Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I think it's really stupid that Georgia banned teaching about evolution in school, the fact is, there is a ton of stuff in the natural world that can't be explained without evolution

What do y'all think about it

well we are learning some aspects of Evolution in Bio AP class. Darwin and his ideas of evolution. i think its very interesting. i read that we are 98 percent related to the types of apes/monkies etc etc. WE are genetically related to these "apes" but phenotipically i dont think we look anything like them....by bone structure....hairiness....organ structure...etc etc

yeah I've heard that too

I think the ban is bullshit. Damn you to hell churchies (j/k)

the ban? elaborate... hell churchies? i dont think we are discussing religion...?

¿

here's a question.

Twins. Dave and Paul.

Dave spends his life working a job, drinks beer on weeends and watches his fav sport. Dave is quite happy with this and continues this kind of lifestyle till his dying day.

Paul spends his life seeking a larger question about life. goes out and educates himself, travels wanting to learn as much about the world and as much about himself as a person, life quest, spirituality, kindness and love.

Which if any would you say has 'evolved' more during their life?

How about Brian who spends his life drinking abeer, watching his fav sport, yet still managing to find time to use science to descover why things are and how things work in the world around him with an open mind and therefor expanding his mind and knowledge for himself and the rest of mankind. Of course, this is opposed to going around saying that things are just created and thats the way things are.

Well the question was really asking do you think 'evolution' is now a personal choice for us?

I don't understand whether it's a personal choice in regards to a biological change over time...but if it's environmental or societal then in all probability it is...

???
Ban evolution??? Ehrm...
Why? Back to the middle-ages or... ???

It has to do with the super-conservative right wing Christians--they don't believe in evolution because they take the bible quite literally, meaning that they think the earth and all life was created by god in a week.

You do know that Darwin even abondoned his theories later in life, right? Besides, it is just that - a theory. So, why not teach both evolution and creation as theories. They both have some scientific data backing them.

I think it is a very, very bad state of affairs if we try and imply that Paul has spent a more worthwhile life.

Idd....

That's a good idea take them both as separeate classes, since there both theories

Darth Revan> But…
(faints!)

Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.
Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.
There’s absolutely zero evidence for creationism.
Man! What’s happening to the so-called civilised world?? What, are we going to go back to the Christian world-view anno 1000? Aka Earth as the centre of the Universe?

Julibug> Actually, no, Darwin didn’t abandon his theories on evolution. The Darwin deathbed story is false. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html) And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it.
As I wrote above – evolution is FAR more than just a theory. That biologists still debate over details of it is a good thing. Science evolves, mistakes are made that have to be rectified.
Can’t claim the same thing about the Bible, which is littered with wrong translations.
What scientific evidence backs up Creation?

If we start teaching young people stuff which there is no scientific proof of, what’ll be next? Astrology classes? Ghost-classes?

Separation of state and church!!!

Omega which part of the creation theory do you mean
Because The beginning for creation says that God made everything in one week, but for the evolution side, it all started with a big bang, which know one knows where the stuff came from or why it blew up to create... life (that's gotta be the most retarded assumption that evolutionists have made)

but i got these other questions from a site, and there actually pretty good questions that i would like you (The omega) of or anybody else to answer, and of course if you have question about Creation then i'd be glad to answer them.

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? (See page 6.) What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve?

2. Do you realize how complex living things are? How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve? How could such motors work until all components evolved completely and were precisely in place?

3. If macroevolution happened, where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don’t we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?

4. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?

5. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.

6. Please point to a strictly natural process that creates information. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4,000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacterium also imply an intelligent source?

7. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

8. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?

9. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn’t it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?

10. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?

11. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 128+ moons in the solar system?

12. Where did matter, space, time, energy, or even the laws of physics come from? What about water?

13. How could stars evolve?

14. Are you aware of all the unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who say the earth is billions of years old?

15. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.

16. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?

17. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends?

18. Have you heard about the mitochondrial Eve and the genetic Adam? Scientists know that the mitochondrial Eve was the common female ancestor of every living person, and she appears to have lived only about 6,000–7,000 years ago.

19. Careful researchers have found the following inside meteorites: living bacteria, salt crystals, limestone, water, sugars, terrestrial-like brines, and earthlike isotopic patterns. Doesn’t this implicate Earth as their source—and a powerful launcher, “the fountains of the great deep?”

20. Would you explain the origin of any of the following 25 features of the earth: The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons, Mid-Oceanic Ridge, Continental Shelves and Slopes, Ocean Trenches, Seamounts and Tablemounts, Earthquakes, Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor Submarine Canyons, Coal and Oil Formations, Methane Hydrates, Ice Age Frozen Mammoths, Major Mountain Ranges, Overthrusts, Volcanoes and Lava, Geothermal Heat, Strata and Layered Fossils, Metamorphic Rock Limestone, Plateaus, Salt Domes, Jigsaw Fit of the Continents, Changing Axis Tilt, Comets, Asteroids and Meteoroids?

Aint that alot of question but like i said feel free to ask me just as many, because Creation Science isn't a religion. It's a theory, just like it's arch nemesis.

Answer the one's that you can

well, i'm not here to answer the questions, cuz i don't believe in evolution, the biggest thing that sticks out in my mind is the big bang. So there was all this stuff that blew up, but where did it come from? And in relation to teaching stuff w/o proof, maybe it doesnt' make sense to everybody, but thats all part of faith, believing in something you can't see or touch. And on yet another note, I fear for the US and its constant struggle w/ church and state. Our country was founded on christian morals.....one nation, under God.....in God we trust.....but yet every chance we get, we try to take God out of our gov't, we are only bringing on our own distruction by doing so.

I read that Darwin was thinking about giving up on his theories but he didn't.

A reply to the whole church/state thing for those who are interested:

Some states at the time of the founding had established churches which all citizens were taxed to support, e.g., Virginia (Episcopalian). Others (seven states as late as 1798) restricted office-holding to Christians or certain types of Christians. But by early in the 19th century, these practices were abolished and non-establishment of religion was adhered to by the state governments as well.

The prohibitions against establishment and religious tests for public office came to be known as the "separation of church and state." Whatever they are called, they were essential to the founding of America for two main reasons. First, it was key to maintaining the kind of limited government that is compatible with liberty, or to preventing the members of a majority religion from tyrannizing members of minority religions. As James Madison wrote in Memorial and Remonstrance: "Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world by vain attempts of the secular arm to extinguish religious discord by proscribing all difference in religious opinion." In the New World of the American founding, the secular government, rather than establishing one religion, would uphold religious freedom. As stated in the State Constitution of Massachusetts, no citizen would be "hurt, molested, or restrained in his person, liberty or estate" on the basis of religion.

The separation of church and state was thus an essential means by which government would be kept from overstepping its bounds.

The second important purpose of the separation of church and state concerns the character of religious faith and worship. In brief, in the words of the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, true faith and worship must "be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." Combining church and state, in other words, not only corrupts the government, leading it to violate natural rights, but it corrupts the church, leading it to a vain attempt to compel faith×vain, because true faith must be freely given.

Contrary to a common modern misconception, then, separation of church and state as the Founders understood it was not an anti-religious concept. It was aimed at protecting the purity of the realm of faith and worship as well as at preventing government overreach. This is why most of America's religious leaders from the founding on have supported the separation of church and state, and why American churches have flourished under the doctrine.

Indeed, one can see that the "separation of church and state" was not an anti-religious concept by considering the phrase's origin. The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. Rather, it originated in a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Baptists Association of Danbury, Connecticut: "I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should Ñmake no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state." The fact that President Jefferson did not mean this phrase to imply a hostile or even a neutral relationship between church and state is indicated by the fact that he ends this official letter with a prayer: "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man."

Despite its original context, Jefferson's phrase has been widely interpreted in recent years to prohibit any and all types of government support for religion.

(from http://www.founding.com/gohome.htm)

To add - I really am not trying to turn this into a religious discussion. I just get tired of people using that phrase "sep. of church & state" incorrectly.

Btw, Omega - good questions.

How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.
Quoted: The Force


From reading articles and listening to my Bio AP teacher, he said that some scientists agree that the first cell was created by a comet passing by the earth and "spreading" some molecules on to the surface of the earth. And comets (as my teacher says) are mostly composed as the same things organsims are.......

As far as science and creation - I'm not even going to pretend that I understand all of this. But here are some sites to check out:

(from http://www.theologyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5582):

The science of evolution is something that anyone that is adequately knowledgeable will accept. This is always true regardless of any other beliefs that the person may hold. Take me as an example, I am a Christian, and yet I wholly accept the science of evolution (SOE).

But the metaphysic of evolution (MOE) goes beyond science - far beyond - and is in fact no longer "science". I totally reject and oppose the MOE.

This is a lengthy topic so I'll just give you one example which should explain the distinction: the SOE says nothing about origins (how did life begin?... how did the universe begin?... etc.).

But the MOE does speak of these things - it has to! It speaks of a young universe "evolving"... stars "evolving"... chemical elements "evolving" through the process of nucleosynthesis in stars... planets "evolving" over billions of years until, sometimes, they "evolve" the right conditions that allows life to naturally emerge... then this life "evolves" into the complexity and diversity found in a planetary biota.

The totality of this is a metaphysic - it is not observable, repeatable, demonstrable, experimentally verifiable, or falsifiable... in short, it is not 'science' the way you understand science.

The trick is that the SOE and the MOE are intermingled in such a way that most people don't realize that they're swallowing the MOE when they truly only believe in the SOE.


& from (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html):

Fast Facts...
on the origin of life -

During all recorded human history, there has never been a substantiated case of a living thing being produced from anything other than another living thing.

As yet, Evolutionism has not produced a scientifically credible explanation for the origin of such immense complexities as DNA, the human brain, and many elements of the cosmos.

It is highly premature for materialists to claim that all living things evolved into existence, when science has yet to discover how even one protein molecule could actually have come into existence by natural processes.

There is no scientific proof that life did (or ever could) evolve into existence from non-living matter. Further, there is substantial evidence that spontaneous generation is impossible. Only DNA is known to produce DNA. No chemical interaction of molecules has even come close to producing this ultra-complex code which is so essential to all known life.

&

THIS IS GOOD! - http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm

Funny & interesting - http://www.case-creation.org.uk/acfc.html

good links^

Georgia is a US State that Evolved differently from other US States.

Life is always changing and, although we have been able to shed a lot of nature, we to continue to evolve. Evolution is some what missleading because people tend to take it as progress, but the human race, especialy in modernized society, seems to be becoming less adept at survival. Take the introduction of medicine. It has the opposite effect of, say, pestisides. While organisims that we try to eradicate with pestisides evolve to be stronger and more immune, medice cause us to become weaker and more suceptible to invasion by virus and bacteria. That goes for all technology. Shoes make the soles of our feet softer, clothes cause us to shed our hair, and our lazy life styles make our muscles weaker. There is a good argument for the degrading of our brain power. It would be interesting to see what man will become in another few thousand years. Will we even be able to get out of our chairs?....lol no really sometimes i feel like im stuck to my computer chair.

Reminds me of "The Time Machine".

i feel like the people from the past were much more intellectual. i feel like the more i go to school the more my brain shrinks LOL

more people on the planet = more stattic in the air waves if you know what I mean. Especially the more of us who are asleep. I would like to think though that it is life doin it's thing. Bring it down to bursting point and well...let it go POP! when the time is right.

Here's what I think about evolution:
I believe that the only way we reached our current state is through evolution. The first, tiny speck of a single-celled organism appeared, and slowly evolved into more complex life--invertebrates, fish, reptiles, insects, plants, fungi, birds, and mammals. The only possible way we could have gotten from being a little bug made up mostly of cytoplasm to being the most intelligent life we know of is through evolution. And we didn't just appear as we are today overnight. God didn't pick up a ball of mud and shape it into a little man who he named Adam. However, the only way for life to have appeared in the first place is through some sort of supernatural entity. The Christian creation thing at the beginning of the old testament is equivalent to something almost every culture in the world has--creation myth. For example, "long ago, the earth was an egg. Then a great spirit made a crack in the shell, reached into it, and pulled the two halves apart. He breathed onto the surface of the land, making air. He slit his arms and bled onto the earth, making water. When he is angry, he shakes the earth, making earthquakes. He created man in likeness of himself, and animals to inhabit the earth with him." That story sounds like a load of bull to anybody who has gotten out of the dark ages. I find it interesting that a lot of conservative Christians prefer to ignore science and believe in a creation myth that is thousands of years old and has no basis in fact. Whatever ancient it was who wrote the book of Genesis was doing what all cultures do--trying explain why we are here today, who created us, etc. etc. I'm not trying to offend anyone and I apologize if I did. That is my opinion only. So just to reiterate, I believe in evolution, but I also believe that there has to be some kind of divine power that created the first life form. He did not create us as we are today.

hockeyhorror: I agree--if anything, the human race is getting weaker, and the things we are fighting are getting stronger. Both material and figurative. We are trying to stop terrorism. This only makes the terrorists angrier at us and makes them want to attack us even more. So we fight them more. It becomes a vicious cycle.

God with a capitol G, DR. You might offend those super-conservative right wing Christians. Hell, calling them super-conservative my offend them.

Try not to get too religious in here, guys. Remember, it is against the rules to discuss religion, due to the fact that everyone is at each other's throats once they start to disagree. Trust me, I've been here awhile.

Anyway, I go with what the Bible says, simply because I'm Christian. Sure, sometimes it is very easy to doubt that there was no evolution, but I'm a faithful Christian. Though, the subject of evolution is still fascinating.

I'm only answering these two because 1)I'm too lazy and 2)a lot of my answers for the other ones would be almost identical

3. Simple--not everything that dies becomes a fossil. Any palientologist or biologist will tell you this. The chances of a living thing becoming a fossil after it dies are VERY, VERY small. Furthermore, scientists have pieced together a reasonable record of the earth's history based on fossils, rocks, the position of the continents, etc.

20. The Grand Canyon was formed by millions of years of the Colorado River eroding it slowly away. Any geologist will tell you this. They will also tell you how any of those other things (or at least the ones on Earth) came into being. Coal and Oil, for example, is merely single-celled life that has been slowly decomposing over the past billion years. Hence the name "fossil fuel".

Also, I disagree with whatever theory anybody comes up with as to how the universe came into being. There is absolutely no way to prove one theory right or wrong.

I want to go back to the middle ages. And take like a DVD player, so hot middle ages chicks can dig me and stuff.

It would really help the relevance of the thread if you didn't post stuff like that.. If you don't have something useful to say, don't say anything at all.

Yes, some things decompose rather than fossilize.

20. Canyons come from water running over one place for millions of years. Ridges, Shelves, Slopes, Trenches, Seamounts, Tablemounts, Earthquakes, Magnetic Variations, Volcanoes, Mountain Ranges, Overthrusts, types of rocks, Plateaus, Salt Domes all come from the continental plates moving and a few other factors. Coal and Oil formations are things decomposing and compressed. The jigsaw fit of continents is, once again, continental plates moving. Geothermal heat is from the core of the earth, which is friggin hot. Axis tilt comes from rotations of the Earth. Comets, Asteroids, and Meteoroids have nothing to do with Earth, they are just there.

Though, I have no idea what that has to do with evolution...

The Force> So you call people who do not agree with you retarded???
You seem to know absolutely nothing about cosmology. What on Earth gave you the idea, that Big Bang just blew up and created life like that –snaps fingers –
Only hydrogen and helium were created in Big bang. Heavier elements were created in stars, and ejected into space in supernovas. Heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen, which are among the building blocks of life.
You say you want to answer questions: Well, go ahead and answer the questions I posted in my previous post then. Such as the scientific evidence for creation.

1) Palaeontologists have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor", Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.

2) Yes, living beings are complex. But the complexity of life doesn’t prove it was created by any divine being or beings. Nature also has quite a lot of organisms, that show features of appallingly bad design. This is because evolution via natural selection cannot construct traits from scratch; new traits must be modifications of previously existing traits. This is called historical constraint. A few examples of bad design imposed by historical constraint:
In human males, the urethra passes right through the prostate gland, a gland very prone to infection and subsequent enlargement. This blocks the urethra and is a very common medical problem in males. Putting a collapsible tube through an organ that is very likely to expand and block flow in this tube is not good design. Any moron with half a brain (or less) could design male "plumbing" better.
In African locust, the nerve cells that connect to the wings originate in the abdomen, even though the wings are in the thorax. This strange "wiring" is the result of the abdomen nerves being co-opted for use in flight. A good designer would not have flight nerves travel down the ventral nerve cord past their target, then backtrack through the organism to where they are needed. Using more materials than necessary is not good design.

3 There are gaps in the fossil record due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. Evolutions, however, explaions the fossils. Creationists do not, and cannot account for the age of the fossils if the Earth is only 6000 years old (as Bishop Ussher calculated it to be according to the Bible).

4) Scientists don't claim that cells and multi-cell creatures came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors

5) That we can’t explain the origins of something, doesn’t prove divinity. A few hundred years ago, people had no clue how lightening worked, and even earlier that was contributed to Gods.
Before life evolved 3,8 billion years ago, the Earth atmosphere consisted mainly of CO2. The presence or not of oxygen, does not create a problem for evolution. That God appearantly first created a planet with CO2 atmosphere, and then changed his mind, is a problem for creationists.

6) Define intelligent signal. Let’s assume it has a specific pattern and is as such recognisable as being send by intelligent beings, and easily seen against the background of space, as having such a pattern. It’s exactly seeing it against a disordered background, that makes it recognisable to us humans, being intelligent. But if the rest of space is so disordered, then it is by definition NOT ordered, and God made a mess.
Also: Vast information stored in DNA does not prove intelligent design. As pointed out above, there’s a lot of appallingly bad designs in nature.

7) DNA codes for proteins that are either building blocks or codes for processes in the body. DNA does not code for DNA. Nonsense.

8) Just as senses evolved.

9) An arrowhead proved useful to early humans and therefore helped them survive. Do you know what fusion is? It’s what makes the sun our energy source. Fusion transform lighter elements into heavier elements. Do you really believe we do not consist of elements?

10) What three planets are you talking about? Are you talking about axis-rotation? That, say, Uranus spins around it’s “equator”? What’s wrong with that? It’s not a scientif puzzle. Impact with asteroids can force a planets spin to change. If some god created the solar-system, why the mess?

11) We currently believe the Earth was hit by a big meteor or asteroid, and the Moon was created through rejected material. Why should students be told the scientific reasons for rejecting the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What is your problem with the moons? There’s no scientific problems with moons.

12) Big Bang. Water simply consists of oxygen and hydrogen. What’s the problem with water now?

13) Through fusion. And through the growing amount of heavier elements. Older stars contain less amounts of heavier elements than younger stars. That’s a fact.

14) No, I’m not aware of unreasonable assumptions and contradictory evidence used by those who says the Earth is 4,5 billion years old. Again – science evolves. Which is a good thing. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. Or do you claim that science is wrong? You’re not sitting by a computer?

15) What living bacteria in billion year old meteorites are YOU talking about??


16) According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decay in the speed of light for example was based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which were taken hundreds of years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

17) Because most likely the Earth’s climate changed drastically some 12.000 years go, giving rise to flood legends in many areas on Earth. This only proves that there may’ve been a flood. The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have not been substantiated. Why have no one found the Ark?

18) I have no idea where the claim of a recalculation of mitochondrial eve reset the date to 6000 years ago came from. Who did this recalculation? How was it done? I suspect that some creationist just made it up. It may shock you to learn this, but many creationists lie, and many more work to perpetuate the lies out of sheer, appalling ignorance.

19) Actually, no. We may be the Martians for all I know, life may’ve come here from Mars. Salt, organic chemicals etc. are not indigenous to Earth.

20) Geological features are created through such processes as erosion, Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, movement of tectonic plates, etc.

There. Easy as that. You, however, have not provided me with a single shred of evidence for Creationism. Creationism is NOT a science, since there is ZERO proof for it.

Julibug> But should a state be founded on something which cannot be proven??

Darth Evan> That religion is so wide-spread proves that many people need it. Why is debatable, today. But my guess is it’s fear of death and a need for a meaning of life.
That’s all fine and dandy, but religion should not govern a state. Morals and religion are not the same thing. History can give us enough examples of immoral Christians to show that.

Captain> Could I just ask you a question on the subject: Simply slap my fingers if it is disallowed
The current version of the Bible has been through many translations. Theologists know of some wrong translations (e.i. the one that turned a Babylonian King into Lucifer). With that in mind, how can accept that the entire Bible is THE TRUTH? Why doesn’t it contain the cure for cancer? The cure against AIDS?

Exactly. Faith comes into play in either big bang or creation. No one can prove either one. The further from the beginning you go, the more science can prove.

That’s not exactly true. Evidence that proves the Big Bang theory ranges from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR among friends ), to professor Stephen Hawking proved in a paper, that ANY cosmology consistent with Einsteins general theory of Relativity (which has been proven) must’ve started out in a singularity (Big Bang).
Now, show me evidence that some God created everything 6000 years ago. And tell me how light from the Andromeda Galaxy (2 million lightyears away) could get to us in ONLY 6000 years

There is much order - have you heard of the golden ratio?

Phi Ö appears in:

The proportions of the human body

The proportions of many other animals

Plants

DNA

The solar system

Art and architecture

Music

Population growth

The stock market

The Bible and in theology

Check these out:

http://goldennumber.net/neophite.htm

http://www.educ.queensu.ca/~fmc/may2002/may.htm

That’s not exactly true. Evidence that proves the Big Bang theory ranges from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR among friends ), to professor Stephen Hawking proved in a paper, that ANY cosmology consistent with Einsteins general theory of Relativity (which has been proven) must’ve started out in a singularity (Big Bang).
Now, show me evidence that some God created everything 6000 years ago. And tell me how light from the Andromeda Galaxy (2 million lightyears away) could get to us in ONLY 6000 years

Julibug> That’s because the irrational number pi appears when you want to calculate circles, and “flattened” circles – ellipses. Since a circle is a stable geometric form, many systems in nature prefer to use it. That doesn’t prove Creationism.
And what about the proof I just gave you for Big Bang. You just said “Faith comes into play in either big bang or creation. No one can prove either one.”
That is not right. Will you at least admit to that?
I’m not trying to take anyones religion from them. Faith is personal thing, some people need it, some people do not. But there is NO proof of Creationism. Showing me pi is not proof of Creation. The one making a positive claim carries the burden of proof.
So, if you claim the Universe was created by God 6000 years ago, you need to prove that to me.

I wasn't showing you pi to prove creation. I was in the process of putting that post together when you posted the one before it, so I didn't read it until after I posted the one about pi. Sorry for the confusion. The thing with pi was to demonstrate order in nature.

As far as scientific proof of creation - "There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences."
"There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the sci- entific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model."

That quote plus the following information came from http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-095.htm. I don't have room for all the info that is there, so you should go there if you want more.



There's a lot more info on that site about the earth and it's atmosphere.

this is why we need a philosophy forum.

clapping

and your other posts---> I didn't say religion should govern a state, in fact if you remember it was me who originally started the thread and said it was stupid that Georgia banned teaching evolution in school. I agree with you completely, all I'm saying is that I personally believe that there is some higher thing up there *points to sky* that created the first tiny speck of a single celled organism.
As I have said before, I disagree completely with the idea that God created earth, the rest of the universe, and all life exactly as it exists today in the space of a week several thousand years before the birth of Christ. I don't entirely not believe the Big Bang theory-there is something to it, it's just that there is very little way to prove it one way or another.
julibug/Omega both---> she said phi, not pi. Big difference. The reason phi is such a common proportion is just because it is an efficient way to put things together. Furthermore, the O with the dots on top isn't the symbol for phi--it looks like an O with a capital I down the middle.

Julibug> But that you’re able to perceive ORDER, means that there is also DISORDER. If everything in the Universe was ordered, you wouldn’t be able to notice it.
So that you can even point to ORDER, proves that there exists disorder.

Why didn’t you read my post to The Force???
If people just copy and paste stuff from Internet pages, but don’t even bother reading my replies, I’m just SO wasting my time.

But here we go: Don’t go physics on me I’m a physicist!
Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc.
So your first paragraph is, I’m sorry to say, pure nonsense and obviously written by someone who is NOT a scientist.

About the fossil-record, see reply to The Force. And please understand that not every single lifeform ever to have walked the face of the Earth becomes a fossil. May I recommend reading on HOW a fossil forms, and he prerequisites of it?

“The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years. ”
Scientists don’t talk about random events. More complex life forms are thought to have evolved from simpler lifeforms. There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Solly Zuckerman attempted to prove with biometrical studies (based on measurements) that the australopithecines were apes. Zuckerman lost this debate in the 1950's, and his position was abandoned by everyone else (Johanson and Edey 1981). Creationists like to quote his opinions as if they were still a scientifically acceptable viewpoint.

You’re not proving Creationism. Right now you’re copying some stuff from other pages. You must have SOME proof to offer for Creationism. Please, show me the proof.

Darth> If people choose to believe in a higher being of forms, that is their business. The “popularity” of religion shows, that many people need a reason, a meaning with life, the existence of “more than meets the eye.”
As long as religious people – and I know scientists who believe in “something more” – can separate science and religion, I have no problem There are many religious people, who do not believe in Creation as it’s written in the Bible, but see creation as Big Bang, and that the time-scale given in the Bible shouldn’t be taken literally.
Giordano Bruno, an astronomer who was arrested, tortured and burned in 1600 for claiming the stars were other suns, with other planets in orbit, said he believed it had to be so, it showed the magnificence of God.
As I mentioned above – we do have proof of Big Bang. If you want more, or to discuss the finer details of it, send me a PM – it’ll take too much space here. Just suffice it to say, that Einstein’s theory of Relativity predicts a Big Bang – his theory is among the most proven today, since he put it forward in 1915. Why should that prediction be wrong, when everything else Alberts theory predicts is true (just last year it was proven that gravity waves do travel with the speed of light – as predicted by Albert’s theory).

I was appalled to read the first post here. I thought this was the 21st century, and that no one believed in Creationism anymore. I don’t know anyone here in Europe that does, at least. Doesn’t mean there are no religious people, but Denmark at least, is a secular state.

And since no one has given me ANY proof of Creationism, it’s even more appalling. All I get is failed attempts at disproving evolution. Understand this: Disproving one theory, does not mean you’ve proven another.

As to the snowflakes, tress, embryos, those are ordered things being formed from other ordered things. They are part of a natural cycle that may have always been in place. Why couldn't that cycle of nature have been created?

You're right - I was copying & pasting. I don't have a lot of knowledge in physics & other sciences myself. My understanding of creation and evolution has only come from what I've heard at school, and read in various places. I apologize for that. I probably won't continue in this debate, as I don't have any more "science" to offer you.

I thought Einstein believed in creation himself.

As to people believing in creationishm, I don't know very many people who don't.

I know disproving one theory doesn't prove another, but it at least keeps the theory a theory. It has to be proven to be a fact.

Again, I have no science to offer at this time. I'm also really busy right now with homeschool, scouts, piano lessons, etc. When I have the opportunity, I want to look into this further, for my own sake. If I find any info that I think you guys would be interested in, I will come back & post it - if this thread is still active.

Btw, thanks guy for having a civil discussion on this matter!!!!

Julibug> “As to the snowflakes, tress, embryos, those are ordered things being formed from other ordered things. They are part of a natural cycle that may have always been in place. Why couldn't that cycle of nature have been created?”

Wrong way around. Prove to me that it HAS been created, please. Once again, that you’re even able to perceive order, shows that there is also disorder. You obviously think that order implies a higher being? Then the existence of disorder would disprove it, right? This isn’t scientific, it’s philosophy
The way molecules are ordered in a snowflake are far more complex, than water molecules arranged in a drop of water. So – complexity can arise from less complexity if it is energetically “smart”. By freezing water, warmth is released from the water. Hence the reason we need to add warmth to ice to make it melt.
You can create more complexity if you have energy. We have a constant source of energy here on Earth. Namely the Sun.
But why do you leave the debate? There must be some proof for Creationism, why else do you believe in it?

Einstein was NOT a creationist. However, whether or not Einstein, a physicist, believed or not, does not prove (nor disprove) the existence of God.

You’re in your right not to want to discuss further. But perhaps I can, in a civilised manner ask you why you think the Bible has to be taken literally? I mean, I can easily show you some erroneous translations (errare human est – it’s human to fail), and with that in mind, perhaps this book is to be taken as a guide-line, not word by word?

true that Einstein was not a creationist^

I think that is a bit extreame. Im persuming, it is a religious influence that banned teaching about evolution.

hmmm evolution teachings banned in Georgia...that is a bit extreme. well you can always learn evolution with the help of the internet

"A bit extreme"???
It's horrible! Evolution is a scientific theory, on the same standing as other sciences. What'll be next?
Banning physics? Banning chemistry? Biology?
Scary!

Oh, I just don't have time to be online!! But I will probably be back in this discussion soon. Interesting thing happened. I homeschool my son, and today we started the section in science that discusses creation and evolution. Hmmmm. So, since I'll be going through all of this over the next few weeks, I'll probably be back with anything new & interesting that I find!

I doubt they will ban anything that is a proven fact. I also bet they'll reverse the ban on this, too. Just wait & see.

seriously if they EVER think about banning chemistry i would go on a killing rampage


lol

Julibug> You’re missing a point I made earlier I think.
Evolution is on the exact same standing as other natural sciences, such as chemistry, physics, zoology etc. Saying evolution is wrong, is saying the scientific method, which all sciences are based on, is wrong.

(Looks around)
I’m still waiting for The Force to prove Creationism to me. Or consider the reply I wrote to him.

Hm. Okay, then. I guess evolution is the truth then. Which just makes what happened in Georgia even scarier.

At this point, my understanding is that adaptation within a species is obvious, but evolution from one species to another is not proven. This does not prove or disprove creation. It gives validity only to micro-evolution. So, to say evolution in it's entirity is truth is not right. Right now I cannot "prove" creation, but I also do not believe that evolution has been proven. I will study further into this over the next few days/weeks & get back.

god you people can write a book

As I said before, creationism arose from the need of early humans to have some meaning to their life. There is no proof. And, like I said before, there is nothing wrong with that--it is something that probably every culture in the world has thought about at one poing or another.
Evolution from one species to another IS proven. How else would we have ended up with such similar genes to that of an ape? It's not coincidence, that's for sure. So lemme thing... hmm... maybe it could be... evolution? All evolution is, really, is life changing according to various stimuli (both internal and external--genetic mutations can cause an organism to change and so can its environment) in order to, well, survive better. So doesn't it make sense that if an organism was forced to change enough, it could become a new species? Evolution from one species to another is simply one part of a species breaking away from the rest and, over millions of years, changing so much that they are no longer the same species.

Julibug> Palaeontologists have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological "gaps" (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002).
All have the expected possible morphologies, including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous "BPM 1 3-13" (an unnamed dromaeosaur from China) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al.1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002).
Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus ("Bambiraptor", Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called "Dave" (Ji et al. 2001).

So yes. As Darth also says: Evolution from one species to another IS a proven fact!

jeez... You really know your dinosaurs!

Darth> I’m a physicist and science-journalist. I happen to be working ON some stuff on dinosaurs right now with a palaeozoologist – hence the reason that I DO know

(Looks around again) No The Force? Oh... well....

cool... I'm into biology/genetics myself, though genetics is an extremely complex subject and I've just started learning about it

While we wait for The Force to try and prove Creationism –

Darth> Biology, hm? You wouldn’t happen to know some historical aspects of biology – especially zoology? I’m talking post-romantic trends in the field in the 1920’s…

Maybe... What were you wondering about?

Nope, sorry, Juli, but the idea that evolution is not 'proven' is a myth perpetuated by lazy Creationists. Fact is, there is the same amount of supporting scientific evidence for it as there is for all other fundamental scientific concepts- which is to say, all (good) science is sceptical and continually open to change as new things are discovered. When some Creationists point out gaps in evolution and therefore say it is not valid or- worse- is a 'faith', they may as well say the exact same things about physics, chemistry and biology. Science never (should) claim to offer a complete picture, only a process of understanding.

The ONLY difference for evolution is that it is hard to observe in progress- but you can say the same for a vast amount of physics and astronomy and a whole load of things that people happily accept as fact because the science supports it. The only reason evolution is therefore doubted is because a popular alternative exists.

Actually, I was once surprised that evolution was being doubted in the modern era but it surprises me less these days.

But the fact of the matter is that the debate is unarguable. New Earth creationists (e.g those who think the world is only 6000-ish years opld, as opposed to Old Earth creationists who agree with evolution etc. but simply say that God put it all into motion) answer problems with their theory about the speed of light in relation to us seeeing ancient things by simply making statements like the apperance of these things is deceptive or that God has changed the speed of light over time.

To a hardcore scientist this makes no sense. But to a lot of these people, it is a matter of faith. Science and faith can NOT be used in argument with each other. Neither side whill shift the other. The person with faith will never provide the proof the scientist needs and the scientist will not see why the other person considers faith to be enough. And no- there is no possibility of union in the centre; the concepts are diametrically oposed.

So no-one will win. The true fall-out from the debate is the lazy assumptions and mis-conceptions that arise from it- like this idea that evolution is on shaky scientific ground, as just discussed.

I am Catholic, and have been going to Catholic school for about 12 years now, where Religion is a requirement.

I say that you can't have one side without the other, just because I am christian does not mean I don't believe in Evolution. They go hand in hand for me.

So are you an "Old Earth Creationist" like Ush described?

I'm still sticking with the Adam & Eve thingy.....but I do love reading all these other theories. Fascinating !

I'm sorry I didn't read Ush's post, sorry but I felt a coma coming on
I'm kidding but I can't concentrate if there are too many words

Well then take another nap, my' dear.....

that's a lovely suggestion sleep1
lol but after skimming Ush's post I can say yes, yes I am

And here I thought we all just came out of a giant pasta machine.....

Where's that damn stork ? He lied to me !

hunt him down and do this chair

that musta hurt...

only slightly wheelchair

Please forgive this lengthy post. I don't expect all of you to read it, but hopefully The Omega & Ush will at least. Also, Force, if you have any comments on the following, please add.

>Omega - As far as the dinosaur to bird fossils, is it not possible that there were just that many species that were similar? Or were these fossils found whole, and dated in transitional time periods?

Presuppositions also affect the way we interpret the facts. Two different people can look at the very same facts and still walk away with different beliefs, because of their presuppositions. One person sees the facts and decides there was no intelligent being involved in creation/evolution, but the other person sees the same facts and finds that they just give more validity to their faith in God. I think science and faith can go together to someone who has faith. Most of evolution may be "provable" with scientific facts, and that may mean that the "week" in Genesis wasn't an actual week. In fact, I looked up the translation of the word "day" in the creation account in Genesis, and it can simply translate a period of time - but not necessarily a 24 hour period of time. We have faulty translations when it comes to Bibles, so it's not always possible to know if a day or a week is literal (& the same for various other things). I think a lot of this has to fall under philosophy, though, because it's more about presuppositions and how you look at the facts than it is about the facts themselves. I cannot scientifically prove creation to you, but I don't think that you can scientifically prove the big bang, either. I look at my child, and I see so much more than genetic code. I believe that there is more to a human than an evolved body and mind. If you don't believe that, it is ok with me. I don't expect to change your mind, and I don't expect you to change mine. I also don't want to get into a "religious" discussion, although it is difficult to stay away from it completely in this area. The only scientific information I have on hand is from the curriculum I am using in homeschool. It is dated 1999, so if there is new info since then, I don't have it here. I apologize if this is as bad as copy & pasting, but I want to quote just a little of what this says. You are welcome to let me know how & why this is wrong.

In regard to genetics:

In regard to paleontology:

In regard to genetics:

In regard to mathematics:

Fire away!

Btw, back to the original post. Georgia did not ban the teaching of evolution - only the term. They wanted to continue the teaching, but call it "biological changes over time". The whole idea was pretty stupid. In fact, they've dropped it, and will now just call it evolution again.

Darth> You see, I’m wondering when and how in zoology the trend began, that predators were these noble, beautiful animals, while scavengers were evil and sneaky (The Disney image). Any clue?

Ush> YOU were surprised to find people who doubt evolution. Imagine MY surprise!

Something else worth considering: Natural sciences don’t reside alone. That is to say, what happens in one field may influence other fields as well. Evolution is part of biology, which encompasses such things as zoology, anatomy, botany etc. To understand, say, the anatomy of the “bad male plumbing”, you need physiology and evolution to explain this.
Evolution is not a science unto itself.

However, this DOES needs to be discussed. If faith moves into the class-room, the US is in a bad state, indeed.

Silver Tears> You can, actually. I’m a scientist and an atheist. I don’t need faith in divinity to do research. Don’t confuse faith with morality, please. They’re not one and the same

Julibug> They were. The dinosaur to bird transitional fossils I mention is complete – without the morphological gaps that Creationist claim are in the fossil record.
Presuppositions can affect a subjective opinion. However – we’re talking science here. My personal feelings about something won’t help, if I can’t apply the scientific method. One important aspect of this method is, that if I have a theory, it must have some kind of falsifiable tests or experiments that other scientists should be able to copy. This is were the subjective leaves the arena and the OBJECTIVE comes into play.

“I cannot scientifically prove creation to you.” Ok

As I’ve told you before, The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is the best proof of a Big Bang. Big Bang is also deductible from Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (his theory for Gravity – space-time curves) and the best explanation for the expanding Universe.

“I look at my child, and I see so much more than genetic code.” Yes, you see environment, your upbringing and – of course – someone you love dearly. IF you are home-schooling your child (I hope he/she is not ill or something) I hope you let he/she choose if he/she wants to believe or not.

On to your C&P in next post.

Julibug> Okay, because a handful of scientist doubt an established fact, doesn’t prove the fact to be wrong. I’m linking to some sites, since otherwise I’d take op 10 pages

Our good Grasse is simply wrong. Mutations DO produce evolution from one species to another. There are several ways to evolve as a species, mutation is only one of them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Here you can read why evolution is a fact btw http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html. So Michael Denton is wrong.

You wrote: ’Information theorist Hubert Yockey writes, "One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written." ’
He even admits that evolution is an established fact/wisdom. Again, scientists do not claim life evolved by random chance. Reread my previous posts.
About Darwin saying something about divinity: Would you tell me where you got that quote from, please? I’m pretty sure Darwin never said that. Someone called Dawkin may have, but he’s not Charles Darwin.

Palaeontology: I once again suggest you read up on fossilisation and how difficult it is for a dead animal/plant to become a fossil. And realise, that complete transitional fossil without morphological gaps exist.

Genetics: Here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html ALL you want to know.

Mathematics: Okay, AGAIN: Scientists do not say life evolved by random chance. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/


Scientific evidence for macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Evidence for human evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

It will still be interesting to see where genetics takes us with this, though.





To be honest, faith has been slowly removed from the class room in the US, except for in the private christian schools. I really doubt that there is any danger of it returning. So, that shouldn't really be an issue.




So, in that regard, have there been successful experiments to prove macroevolution. In other words, outside of fossils, is there any other "proof"?




The curriculum I have addresses that a little...






He is free to make up his mind about everything in life, but he is obviously influenced by our belief in God. I'm curious if you have children, because, when you have a child of your own, you see even more than environment, upbringing, genetic code, etc. You see a miracle.

Btw, in your other post, you asked me about a reference to Darwin's comment on divinity. I apologize - it should have said Dawkin, but either way, he rejected the idea.

It may take me awhile to go through the links you've posted, but I will. I'll be back later!

Thanks!

sorry the omega, i kinda forgot about the is thread, but i'll reply to your answers when i get home, k, btw they are nice answers , and i can answer most of them without outside help.

I'm being kinda hesitant becuase at the last forum i was at I made alot of atheist/evolutionist enemies, because of my beliefs

How can anyone doubt something as obviously true as evolution? All logic and common sense suggest that evolution happened, rather then two random people dropped into eden to start the human race. Come on now.

I'm more of an Old School Creationist... I believe there is a God, and that it was God that set things in motion in the first place... I also think it was God who designed the Universe we live in... But evolution did happen...it happened according to the laws of God, the laws of nature..

that mean you a Theistic Evolutionists

g2g

I don't think I'm so far from that myself. Not sure yet. Can't just give up the belief that God started it all, but not sure what to think about the rest of it. Who's to say God didn't execute the Big Bang and the rest is, well, history! No, wait, science. No, wait, math. Well, you know!

laws of God????????????

I think what he means is that if you believe that God created the earth - whether by Big Bang, evolution, etc. or literally created it all as is - the "laws of nature" that are in operation were put in place by God. So referring to the "laws of God" he's meaning "laws of nature". Does that make sense? It's just terminology.

Like that don't ya ?

I mean like, the laws of physics right ? they're the laws of God too..

I think we posted at the same time!

well since i dont think god exist then I`ll stick to the nature of things

yup

"I'm curious if you have children, because, when you have a child of your own, you see even more than environment, upbringing, genetic code, etc. You see a miracle."

Why the heck can not those things you said before BE that miracle? Genetics looks pretty damn miraculous to me, when you think about it- God or no God.

Good point. I guess the difference is that I contribute miracles to the existence of a higher intelligence. But I do see your point.

higher intelligence = GOD:-)

Any geneticist will tell you that you are correct: there is a very big difference between genotype and phenotype. Genotype is the genetic code itself, phenotype is the physical manifestation of the genes. Phenotype isn't just based on genotype--environment has a pretty profound effect on it as well. In a genetics textbook I have, it shows pictures of two pairs of identical twins. One of them had been raised together, and look almost exactly the same. The other pair had been raised seperately, and didn't look like identical twins at all. This proves how big an effect environment has. So you are seeing more than genetic code when you look at your child.

Well, I'm not too sure, but I would just guess that it's human nature--scavengers were looked at as being the "theives" of the animal kingdom, while predators were the "honorable" ones who fended for themselves.

if that is so he showed lack of intelligence when he created earth

That's harsh... could u have thought it up ?

why do creationists spend so much time trying to refute evolution instead of doing what scientist have done, finding evidence to prove their argument?.

creation is a myth, a story in a book written by man, translated (badly) and re-written (incorrectly) many times.

What about other religions that have different creation story's?

What about all the HARD evidence for evolution?

as for saying "apart from fossils what evidence is there?" thats like a defence lawyers at a murder trial saying "apart from all the forensic evidence & eyewitness accounts what evidence is there?"

as for the mathematical probability of life coming from evolution the numbers are massive, but so is the universe and its happened we are here so it can not be impossible, its like worrying about the odds after you have won the lottery.

the fact is you cant prove creationism, to do so would prove the existence of God (or some other higher being) and negate the need for faith.

and what will you creationists say if the probes currently on Mars find proof of life, past or present?

Not to take the bible literally, I have been taught that in the eyes of god, a day could be millions of years, or it could be within seconds, so the seven days could have been over 100 billion years... hmm, makes yah wonder

I'll say what I've always said, God created life...life evolved... I don't care what those aforementioned books say..u'r very right about them...

Jlibug> ll check bak to see when you've gone through the links I posted
In the meantime (as I'm quite busy these days) I'll just reply to your paragraph on Albert Einstein. The rest of the paragraph is correct. But, what happened was the following. Around the time when EInstein proposed his general theory of relativity (his theory for gravity), the general consesus was, that the Universe had always existed and was arond the size of the milkyway.
Einstein looked at his theory, the so-called Einstein Equations, and saw, that his theory predicted a Universe that was EITHER expanding or contracting. That wasn't what astronomers of those days thought, so Einstein stuck a constant into his equations "The cosmological constant", that should either stop the Universe if it was expanding, or keep it from contracting.
When Hubble concluded the universe was expanding, Einstein tossed his cosmological constant in the bin and called it "his greatest mistake."
However - Einstein may´ve been a greater genious than any of us know. In 1998 astronomers studying extremely distant supernova (massive exploding stars) realised that the Universe was more than just expanding - it's accelerating. Now, if you take EInsteins cosmological constant, stick it back into his equation and reverse "its sign", you get an accelerating Universe.
So - in conclusion. Einstein never called his theories of Relativity (there are two) a mistake. And he didn´t make a mistake either - he was merely a very humble man, who in 1916 didn't think his equations - showing a dynamic Universe - could be truer than the astronomical scientific community of his time.

(Later that day)

Julibug> Macroevolution doesn't happen overnight. However, the complete transitional fossils from dinosaurs to birds with no morphological gaps show macroevolution happens. No palaeontologists disagrees with this. In this case the experiments are different palaeontologists studying the same fossils and reaching the same conclusion.

As for other "proof", read the links I provided you with, please.

The Force> Well, I'm still waiting. And you will antagonize people by saying those who diagree with you are retarded. So, please, go ahead. Address the points I raised in my reply to you, and proove Creation to me.

BF> I have NO idea. Frankly.

Laws of God? I see zero divinity in gravity. Where is he?

Julie> Eh? So, a genius is near-divine or... ? Saint Albert?

Rusky> Well, every moron with half a bran (or less) could've designed "male plumbing" better than it is.
And how are we to know if Finti could've thought WHAT up? What does Finti's creativity have to do with whether or not God created the Earth?

Chapel>

Man this is a really great thread i hope people continuee to put there points across.

I belive in the Big Bang
i belive in evolution

But i still think there is unnatural force out there in the univerise which we can not explain

Omega> Well, every moron with half a bran (or less) could've designed "male plumbing" better than it is.
And how are we to know if Finti could've thought WHAT up? What does Finti's creativity have to do with whether or not God created the Earth?

I was refering to how everything works toghether in nature... take a moment and observe the processes that take place when rain falls, water gets evaporated and turns into clouds and rains again... then look at the advanced hierarchical system most animal use, and even the complexity of a single cell, and millions of those that make up a living organism... that is complicated, and even if bilions of thousands of years ago it would've been somewhat less complex, it still would have been, quite hard (to say the least) to do..

And hey, I'm not saying that male plumbing couldn't be better, it's just that, as u said it' man-made...
Could u improve on a human beeing ? On thousands of years of evolution based on a flawless design ?

I've started reading some of the links. Interesting. One of them didn't work, though. I'll have to look back & see which one it was. Also, one of them gave several links to creationist sites. I'll let you know when I'm finished going through all of it. Thanks again!

Ash007> But see, you have an – in my opinion – healthy approach to “more than meets the eye” or divinity or the supernatural. You don’t disagree with science, and your beliefs aren’t claiming highly educated researchers around the world are “wrong.”

Rusky> But no one or nothing DID anything – so the “quite hard” argument doesn’t work. Life-forms most adaptable to the current environment survives. Saying that just because something is complex it a divine power must be behind it is quite peculiar. Do you know how a Boeing 747 works? Do you claim it was build by God?

Yes, I could improve on a human being. I would “design” male plumbing better. Barring me being able to do that in a day, I could chose to mate with someone whose geneic make-up was perfectly compatible with mine. I’d be making a better human when giving birth. Actually, the whole idea of a MALE God, when women are the ones who gives birth is quite… peculiar… to say the least.

Julibug> One of the links didn’t work? Maybe I typed it wrong. Which one was it?
Yes, talkorigins links to Creationist sites as well to show some creationist ideas, which they refute.
I’m happy you’re open to debating this, Julibug, and as I’ve already stated, I’m not out to take your faith away from you. I have no beef with people who believe in the supernatural, even if I don’t, I have some serious “beef” with the idea that the Earth, the Solarsystem and the universe is 6000 years old.

The Force>… Still waiting…

I have never stated that God is a male Omega

I have a question for you... I agree with u saying that evolution has turned us into what we are today, but pray tell, how did the first monocelular organism appear ? It evolved from rocks ?

But that is truly impossible ... I mean skeletons dating more than 11000 years ago were found...

When I click on this one http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html - it says "file not found."

About the age of the universe, I don't have a problem with it being older than that. I'm leaning toward the "old creationist" point of view right now.

I'm still digging through all of this. I'll let you know when I've read it all. My son has an ear infection in both ears - yuck. Needless to say, I didn't get much sleep the night before last - took him to the doctor yesterday - paid way too much for the medicine. Anyway, this has been more time consuming than a regular day of homeschool & piano lessons! Hopefully I'll have more time to read over the weekend.

Wait a minute. When I clicked on that link in your post - it said file not found. When I clicked on it in my post it worked!! So, nevermind - I'll just link from my post. Weird!

(actually - I think it's because there was a period at the end of it in your post.)

God created life on earth then thought, I cant be bothered with this any more so he created evolution

Try this link

evolution

Rusky> True enough
But “God” as used in Christianity is most definitely WHITE and MALE (even more odd, as the religion originated in the Middle East, where people are NOT white – OH, well).

Do you know what organic molecules are?

Yes, it’s impossible for the Universe to be 6000 years old. Light reach us from stars and galaxies millions of light-years away, carbon-14 dating tells us about life millions of years ago and so on and so forth. But Bishop Ussher took the bible sometime in the 16th or 17th century, went through it, and calculated that Creation took place 4004 years B.C.

Julibug> Weird. The link works fine for me. Try here http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html And chose links to evolution….
Oh, it worked now? Cool. Maybe the site WAS down.

The Force> (Taps fingers)

Hmm...yes... I was wrong about that..

Originally posted by The Omega
But “God” as used in Christianity is most definitely WHITE and MALE (even more odd, as the religion originated in the Middle East, where people are NOT white – OH, well).QUOTE]

I may not be in the mainstream on this one, but I've never really pictured God that way. While I do refer to God as "He", I think of "him" more as a complete being - encompassing both male & female. I don't really think of a nationality either - back to the all in all thing. I really don't remember every having anyone in any church tell me any differently, either. I can see how some Christians might give that impression, though.

Mostly through the paintings I guess..

True. But I wonder if that's what most people really think. Maybe I'm just different. But that's ok, right? Different is good.

Different is good

I suppose it's each to their own divine perception - so to speak.
But if God isn't male, why is it "Our Lord", "Him", "Father" etc??

The Force> Okay! It's been weeks now, and you promised to prove Creation to me. You even claimed you could do it fast. So... ?
Am I to take you silence as you CAN'T prove Creation?
Figures...

(Still waiting)

(Two days later)
I'm waiting...

u'r gonna grow grey hairs soon

Rusky>
If I have to wait so long for The Force to prove Creation to me, that I DO grow grey hair I should maybe conclude he CAN'T prove it??

You should drop him a PM just to make sure he's been checking this thread...

Darth> Oh, he does. I remind him in other threads, that I'm still checking this to see his proof.
Besides - > I REFUSE to let this die until he answers.

lol

Well in that case I think it's safe to assume what we've been thinking all along (even though assuming is highly un-scientific)--that there IS no proof, at least none that Force knows of.

true

Darth> Sure
At least Julibug had the courage to admit, that she has no proof. That she believes in something, and that is her right.
The Force has just claimed he could prove Creation to me, and answer the points I raised WAY back on page two or three or something.

Well, I decided to do a little research on this. I went to google and did a search for "proof of Creationism". I got a ton of results. However, many of them were simply advertising books about the subject. One of them was a link to a Christian forum in a thread titled "is there proof for creation". I found a site called "Answers in Genesis". Inside, there were a lot of things that seemed to logically prove biblical events--for example, there was an article about Noah's flood, and it explained how it had to have covered the entire earth. If it had only covered a localized region in Mesopotamia, Noah could have simply left and moved somewhere else. The problem with that is that such a significant event would certainly be visible to Geologists. Yet there has been no recorded discovery of such evidence. I found a lot of things like that. There was not, in the entire site, an article that gave solid, scientific evidence of Creation's occurance. It even claimed that there is no proof for evolution. I then did a google search for "proof of evolution." The very first site I tried was an article that clearly proved evolution. There was more scientific evidence in a single article less than a page long than in the entire site that claimed to prove Creation.
So, the proof of Creation, if you are a Christian, is essentially believing what you read in the bible. Either that, or these so-called "Creation Scientists" don't publish their work on the Internet.

Barf> We've been through quite a few ice-ages during Earths history, and when they ended, and he ice melted you naturally had floods in certain areas of the world. Many cultures have flood-myths. That ONLY proves that there have been floods in Earh's history.
You can't proove the Bible by USING the bible. No one knows if Noah even existed? Can anyone proe that Noah was a real man and not just a myth?

I would've LOVED to see the so-called evidence for Creation. Why? Because there IS none. If you go back a few pages, you see The Force or Julibug post stuff made by "scientists" and other "sientific evidence". But when asked for sources, background info etc. no one has anything.

I think many Creationists just think, that because it SAYS "proof of creation" on Internet pages - well - then it's been proven. It wont be. Why? because it CAN'T be proven. Then they resort to attacking evolution, as if falsifying one theory proves another. Nonsense!

This was written on February 17th.



Either The Force has a VERY long way home, or he lacks the answers he's promised me.

Exactly my point

I don't know if you've ever heard of it, but there's a book called "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken out right now. It's actually about conservatives in America, but I must say that some of the sites I looked at reminded me of the stuff in that book. They claim that there is scientific evidence for Creation; you look through the site, and all you find is a whole lot of bible stories, along with some biographies of "scientists" who believe in creation. They also claim that there is no proof of evolution. I decided to send them an email asking them for one single shred of scientific evidence that Creation occured. It will be interesting to see whether or not they reply. Here's a link to the site, in case you're interested: (try one of the links under "additional resources" on the left side of the page)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Hello The Omega. You say there is no evidence of creation? WRONG.

You speak as if Evolution is absolutely how things were created.

I just want to share with you a few things.





Creation.


First, EVERYTHING has a creator. A hammer. A house. A car. Everything. So, you are going to sit there and tell me that the universe, the earth, and everything in it was created from an explosion......That came from nothingness? Don't be a fool. That is utterly ridiculous. The things I listed were all created by intelligence. They all had a brain behind them. A hammer cannot create itself. It needs a creator. How can something be created out of ABSOLUTELY nothing? It can't! Just think about it.

Now, I'd like you to take a look at the world around you. Do you see it? Everything fits. It's all perfect.

Anyone with a brain should know that this couldn't come out of nothing. It had to be something divine. Something perfect....Something called God. How could it be anything else? Anything else just doesn't make sense.

Did you know that if gravity was 1 pound heavier, we'd all be crippled? How could the "big bang" create such a perfect environment? If there was no brain to do the thinking, everything would be screwed up.





Purpose.

One of the definitions of purpose is "the reason for which something exists or for which it has been done or made". There is no purpose for life if evolution is what created it. If we were created by evolution, and when we die it's the end, what is the purpose of life? There would be no driving force for evolution without purpose.
_____________________________________


Anyway, I'd like to tell me what you think of these things I have said. Don't they make sense? I'd like to hear your opinion.


Oh, and just a few interesting side notes and stories.

This is concerning the movie "The Passion of The Christ".

Jim Caviezel, the actor who plays Jesus was walking on the street when someone came up to him and said "You will play Jesus". The guy walked away. Jim didn't know what to think of it. Then later on he went to this interview about a Surfing movie and Mel Gibson is there. Jim says "Oh, I see what this is, it's a front. You want me to play Jesus." Mel says "Yeah, we want you to play Jesus." Some think it was an Angel that Caviezel saw on the street.

Also, Caviezels initials are J.C. and he was 33 when he started filming the movie.



One last thing...



"BIBLE'S UNIQUENESS POINTS TO GOD

Imagine a book written by more than forty authors, each with different

levels of education, social position, and age. Then imagine that these

authors used three different languages to write this book. Assume that

at the time they wrote it, some of them were in a situation of war, some

were at peace, some were imprisoned, some were living in splendor,

others in poverty. In addition, imagine that the authors of this book

lived at different times during a 1,500 year time span. What do you

suppose the result of this writing would be?



The Bible was written under these conditions. Its contents describe

hundreds of controversial topics and are of a variety of literary types,

yet there is a unity in the writing that binds it together: the theme of

God's redemption of man. The Bible is philosophically consistent. The

conditions of its writing and the resulting unity of the text speak of a

supernatural direction, the Holy Spirit, directing chosen men who

authored the Bible. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for

teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that

the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
__________________________________________________
_




When I look at all these things, I do not see coincedence. I see providence.

Barf> Oh, do keep me updated on whether or not you receive a reply from the Creationists.

MegaDeuce> Yes, evolution is how living speies evolved over millions and millions of years.

Rain doesn't have a CREATOR. Wind doesn't have a creator. No being created the stars, the planets, and the oceans. Tell me, what do you know about Big Bang? Nothing intelligent created the Earth. You're not proving anything, you know?
And just because YOU cannot imagine life without a God, doesn't mean there is one.

Everything fits? Everything is perfect? Tell that to the starving, the hungry, the sick and the ill. Perfection? My foot. Every moron with half a brain or less could've created male "plumbing" better. That is far from perfect.
Greavity one pound heavier? Gravity doesn't weigh ANYTHING. Gravity is a force fer petes sake. IF the circumstances during and right after Big Bang had not worked out, we wouldn't be here to wonder at them. It doesn't prove Creation.

There IS no purpose to life, other than what you make of it. Just because YOU need a purpose in your life, doesn't mean there is one. Prove it to me.
I know of books written by more than fourty authors. Scientific conference journals for example. Prove to me that the Bible is the truth without using the Bible. This books is so riddled with mistranslations (such as the one that turned a Babylonian King into Lucifer) hat it's impossible to know, what it was like when it was written. There is ZERO proof that Jesus existed.

The holy works of te Hindi are even older. So are buddhist writings. If many people writing on something, and age points to divinity then the Hindi are right.

You see providence because you were brought up to see providence when all there is is coincidence. You have not proven Creation. I still say there is no evidence for creation. You say I am wrong. Well... where IS the proof???

Yes, has to be said, Megadeuce's contribution to this has been one of the least thought out contributions I have ever seen on this sort of thing- arrogant and opinionated nonsense with no attempt to actually provide evidence, prove or even reasonably justify anything, complete with factual errors. And this odd idea that just because this planet is uitable for life that therefore means there must be a God. That sort of thing comes down to size of star, position relative to star, size of globe etc. There are countless trillions of trillions of planets out there! At least one of them was going to get it right somewhere, at some time, and even if it is only us, well, here we are now! Your ideas that Earth being suitable for Human Life proves there is a God- that is truly nonsense. Not to mention the fact that if gravity was a stronger force on Earth, then assuming it was not too strong for life to be practical, science says life would simply have evolved for those conditions instead. Simple as that.

BTW, the Bible is philosophically consistent because its content was subjected to editing at various points in its history. Even so, it is hardly the homogenous text you try and make it out to be.

This sort of thing massively reduces Creationist credibility in my opinion. It is simply "I am right because I say I am right" with nothing to back that at all.

Even the opening statement- saying that Omega is wrong in aying there is no proof for creationism- is not backed. Show us the damn proof then!

Or, possibly, simply point out that it is a matter of faith, which should really be the end of the argument.

Megadeuce---> The world is far from perfect, as Omega already pointed out. Furthermore, the reason things in nature tend to work so well (before any kind of human intervention) is BECAUSE of evolution. It wasn't created like it is today. The things that work work because they have evolved from a more primitive form that didn't work so well into what they are now. Some organisms, monerans, for example, work incredibly well the way they already are; that is why they've stayed almost identical for billions of years. Others didn't work so well, so they either died off altogether, or evolved into something more efficient at whatever it is it does. Basically, it's just a species' genetic code evolving over long periods of time to work better. "Well, this didn't work out so well. Let's try this instead."

And about the gravity thing--the reason we aren't crippled isn't because some divine force created gravity to match us or vice versa; it's because we evolved to match gravity. Scientists theorize that if there were life on Jupiter, for example (I know it's impossible, I'm just using it as an example because Jupiter has such a strong gravitational pull compared to Earth), it would be considerably sturdier. It's essentially the same reason for larger animals, like elephants, for example, to have thicker, stronger limbs. Like Ush said, if gravity was stronger, we would have evolved to be bigger.

There is no purpose to life. Humans certainly have a need to feel justified in living, but that doesn't mean there is a purpose to life. Life is how it is. Period. You can't point to a flower or a songbird or something pretty and assume that just because we were born into such a strange and beautiful environment it means we have "purpose".

Perhaps you are not sure about what "scientific evidence" is. It is something that has been proven, preferably more than once, on a basis of observation. What scientific evidence is NOT is an assumption. "Well, my uncle Bob has a moustache, he must be gay." Obviously, not all gays have moustaches, and not all men with moustaches are gay. An example of what it is: "Well, the freezer is cold inside. I wonder what will happen when I put a glass of water in it?" *several hours later* "Well I'll be darned, the water turned into ice! I've proven something today--if you put water in the freezer, it turns to ice." Now, Joe Sixpack here still has a lot to learn about the effect of cold temperatures on water--he still doesn't know why, or at exactly what temperature it happens, or what might happen to a different liquid, but this is the basic scientific process. A question, a hypotheses, and proof backing the hypotheses. In this case "What will happen if I put a glass of water in there", "Well I'll be darned it froze", and the ice from the glass itself.

Well, I'm not going to be able to reply to you guys during the week, but I'll try to on the weekend.

You guys have not proved or disproved anything yet. Don't get too excited with yourselves.

Good God, couldnt hav said it better myself. The thing is that i feel there is a supreme being but we dont know about it. I wish there was a god and he looked over us, but there are so many things that can disprove his existence. One thing that is not irrelavent is that ive never seen god but then again, ive never seen a hale storm, so that doesnt prove he isnt real, but y would god make things like gold pop up out of a river in San Francisco. Are they little presents for us to use in economy? Does god speak friggin english, or is it Spanish? So many questions that i hav no time to ask

And what makes you think that? Even if we hadn't, which we did, you haven't proven anything either.

And Neo---> ... Actually though you have a good point--I want to believe that there is a purpose to life, but I've never met God, so...

MegaDeuce> Are you The Force in disguise? Saying you will prove it all - later - and then vanishes from the forum? You see, WE are not the ones who has to prove anything. You said you could prove creation, you wrote a long essay, and proved exactly nothing. So I am ALL exited about myself, since no creationist can prove anything, despite the fact that they keep claiming it.
Repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth.
It can't take that long to prove your point. You have time to write you do not have time. Why didn't you use that time, to offer me some proof?

Barf>Just to make something clear. If Earth was bigger, and Earths ravity stronger, we would be SMALLER and sturdier. If Earth was smaller, and Earth's gravity weaker, we would ´taller and thinner.
Anyways...

All> I don't believe in a divine being: "Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?" I see no divinity around me, and I like it that way. I don't go around doing what I do, for fear of Hell or an old white man with a beard on a throne in the clouds. I do it because it feels right. I don't try to force my beliefs down other peoples throats. No scientist has ever burned a Christian for his/her beliefs. However, the other way around...

And - unlike The Force and MegaDeuce I do not insult the intelligence of people who do not agree with me. Neither does Barf or Ush for that matter.

Megadeuce> "Don't be a fool." "That is ridicilous" "Anyone with a brain should know that this couldn't come out of nothing."
The Force "that's gotta be the most retarted assumption that evolutionists have made."

Umm...I haven't read through this whole thread...I want some proof of evolution. But IMO, it's rather disturbing thinking that my ancestor was a hairy ape...

Plenty of evidence has been offered.

How about READING through the whole thread then??????

Okay, I will...

Omega (about the gravity comment)---> Interesting... It makes sense though. I just suck at physics But hopefully my point was clear, which is that if Earth's gravity was stronger/weaker, we would have adapted to fit that.

Iirema---> Read the damn thread, then. Plus, one of the things I find irritating about Creationists is how they look down on all other life forms. We humans have certainly done a good job of overpopulation, polution, environmental destruction, and general carelessness towards nature. For sure, we're the highest life forms on the planet.

Alrighty then, fellow scientists. Time to get excited. The Answers in Genesis people responded to my email!! *dramatic music playing* Here it is: (they copied pieces of my letter and put them in their reply, I've shown things from my letter in bold) (hold onto your pocket protectors people because it's a long read )

I came to your site looking for real scientific evidence of creationism.
I have looked through a good portion of it, and I have yet to find a
single piece of solid, scientifically backed evidence.
Actually we all have the same evidence. It is the interpretation that
is different. Please see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4179.asp
A lot of it makes sense (for example, the article about Noah's Arc--why
the flood had to have covered the entire Earth, etc.), but you never
actually prove them in a scientific manner. So, is there scientific
evidence backing creationism? Take the article about Aboriginies, for
example. All you do is repeat the same things that are stated in the
bible.
Again this all goes back to evidence. We all look at the same geologic
column, the same dinosaur bones, the same C14, etc.
How do you know that the bible is true?
How do you know if man's ideas are true? Do you honestly think men are
perfect? I trust a perfect God over fallible men.
How do you know that it wasn't just some kind of massive hoax?
How do you know if man's idea's like 'millions of years' aren't a hoax?
Were you there to witness the events? God, being an eyewitness to His
own creation is the only qualified to speak as an authority on creation.
Why not trust him?
It comes down to trust. Do you trust imperfect men or a perfect God?
Did Moses drop by your house one day and tell you that it was true?
"The scientific process," as defined by Aristotle
No, the scientific method was developed by Francis Bacon. By the way,
he was a devout Biblical Christian. Aristotle developed what primary
pieces of logic. However, now I am going to challenge you in your
faith.
You believed that what you read was Aristotle. Did you know that
Aristotle lived ~384-322 BC, the earliest copy we have of his work was
AD 1100? That is a gap of 1400 years. Yet you trust this without
question.
Then you turn around and question the Bible of which we have over 24,000
copies of the New Testament alone, some copies within 25 yeas of the
resurrection of Christ?
Your philosophy is inconsistent.
involves three steps: 1) a question 2) a hypothesis and 3) testing the
hypothesis.
Actually the Scientific Method has four steps:
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
We love science.
Creationism fills only the first two requirements of the Scientific Process.
So does 'millions of years' and 'evolution'. If you honestly think the
opposite, then please repeat the Big Bang.
Therefore, it cannot be called a science.
The point is no view of origins can be repeated and none are scientific.
They are called historical science. Did you know there is a difference
between operational/experimental science and historical science? Let me
explain in more detail. See operation science is the highly reliable
repeatable science that has a tremendous reputation. This is the type
of science that put men on the moon, builds computers and automobiles,
genetic mapping, etc. Most of these fields of science are well
respected. As Christians, we fully believe in operational science. In
fact, most of t