Originally posted by whobdamandog
I know that. But in order to explain as to why it should be accepted in Science textbooks..it was necessary to show that Creationism carried just as much "substantive" evidence as the theory of Evolution. At least that was the point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by Draco69
People here have failed to input law, economics, and sociology for the impact of Creationism in school textbooks.
law: it's illegal, even supreme court judged that based on the first amandment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
economics: with people believing this, what's stopping them from believing a stockexchange-crash is gods way of punishing people ergo doing nothing to stop a worldwide catastrophy?
sociology: if they get taught that this is the only way (or equal in awe to evolution) they (the americans in general) will lose even more the idea that there IS a way besides theirs
Originally posted by General Kaliero
So, wait, Capt. Fantastic, you mean you actually accept the idea of genetic mutation occuring between two generations, despite that the chances of it working are, for all practical purposes, nil, and despite the fact that no observed mutation has benefitted or entirely changed the subject?Wow.
Yes, it's called adaptation. Mutation isn't always a bad thing. Scientifically forced mutation is most times rejected by the host species because it is unatural. And minute changed in genetics don't entirely change the species. To totally change the species isn't serving it's instinct for survival. Besides, if it toally changed the species, then it wouldn't be the same species anymore. And example of this is skin colour. Humans that come from more arid, sun scorced part of the earth, like Africa, have developed dark pigmented skin, darker eyes and hair, as a defense mechanism. People from Germany have lighter eyes and skin, and hair, etc. Why is that belief worthy of a "wow"? Or do you believe that god created different skin colour to test our racial tolerance?
If the surface of the earth were to become flooded, then webbed feet would better serve humanity than non-webbed feet. As it is, some children are born with webbed feet, but we surgically remove the webbing after they're born because it isn't normal.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I know that. But in order to explain as to why it should be accepted in Science textbooks..it was necessary to show that Creationism carried just as much "substantive" evidence as the theory of Evolution. At least that was the point I was trying to make.
Were this a court of law, and creationism was on trial, there would be no trial, because creationism no NO PROOF. If we were to legally debate the liklihood that one was relevant to science and the other was not, then evolution would win the day.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I know that. But in order to explain as to why it should be accepted in Science textbooks..it was necessary to show that Creationism carried just as much "substantive" evidence as the theory of Evolution. At least that was the point I was trying to make.
Now prove that there is a God. Forget the missing link, Austrailopithecus, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon Man etc are more evident then what creationalist have provided. They've even tested human DNA against primates and other animals. Guess what, chimps have the closes DNAs to humans.
You know DNA don't you? The same science used in paternity test, rape cases, cloning, etc. The same science used to prove that dogs evolved from wolves. Not enough evidence? Wolves and dogs can breed and produce. Take your average Timber wolf and mate it with a dalmation, pitbull, german sherpard, chiwawa, etc. and they'll produce.
And before you say then why can't chimps and humans, it's because they've serperated too far in their evolution. Ex: Tigers can mate with lions and produce, but not a tiger and couger, or a lion and a lynx. All are in the cat family, but some still are closely evolutionarily related than others. It doesn't change the fact that chimps are similar to humans physically and genetically.
Not convinced? An eskimo can have kids with an Austrailian aboriginal even though they're different in physical features like a lion and a tiger. Further, that difference is because of evolution. Eskimos are known to have fat distributed equally in throughout their body. They're adapted to live in cold weather like an A. aboriginal's body is adapted to living in the harsh outback.
And again, what evidence is there that there is a "creator" to begin with - be it GOD, Buddah, or whoever?
You can't even prove that there is a creator: much less point to a bible, koran, torrin, etc. and say that's evidence.
Taken from http://www.apologeticscourses.com/Evol.htm
The Meaning Of Evolution: It is time now to define our terms. A discussion on an important subject like evolution can get hopelessly bogged down if one does not define terms.
The word evolution is used in general in four ways. First, some people use this word to refer to development. For example in statements about the "evolution of ideas" or "evolution of cars" people are talking about their development. Second, some people use this word to refer to change. For example, "the evolution of a tree from it's seed". Here evolution stands for change or growth.
Third, some people use the word evolution to denote the changes within the same kind of creature. For example, one pair of dogs can give rise to a variety of dogs. This kind of change is seen everywhere, and it is often called micro-evolution. It must be remembered that micro-evolution produces changes only within one basic kind.
The fourth, and most important usage is for denoting a large change from one kind to another. For the sake of clarity, this is often called Macro-Evolution or Mega-Evolution. Most of the times the prefixes Macro or Mega are dropped and people talk only of "Evolution". Their reference is to Mega-Evolution. In this course we will use all three terms (Macro Evolution, Mega Evolution, Evolution) inter changeably. Whenever we have to refer to Micro-Evolution, we will use that specific terminology to avoid confusing it with Mega Evolution.
According to Mega Evolution, everything seen in the universe (stars, planets, solar system, biological life, etc.) is the result of evolution. Starting from primordial (primitive) matter, it all went through a process of self-organization and the result is what we see around today.
Macro Evolution is a grand, all encompassing, theory that maintains that everything in this universe is the result of blind chance. This is a philosophical outlook that finds expression in terms of various theories. These theories try to explain the evolution of different aspects of universe. For example, the Big Bang Theory tries to explain the self-formation of the universe. Theories of Biological evolution try to explain the formation of life, and so on.
What Is The Meaning Of The Term Creation: CREATION is just the opposite of Mega Evolution. According to the principle of Creation, everything in the universe has a plan and purpose behind it. According to it, the origin and destiny of the world is in the firm control of a Creator.
Creation does not negate the chance processes that take place in the world. But it stipulates that the origin and destiny of the universe is not the result of chance processes.
Further, when God created Man, He asked humans to subdue the earth. Consequently creationists believe firmly that man should study the world systematically. In fact modern science is the direct result of Protestant Reformation -- as discovered by historians of science.
Creationists firmly believe that a systematic investigation of the world yields fruitful results -- and modern science has already demonstrated that.
The Evolution Model: There are several evolution models, but all of them have certain common features that yield a common Evolution Model. The following points describe the model:
1-All order seen in universe is the product of randomness and blind chance.
2-Life and living systems developed by the random (unplanned) interaction of matter and energy.
3-Viruses, bacteria, plants and animals have all evolved from a common ancestor.
4-The evolution of one form of life into another takes place through numerous intermediate forms.
Many other points can be added, but the four points above give a representative picture of the model. On using this model one can make the following predictions:
1-A tendency for self-organization should be seen in nature, specially where randomness is predominant.
2-The fossil-record should produce millions upon millions of fossils of intermediate creatures. A gradual change should be visible.
Many other predictions have been made, but the two predictions mentioned above are the most important.
When nature is examined, the hard facts of science go against both of these predictions. Instead of a tendency towards organization, nature demonstrates a tendency towards disorganization and breakup. The more the random forces, the more is the break up.
Also, instead of finding millions of expected intermediate life-forms, the fossil record does not yield even a handful of them ! The situation is so bad that many fossil-experts have abandoned the whole idea of intermediate forms. They advocate a new way of classification in which there is no place for intermediate forms.
The two major predictions of the Evolution Model turn up to be false. The same is the fate of other predictions also. This means that this model is not an appropriate description of reality.
The Creation Model: Similar to the Evolution model, the Creation model is also made up of numerous points. Some of the most important ones are as follows:
1-All living and non living bodies have been created by a planner.
2-All basic kinds of life forms are fixed. Changes are restricted within the kinds, and one kind never changes into another.
3-Since basic kinds of living creatures have been fixed by the creator, no intermediate forms will ever be seen.
4-Randomness is the opposite of plan. Therefore, randomness will work against the plan, design, and complexity in nature.
The above model has also been examined in great detail, comparing it with nature. The model predicts absence of intermediate forms and also destruction of order by random forces. Intense researches of the twentieth century have confirmed the correctness of both the predictions in great detail. While basic kinds of living creatures show great variation within their own category, no basic kind has ever been observed to change into another. Intermediate fossils have never been discovered. Further, randomness has been demonstrated to be the greatest enemy of order and complexity.
Which Model Is Scientifically Better: The model that gives most accurate predictions is considered to be the better one. It is considered to represent the reality most accurately and closely. On this count the creation model turns out to be better than the Evolution model.
All the major predictions of the Evolution model go against nature and the laws of science. On the other hand all the major predictions of the creation model agree well with nature and the laws of science.
Thus the Creation model is better and closer to reality than the Evolution model.
The Evolution Of Animals: It has been claimed that all animals seen today have evolved from a common ancestor. If this hypothesis is correct, then the fossils should produce supporting evidence.
Evolutionists widely believe that all plant and animal life have developed from the original and common ancestor through gradual changes in numerous generations. Thus one kind of creature, when evolving into another, should give rise to numerous intermediate creatures. And this is the acid test for evolution: if living creatures have evolved one from another, then the fossil record should demonstrate such intermediate creatures.
Fossils are the remains of living organisms from the past. This includes the remains of plants, animals and man. These remains include bones, teeth leaves and even complete animals and trees. Most of them, though not all, have already become rock-like .
Fossils are formed when animals or plants are buried suddenly. The atoms of this covering material then replace this animal or plant atom-by-atom. Eventually the original creature is gone and a petrified (turned into stone) replica is left. For many investigations this rock-like fossil is as good as the original creature.
Not all fossils, however, are petrified. Many tree trunks and other such things are found preserved in coal deposits. Also many creature, specially insects, are found trapped in solidified fluids that oozed out of trees. (A lot of "amber" blocks have been discovered with such trapped creatures). Sometimes even the normal bodies of animals and humans are discovered that have not turned into stone nor decayed. Sometimes these are fully dried out bodies, but at other times (like in the case of Siberian mammoths) these are discovered with bodies almost as intact as when they were living. The mammoths were buried under snow, and their flesh was reportedly still edible (for dogs of the explorers) when they were discovered.
Fossils have been found both in isolation (scattered a few here and there) and also in large aggregates. "Fossil graveyards", each containing millions or even billions of fossils have also been discovered all over the world.
The billions of fossils discovered so far give a good picture of life in the past. They furnish a visible record of the living world from the tiniest microscopic creature to the biggest and most giant dinosaurs.
Since the fossils provide a good, physical, and visible guide to life in the past, they should surely furnish the best evidence for evolution (if it has taken place).
If intermediate creatures have existed in the past, the fossil record should produce them. Since different kinds of fully developed creatures have been preserved, their intermediate forms should also be preserved. Further, since there would be numerous intermediate forms between any two well-developed creatures, the fossil record should produce uncountable intermediate creatures. This is more true today than in Darwin's day when the fossil-record was relatively incomplete. Today, with billions of fossils discovered, the record is as complete as anyone might desire. Yet the fossils do not support evolution. Intermediate forms are still missing.
Even after a century and a half of frantic hunting, and even after discovering billions of fossils, the evolution-believing scientists were able to claim only a handballs of fossils as intermediates. Moreover, recent researches have discredited even these claims- leaving the evolution theory completely helpless. No wonder the secular scientists are publishing articles like "Why Darwinists no longer believe Darwinism".
You might immediately wonder, "But my biology textbooks mention many intermediate fossils". That's true, they do mention a few fossils, but these handfuls of fossils are surprisingly few when one considers that they came by combing through billions of fossils. If the theory were true, the number of intermediates should exceed the number of final forms. Even the most generous concessions would bring their numbers only to millions not to a dozen or so !
This insignificant number is terribly shocking but what's more, even these have been exposed to be non-intermediates. Some have even been exposed to be frauds. Take the well-publicized "Horse-evolution series". They used to claim that the evolution of modern day horses is supported by several intermediate fossils. But biologists have recently established that this link is not reliable at all. They have discovered that some of the fossils making up this series do not belong at all to this series. Further, some of the fossils mentioned in this series do not even exist anywhere in the world -- they seem to be just imaginary names added to the chain by ambitious evolutionists ! Fossil experts have shown that there is no fossil-evidence to support horse evolution.
Another example is "Archaeopteryx" the famous fossil link between reptiles and birds. Recent studies have shown that most of the "archie" fossils were tampered with to make them look authentic intermediate forms. But they were nothing but cleaver scientific frauds.
The scientific community itself has shown that the handfuls of the presumed intermediate fossils are not intermediates at all, some of them have been identified wrongly, others are frauds, and still others are even non existent. Today there is not even a single fossil that is accepted by the scientific community as an undisputed and established intermediate form.
Thus, contrary to the impression that many give you, the fossil record does not provide support to the evolution of animals. On the contrary, all animals and plants discovered as fossils are fully formed and developed which lends support to their creation and not evolution.