay rights in the name of being fair and open, then stop being hypocritical and banning religious teachings such as creationism!

All right puppet, let's make this perfectly clear. All of the things you stated are purely flaimbait so I won't play your game. No one is "teaching homosexuality" they are just teaching to respect people who are different and not discriminate against them. No one is discriminating against the majority in this case. What they are saying is that creationism can be taught in school. It cannot however be taught in science class because it doesn't meet the criteria for the scientific method. Do you understand?

Which is a shame. They should instead endorse the study of real history and archeology, instead of allowing the pursuit of theologically/ideologically re-interpreted history and archeology.

Agreed. History isn't about finding a pre-determined premise or forcing everything to fit a certain "story" (which is what- to piledrive the discussion somewhat on topic- Creationists and their ilk keep on doing), it's about finding the facts and pieceing a story through that. Yes it may be "nice" if Abram existed but if we can't find any evidence that he did, there's no point putting him in the history books.

I took a fourth-year History course where we were to piece together the History of ancient Israel simply through non-Biblical sources- which mainly included the Assyrian and Babylonian records. 'Twas an interesting and eye-opening course to say the least.

Of course, teaching realistic criticism on the theory of evolution would be fine. The classes on evolution seem like an excellent place for that.
Which should make all the creationists happy - they after all seem to do nothing besides criticising it.

However, criticism on evolution is in no way a reason to teach creationism. One needs to prove creationism has some merit first for that.

Which is a shame. They should instead endorse the study of real history and archeology, instead of allowing the pursuit of theologically/ideologically re-interpreted history and archeology.

Not all Religious Studies courses are like that. I am taking a R.S. elective on Abrahamaic Fundamentalism, the history of it (1900-present) and comparing and contrasting them on their views on evolution, Homosexuality, women's rights , etc. The most positive response to their stances and their arguments for those stances is a chuckle at their logical fallacies. It is a fun class.

Then why did you respond to my comments about CREATIONISM with a whole post about RELIGION?
Because you quite clearly stated the term ‘religion’, as Dundee-Fienn pointed out.

My apologies for your typo.

Bunk. I learned all about the history of Europe without having one single class about the Biblical creation myth. Wasn’t remotely a problem.
Why prevent yourself from being educated?

Much of European history, as I’m sure you know, was dominated by the rule of the Catholic church and the subsequent reactions to such rule. It would seem to me that to gain a rounded education, and to for interests sake, it would be sensible to gain a knowledge of said religion; including its creation myth.

It’s this almost deliberate avoidance of religious education that sticks in my craw. What are you scared of?

So you’re arguing over a point I didn’t make? Have fun with that.
No, I’m exploring and debating a point that *shockgasphorror* may not entirely revolve around you and your views.

More fool me for trying to expand a discussion.

No, a class on CREATIONISM. We’ve been over this. Remember the bit about it being “blindingly obvious”?
Again, blame it on your typo.

We’re not all mind readers, some of us have to rely on what posters post, rather than what’s in their heads.

From public, pre-university education? Yep, you bet. I’m fine with it being an elective option, like shop or bowling were in my high school, but there’s no reason to force anybody to waste their time on it.
Fair nuff.

I wouldn’t want anyone to be ‘forced’ to be educated on religion, by I don’t see the harm in religious education per se. I managed to be educated on Islam, Christianity, and Judaism at a relatively young age without instantly joining a mosque, church or synagogue, while my education in later life on the Dharmic and Chinese religions expanded my understanding of Asian history and Eastern philosophy.

I, too, don’t want to see children indoctrinated at a young age. But I feel we may be slipping in the other direction; deliberately avoiding religious education because of some irrational fear that children and young adults might independently come to believe in a god or gods.

Take UB’s post below:

Which is a shame. They should instead endorse the study of real history and archeology, instead of allowing the pursuit of theologically/ideologically re-interpreted history and archeology.

Now, I wouldn’t want to see Biblical history taught as fact in schools or colleges, but to ban religious studies altogether seems utterly ridiculous. This fundamentalist view — that we should try and prevent discussion and enquiry of a particular topic or topics — is, I believe, harmful, dishonest and should be anathema to those of us who support independent thinking and enlightened education

Now, I wouldn’t want to see Biblical history taught as fact in schools or colleges, but to ban religious studies altogether seems utterly ridiculous. This fundamentalist view — that we should try and prevent discussion and enquiry of a particular topic or topics — is, I believe, harmful, dishonest and should be anathema to those of us who support independent thinking and enlightened education.
Religious studies are conducted under the premise of the biblical god existing and interacting with humans in the fashion that the bible describes it. Studying with unfounded premises is the opposite of independent thinking and enlightened education. I would not dislike to see Biblical history taught in school as possible fact, but without the ideology/theology part.

Religious studies are conducted under the premise of the biblical god existing and interacting with humans in the fashion that the bible describes it.
Utter nonsense.

One can quite easily study religion without first assuming it speaks the truth. Perhaps the American education system is so fucked up that it finds this impossible, but here in the UK children and adults study religions without assuming they’re factual.

Moreover, religious studies cover far more than just the Christian faith.

Utter nonsense.

One can quite easily study religion without first assuming it speaks the truth. Perhaps the American education system is so fucked up that it finds this impossible, but here in the UK children and adults study religions without assuming they’re factual.

Moreover, religious studies cover far more than just the Christian faith.But who studies theology? Believers. I have never met theology students who weren't active members of their respective churches and only ones who started their study exactly because they assumed the biblical god to be real. And universities (in collaboration with the churches) subsequently only offer such theology courses that are tailored for believers. As someone interested in more objective fields of study one would have to study history and archeology.

But who studies theology? Believers. I have never met theology students who weren't active members of their respective churches and who started their study exactly because they assumed the biblical god to be real. And universities (in collaboration with the churches) subsequently only offer such theology courses that are tailored for believers. As someone interested in more objective fields of study one would have to study history and archeology.I've met someone that did Religious Studies in a religion she wasn't part of.

But who studies theology? Believers. I have never met theology students who weren’t active members of their respective churches and only ones who started their study exactly because they assumed the biblical god to be real.
Well, you’re talking to one now! :p

I’ve studied religion and the philosophy of religion for a few years now, and have gained — as an atheist — a huge amount from the courses. Obviously, religious studies courses will appeal to the believer, but to claim it’s impossible to study religion from a neutral point of view is rather short-sighted.

And universities (in collaboration with the churches) subsequently only offer such theology courses that are tailored for believers. As someone interested in more objective fields of study one would have to study history and archeology.
My university offers both Divinity courses, which are part of the process to becoming a Church of Scotland minister (and which are more on par with what you are talking about), as well as religious studies courses that assume no standpoint on belief in a god or gods.

Creation theory should be regulated. It should be stamped 'adults only' and taught to willing, not captive audiences when the brain has developed into a thinking machine.

So that being said, church membership should be strictly adults only and be treated just like sexually oriented businesses.

Creationism theory should be taught in churches only, or in the home once the child reaches maturity.

I say 21 years of age since that is the recognized age of adulthood through most of the world.

Well, you’re talking to one now! :p

I’ve studied religion and the philosophy of religion for a few years now, and have gained — as an atheist — a huge amount from the courses. Obviously, religious studies courses will appeal to the believer, but to claim it’s impossible to study religion from a neutral point of view is rather short-sighted.


My university offers both Divinity courses, which are part of the process to becoming a Church of Scotland minister (and which are more on par with what you are talking about), as well as religious studies courses that assume no standpoint on belief in a god or gods.Well, that seems to be different in Spain, France, and Germany, where I've lived so far.

Well, that seems to be different in Spain, France, and Germany, where I’ve lived so far.
That’s a shame.

I really feel a great deal of understanding of history, the development of philosophy, literature, and other subjects can come from an in-depth, critical yet calm look at religion.

That’s a shame.

I really feel a great deal of understanding of history, the development of philosophy, literature, and other subjects can come from an in-depth, critical yet calm look at religion.

It is difficult to look at religion calmly since it is responsible for most conflicts fought throughout history. "My invisible man is better than yours" has caused more suffering in the world than almost any other issue.

One must really carefully disect each religion to find out what its meaning is, not by it's acts. Bigotry, racial hate, oppression, all dutifully documented and ecouraged in every religion because "might is right".

Religion has some good points, but it's negatives far outweigh the positives. It is a good way to control the sheep, but it also is a good way to grab power.

But who studies theology? Believers.

I study it out of interest in my free time, though not at a uni.
And I am somewhat of a heathen ;)

That’s a shame.

I really feel a great deal of understanding of history, the development of philosophy, literature, and other subjects can come from an in-depth, critical yet calm look at religion.So which religions have you been studying? And which aspects of history? The focus wasn't on biblical religion? That's interesting.


I study it out of interest in my free time, though not at a uni.That's what I do. ;)
And I am somewhat of a heathen ;)I'm a "Sumerophile Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist", that's what I clicked when was voting in a recent poll (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542706&highlight=sumerophile) around here...

Religion has some good points, but it’s negatives far outweigh the positives. It is a good way to control the sheep, but it also is a good way to grab power.
I agree that religion can be used for nefarious ends, but this is perhaps even more reason to study it.

Education is the key.


So which religions have you been studying? And which aspects of history? The focus wasn't on biblical religion? That's interesting.
At various times in my education I've studied the various forms, sects and denominations of Christianity (including 18th century Deism), Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, various animisms, and the Hellenic, Roman and Norse pantheons. I've also studied the philosophy of religion, and in my own time read up on the 'native' religions of North and South America.

Studies of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the Hellenic, Roman and Norse pantheons helped tremendously for understanding European history, literature, art, architecture, philosophy, etc., while, studies of Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto and the various animisms, helped with courses on Eastern history, literature and philosophy.

None of the courses detailing the above ever viewed the religions from a Christian point of view, or even from a necessarily theist one.

And even if you think they're a load of old bollocks, much of the myths of all these religions are tremendously entertaining to read.

I agree that religion can be used for nefarious ends, but this is perhaps even more reason to study it.

Education is the key.

I agree. However the study OF religion is best done from outside it using critical thinking. When listening to a religious person, you have to take all that is said through a filter. Very often they make huge leaps in logic to justify their position and you have to be on the lookout for it. They base their entire argument off of some obscure point that was never substantiated.

"Yes and the clock chimed at noon, therefore god exists."

I agree that religion can be used for nefarious ends, but this is perhaps even more reason to study it.

Education is the key.

True. One of the main uses of religion is controlling people that would otherwise be a menace to society. The ones that ask questions like "if there is no God, what reason is there to not rape and murder" and genuinely can not think of an answer. Great potential for nefarious deeds, but necessary.

Pity such people do not realise that they should look up to the nonreligious people who are capable of thinking and behave decently without God.

At various times in my education I've studied the various forms, sects and denominations of Christianity (including 18th century Deism), Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto, various animisms, and the Hellenic, Roman and Norse pantheons. I've also studied the philosophy of religion, and in my own time read up on the 'native' religions of North and South America.

Studies of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the Hellenic, Roman and Norse pantheons helped tremendously for understanding European history, literature, art, architecture, philosophy, etc., while, studies of Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shinto and the various animisms, helped with courses on Eastern history, literature and philosophy.

None of the courses detailing the above ever viewed the religions from a Christian point of view, or even from a necessarily theist one.

And even if you think they're a load of old bollocks, much of the myths of all these religions are tremendously entertaining to read.I agree. I wish I had time to study all of that. What about Mesopotamia and Egypt? What about religions that are gone now but were big influences for beliefs of today?

I have a question, and I hope someone can answer it for me. I have never gotten an answer to this before, which mean that there isn't one.

Who created the matter we supposedly evolved from, and what caused that matter to evolve?

I have a question, and I hope someone can answer it for me. I have never gotten an answer to this before, which mean that there isn't one.

Who created the matter we supposedly evolved from, and what caused that matter to evolve?

*sigh*

Abiogenesis is not evolution.

I have a question, and I hope someone can answer it for me. I have never gotten an answer to this before, which mean that there isn't one.

Who created the matter we supposedly evolved from, and what caused that matter to evolve?

I can offer a lyrical description which might help you think about that.

Instead of asking "who", try asking "what." So: "what created the matter of the universe?"

Physical stuff follows laws. Even though we don't know all the laws, it is plain that the laws we do know (or approximate) have predictive power, and are therefore good descriptors of what physical stuff does.

So, when the question is phrased as "what created the universe" ... we can only answer "something other than the observable universe" ... if we can answer at all. It has NO CAUSE THAT WE CAN KNOW.

The cosmologist wrestles with this "creation dilemma" because before any observable fact is an unknowable. Likewise the creationist: before the observable universe was an intention of God, which is unknowable.

As to what causes "matter" to evolve: overwhelmingly IT DOESN'T, at least so far as we can see. Only in a thin shell of our little planet, the biosphere, does life evolve: well over 99% of our planet (and the entire universe so far as we know) follows the principle (law?) of increasing entropy. Matter is rotting into states of lower energy and greater confusion, everywhere but in our little biosphere.

That is a great wonder, whatever explanation you prefer for it.

I would never use one of those; They are too high above crotch level.

The very obvious solution is platform golf shoes.

:D

I have a question, and I hope someone can answer it for me. I have never gotten an answer to this before, which mean that there isn't one.

Who created the matter we supposedly evolved from, and what caused that matter to evolve?

The problem with this question is it is interpreted in two ways.

1: By asking 'who' instead of 'what' you have slanted the question. There is no 'who'. Therefore the answer is "No one".

2: Further you state we 'evolved' from matter. If one assumes we have indeed evolved from matter, then in your world this presumes to have a creator, or a 'who'.

Since it has not been proven we have evolved from matter, one can logically conclude that until it is proven, it is just a theory.

So my answer would be: It has not been proven that we have evolved from matter and further there is no reason to assume an unseen deific force created such matter. Further, there is no reason to conclude this unseen force caused the evolution of matter.

So since 'god' has not been proven to exist, and evolution has not been proven to exist, the question is irrelevant.

I further would ask why you need to imply an unseen force exists when it is irrelevant? We are here. Did someone or something cause it to be? Clearly we are here but the origin is not very helpful to know.

Who created the paperclip? Is it relevant? Or is it enough to know it exists.

No, NOVA ran an entire episode on it. It was on a recent court case decision. In fact time magazine said that the judge who ruled that creationism couldn't be taught in that districts public schools, as one of Time Magazines 100 most influenial persons of the year.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/