Creation vs Evolution

"... Creation’s Tiny Mystery will stand as the Rock of Gibraltar against the tide of evolution." (Gentry, 1986, p. 202)

What an IDIOT.

"Where's the proof? There is no proof!" (Gentry 1986, p. 301)

Here is the proof you idiot.

To summarize:

1. The samples of biotite that contain Gentry’s Po halos came from pegmatite dikes and calcite vein-dikes that cross-cut metamorphosed volcanic, sedimentary and igneous rock units - the dikes are clearly the last to form, not the first;

2. The dikes are not the vast extensive granite gneisses Gentry claims are the backbone of the mountains and continents -- they are relatively small features;

3. The rocks at two of the sites are not even granites but calcite vein-dikes, most likely of hydrothermal origin. The biotite was formed in the solid matrix by metamorphism and

4. Crystal size in igneous, vein and metamorphic rocks ranges from microscopic to very large, is primarily due to cooling rates and crystal growth, and cannot be used to identify "created" rocks.

Originally posted by Templares
[B]"... Creation’s Tiny Mystery will stand as the Rock of Gibraltar against the tide of evolution." (Gentry, 1986, p. 202)

What an IDIOT.

"Where's the proof? There is no proof!" (Gentry 1986, p. 301)

Here is the proof you idiot.

To summarize:

1. The samples of biotite that contain Gentry’s Po halos came from pegmatite dikes and calcite vein-dikes that cross-cut metamorphosed volcanic, sedimentary and igneous rock units - the dikes are clearly the last to form, not the first;

2. The dikes are not the vast extensive granite gneisses Gentry claims are the backbone of the mountains and continents -- they are relatively small features;

3. The rocks at two of the sites are not even granites but calcite vein-dikes, most likely of hydrothermal origin. The biotite was formed in the solid matrix by metamorphism and

4. Crystal size in igneous, vein and metamorphic rocks ranges from microscopic to very large, is primarily due to cooling rates and crystal growth, and cannot be used to identify "created" rocks. [/B]

Prove it. Don't you guys (and girls) see how asinine it is to ask someone to prove something? What you call proof someone can dispute and say is rigged or falsified. You can never truly know for sure that something is proven. In God's case I see proof everywhere present. No amount of cosmic explosion and frogs transforming into princes can ever lead me to believe in evo-LIE-tion. Say it ain't so JesusIsAlive, say it aint so. Templares, were you there when those findings were documented? No? (Incidentally, I am just using you guys' mode of thinking against you). So then what makes you so sure that it is accurate?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ok, considering such is a good conotation for our coprehantion of the Universe, how can you offer any reasoning, or explanation on Universe or the God.

If such is true, how can all the knowledge and wisdom fit in one book? That is truly impossible.

lil...I apologize for not responding to your post (I didn't even see it). I was so engrossed into going back and forth with Shak about the ant analogy that I missed your post. You ask how can all "the knowledge and wisdom fit one book?" Well my response is concise: nobody (not even God Himself) claims that the Bible contains "all knowledge and wisdom."

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Prove it. Don't you guys (and girls) see how asinine it is to ask someone to prove something? What you call proof someone can dispute and say is rigged or falsified. You can never truly know for sure that something is proven. In God's case I see proof everywhere present. No amount of cosmic explosion and frogs transforming into princes can ever lead me to believe in evo-LIE-tion. Say it ain't so JesusIsAlive, say it aint so. Templares, were you there when those findings were documented? No? (Incidentally, I am just using you guys' mode of thinking against you). So then what makes you so sure that it is accurate?

Because it has been thoroughly critiqued by eminent scientists since Darwin; these people have looked at the theory in a scientific (ie open-minded) manner. They have found proof upon proof for evolution. Some have even tried to disprove their own theories - it is what science does in order to check if it is correct or not.

Creationism has been critiqued by both religious and scientific minds. The VAST majority of the former and an even VASTER majority of the latter have found it to be UNTRUE. Those that continue to push it are utterly closed minded and do so out of fear - they are scared to admit that what they believe isnt completely true. Have you looked at the countless websites and books in support of Evolution with an OPEN mind, JIA? Or are your eyes totally clouded by your personal beliefs?

I look at both with an open mind. I am open to change. I am not simply denying Creationism because it is against my beliefs, I am denying it because I have looked at the evidence and come to a balanced conclusion.

I have already stated that belief in evolution does not mean you deny God or Jesus. Most major religious figures have accepted this, including the Pope. Unfortunately, some crackpots in the US have decided to deny science. Apologies to all those sane, even headed Americans reading this, but....'only in America'!

You have already stated JIA that the Bible does not hold all truths. I have already demonstrated that the Bible is by no means an authoritative source on anything, as it was written by men and was compiled by a man in the 4th Century, ignoring a number of other writings that would have shed a very different light on the teachings of Jesus.

But you close your mind to all of these issues.

Originally posted by Mithlond
Because it has been thoroughly critiqued by eminent scientists since Darwin; these people have looked at the theory in a scientific (ie open-minded) manner. They have found proof upon proof for evolution. Some have even tried to disprove their own theories - it is what science does in order to check if it is correct or not.

In fact, the theory has changed immensely since Darwin, but the core tenants of the Theory have remianed intact since its creation.

When Darwin published, Natural Selection was already beyond the hypothesis stage. It was born a full fledged theory. Most creationist I know (not literal creationists of course) believe that it was divinely inspired, as Darwin was very close to god. One of my frineds actually calls him a prophet.

Originally posted by Mithlond
...You have already stated JIA that the Bible does not hold all truths.

Remind me to add you to my (imaginary) list of folks who misquote me regularly. Show me where I said that the Bible does not hold all "truths."

My apologies - you said the Bible does not hold all knowledge and wisdom. I paraphrased.

JIA has a tenadancy to think that people misquote him when they interpret something differently than he does.

I think I'm right in assuming JIA is a Jehovah's Witness. If you want to engage a JW in religious argument, it is very hard, they often deflect questions with spurious biblical quotations.

This site tells you a little about them
http://members.aol.com/Beyondjw/dwjw.htm

So much for accepting all religions?

Why would you ever assume what someone's religon is?

I only assume because on other threads JIA posts links from chick.com - a Witness website. If I'm wrong, I have the total wrong end of the stick and I whole heartedly apologise and retract my statement. I assumed as JIA was posting links, there was no issue of privacy.

I respect all religions, and all people's beliefs.

I don't know if you're wrong or not...it just seemed to be a jump.

Explains a lot about JIA's quotes and attitudes. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but if I'm right it shows where he's coming from.

Well, he is Christian and Conservative, but he may nto relaly be affiliated with any particular church.

Originally posted by Mithlond
Because it has been thoroughly critiqued by eminent scientists since Darwin; these people have looked at the theory in a scientific (ie open-minded) manner. They have found proof upon proof for evolution. Some have even tried to disprove their own theories - it is what science does in order to check if it is correct or not.

Creationism has been critiqued by both religious and scientific minds. The VAST majority of the former and an even VASTER majority of the latter have found it to be UNTRUE. Those that continue to push it are utterly closed minded and do so out of fear - they are scared to admit that what they believe isnt completely true. Have you looked at the countless websites and books in support of Evolution with an OPEN mind, JIA? Or are your eyes totally clouded by your personal beliefs?

I look at both with an open mind. I am open to change. I am not simply denying Creationism because it is against my beliefs, I am denying it because I have looked at the evidence and come to a balanced conclusion.

I have already stated that belief in evolution does not mean you deny God or Jesus. Most major religious figures have accepted this, including the Pope. Unfortunately, some crackpots in the US have decided to deny science. Apologies to all those sane, even headed Americans reading this, but....'only in America'!

You have already stated JIA that the Bible does not hold all truths. I have already demonstrated that the Bible is by no means an authoritative source on anything, as it was written by men and was compiled by a man in the 4th Century, ignoring a number of other writings that would have shed a very different light on the teachings of Jesus.

But you close your mind to all of these issues.

Originally posted by Mithlond
I only assume because on other threads JIA posts links from chick.com - a Witness website. If I'm wrong, I have the total wrong end of the stick and I whole heartedly apologise and retract my statement. I assumed as JIA was posting links, there was no issue of privacy.

I respect all religions, and all people's beliefs.

What proof do you have that chick.com is a "Witness" site?

It was an assumption.

you know what assuming does, dont you?

Originally posted by Mithlond
I think I'm right in assuming JIA is a Jehovah's Witness. If you want to engage a JW in religious argument, it is very hard, they often deflect questions with spurious biblical quotations.

This site tells you a little about them
http://members.aol.com/Beyondjw/dwjw.htm

No need to assume (you know what they say about those who assume), just ask me whether I am a Jehovah Witness or not.

No. Assumptions based on trends and logic are prefectly natural an acceptible.

However, the JW was over the edge a bit imo.