M-15 - Evolution & Creationism

[Morgoth]

A serious grown up debate on this hot subject

Right, before we begin, let's talk about this subject as if it were new and totally unexplored. Let's all refrain from mocking one another because of our beliefs. Each has a valid point to make and each person has a right to make it. Any nasty comments or critical remarks will result in the post being deleted.

A brief explanation about beliefs on this matter.


Various religious views: According David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia" there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many thousands of smaller ones. Among these various faith groups, there are probably about 500 different creation stories to draw from -- all different.
Creation science: This is one of the approximately 500 religious belief systems described above. New Earth creationists form the majority of creation scientists. They believe that the earth, its current life forms, and the rest of the universe were created by God, less than 10,000 years ago. Only very minor changes within various species have happened since creation; no new species have evolved or been created. This belief system is mainly promoted by people who believe in the inerrant truth of the Hebrew Scriptures (a.k.a. Old Testament) when interpreted literally.
Old Earth creationists: believe that geology, radiometric dating has shown that the world is billions of years old. However, they believe that God created the earth and the rest of the universe.
Naturalistic evolution: The origin of the universe happened about 14 billion years ago. The earth coalesced about 4.5 billion years ago. Life subsequently began, probably as bacteria, and has been evolving ever since. The process of evolution has been driven by purely natural forces, without input from a God or a Goddess or multiple deities.
Theistic evolution: Evolution happened just as supporters of naturalistic evolution believe, but it was a tool created, used, and/or controlled by God.



CREATION SCIENCE
- 'Creation-science' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate:


Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
Separate ancestry for man and apes;
Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.


THEORY OF EVOLUTION


Evolution is "an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments."
Natural selection is the primary mechanism driving evolutionary change. It is caused by variations which exist within a species due to differences in the genetic makeup of its individual members. This causes some individuals to be more likely to thrive in a given environment, and to produce offspring like themselves.
Punctuated equilibrium is the concept that evolution did not happen at a steady rate. Rather, the historical record shows long periods of relative stability, such as the present time, when few new species evolved. These periods were broken by short periods of rapid change.


So questions...

1. What do you believe in?

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?


NOTE: Please reply either with evidence or with well constructed, intelligent remarks. Replies of: "Yeah, I do..." or "I don't care what people believe. It's true." will be deleted.

Thanks

[Midnightsfire]

What do you believe in?

Such a lightly worded question asking for a rather large answer. My own beliefs revolve around what I want to believe in and what I do believe in.
I want to believe that there is a spiritual side to everything. (i.e. Animism I guess) Looking at the Native Americans here prior to the European invasion. They had their own share of problems however, overall, everything seemed so much HEALTHIER in almost everyway I can think of. (Yes, even morally speaking. Sorry if that seems like a jab but there you go)
What I do believe in is hard science. Show me archaeological evidence and the logic supporting the evidence and I'll probably believe it. I'll do my best to shred it but after tearing it this way and that, if it still holds water, I may use it for reference later.
I don't want to believe that science will hold all the answers because I like a little mystery left in our little world. (just a little wonder and magic to keep me dreaming)

Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

Umm...Not the former I suppose. Its more of my own instincts trying to grasp a reality beyond my own senses. The latter...Errr...You want ALL my notes? :wow:

If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

If they had already taught me about Evolution, probably not. Especially if they would teach about other faiths and what they had to say about their own respective beliefs on Creationism. (Yea, even at the public's expense)

Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

Yes. Especially for those more analytically inclined and the incessant need for proof. Going by my own experience, if I hear the word Bible thrown in an argument, I'll sometimes tune the person out since by throwing that in the person rendered any reasonable debate null and void. I admit my own hypocrisy here, in being very unreasonable in that regard at times. Sometimes its a case of the "message" getting buried in its own presentation. *shrugs*

For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

Absolutely! I would never close my mind to the possiblity. The concept is rather mind boggling, at least to my own rather all too human mind. The idea of the Big Bang can be dang complex when closely examined. Considering the possible proof of Absolute Space-Time within "Our" Universe leading to Linear and Finite Dimensions of Space-Time. (http://www.absolute-space-time.net/) I am definitely more open to the possibilty that such may have been deliberate. A frightening thought in itself in my opinion:scared:

[Nydia]

Not sure I'm ready to jump into the debate with both feet (and I notice most other people aren't either), but I have a question:

How do "creation scientists" account for fossil evidence? Dinosaurs, amber, the coelocanth (sp?), etc.

[lanifiel]

1. What do you believe in?

I'm in the evolutionary theory category. Personal experience and and a religious background had left me grounded with very strong thoughts against organised religion and the things it supports.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

I think the human beings evolutionary path is enough to prove the theory. If we were always like this (IE designed like this) then human research and design would of been alot quicker, but no we had to learn how to create things.

We all come from Adam and Eve? thats immpossible! It cant work!

God would not have made humans with so many faults. And there are faults in the human body.

These are only theories but the solid one is the path of human evolution.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

I dont think theres anything to learn, a biology exam answer on the question would be: God made us this way. I imagine this would piss me off though theres no study, only misplaced faith.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

You cant have creationism without the bible. It wouldnt work that well. People would have to wonder who the mighty God person was. So no I dont see creationism without the bible...

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

There is evolution in the world. It is a proven fact. If the world was created there would be no evolution. I see no way that we could of been designed.

[Anne]

1. What do you believe in?
I fall under the Theistic Evolution category. I believe that God created the world, and evolution is the method by which He created it. I believe that the seven days mentioned in the book of Genesis represent seven prolonged periods of time. I believe He designed and guided the evolution of life on Earth.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
I believe so. First of all, I offer the fact that the order of creation in Genesis is in complete accordance with order of evolution. Secondly, I offer the astounding complexity of the world we live in. I cannot believe that such an incredibly complex and efficient life could be created by chance. I feel that life had to have been designed, and He who designed it is great beyond our comprehension.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
I believe in evolution, but my schools have left out the entire God part, and I must say I agree with this. I firmly believe in the separation of Church and State, and religion should not be taught in school.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
Yes, I would be angry to be taught literal creationism. But, to an extent, I believe Creationism and Evolution are one in the same.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
I think it puts some people off, and it turns others on. That all depends on the individual's view of the Bible.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
N/A

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
Yes. That is, in fact what I believe. I believe that Creationism is Evolution.

[lanifiel]

Originally posted by Anne
1. What do you believe in?
I fall under the Theistic Evolution category. I believe that God created the world, and evolution is the method by which He created it. I believe that the seven days mentioned in the book of Genesis represent seven prolonged periods of time. I believe He designed and guided the evolution of life on Earth.


That is one of the smartest and most intellegent answers I have ever heard. Definitley one to think about...

[Death in Vegas]

1. What do you believe in?
- Creation

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

4,400 years ago
- - God judges man's rebellion and perversion with a year-long worldwide flood and reduces the human population to eight.

Genesis 7:19-20 "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

4,300 Yeas Ago - The Tower of Babel
- - Scattering of human population. Spreading of languages and skin color. Variations of skin color have been shown to be adaptations to the amount of solar ultraviolet radiation.

Associated Press, August 27, 2000,
Journal of Human Evolution, July 2000

2,000 Years Ago - Jesus' Birth
- - The western calendar dates all events by whether they occurred before (BC) or after (AD, anno domini in Latin) Christ.

Today
- - Human population of 6+ billion would be much larger if humans have been on earth for more than 6,000 years.

DNA Strands
- - Using newly calculated mitochondrial DNA mutation rate, scientists are able to back date the beginnings of the human species. New data indicates there was an "Eve gene," a common mother who was ancestral to all humans, who lived a mere 6,000 years ago!
Science 279: 28-29, 1998

Grand Canyon
Could Noah's worldwide flood have changed the surface terrain of the earth in just a few hours? Scientists now admit there is a phenomenon called a superflood, a catastrophic flood that can transform landscape in a period as short as a few hours. Canyons and valleys as big as the Grand Canyon could have formed in days, not over tens of thousands of years as previously alleged.
Science Magazine, April 2002

Great Barrier Reef
The Great Barrier Reef has been estimated to be 4,200 years old. No living thing is older than about 5,000 years, which is consistent with life forms beginning after the time of Noah's worldwide flood.

If the Earth were millions of years old there would be billions of tons of atmospheric carbon trapped in the wet ground of northern boreal forests.
Earth Observatory, NASA

Oldest City
The oldest human civilizations are not dated beyond a few thousand years. Damascus, Syria, is considered to be the oldest continually inhabited city at about 6,000 years of age. The earliest known examples of handwriting date back to 3500 BC (5,500 years ago). The Cheops pyramid was built in Egypt 2500 BC. China is the oldest continuous human civilization known which only dates back to Emperor Yao and Shun in 3000 BC. Dating backwards using human mitochondrial DNA mutation rates, current estimates are that humans have only existed for 6,000 years.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
*shrug* It wouldn't matter or not. You can believe what you like.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
N/A

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Well, I only quoted a small part of the Bible at the start there, so hopefully not, but I understand peoples views.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
N/A

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
Yes, but that doesn't exclude God's involvement.

[lanifiel]

- Eight people cannot repopulate a planet after a devastating flood. It is impossible in genetics.

- You also state that the Tower of Babels inhabitiants were scattered 100 years later. How many people were in the Tower? How fast do these super humans grow? 100 years for Noah and Co to get jiggy is quite a good track record...

Ok now to get scientific on you all:

- The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

Therefore if the earth is this old and God created the world in seven days and man on the 6th day then we are alot older than 6,000 years.

- Vegas states that there would be a larger population if we had been on the earth for more than 6,000 years but this does not take in too account our sciences and medicines that are still improving it is our quality of life that has improved over the last 3 thousand years that has allowed us to now flourish and grow in numbers.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally posted by LewsTherin
I'll come back to this, but I'm currently reading a book that deals with this exact subject. It's called The Science of God, and is written by Gerald L Schroeder.


Hmmm...Gerald Schroeder? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/schrev.html)

[DogStar87]

Thanks for bringing this topic up, Matt, and thanks to everyone who has replied in this thread... I haven't been posting in awhile so this may be a bit raw.


Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing;
The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism;
Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals;
Separate ancestry for man and apes;
Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and
A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.


1. What do you believe in? I believe in Creation. I don't believe in one of the specific creation sciences mentioned. I believe strictly in the 7 day creation story illustrated in the Bible (Genesis 1:1-31; 2:1-4)

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence? No

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools? Having gone to a Catholic School all my life, I appriciate what I've learned, however I have no objection to the Creation Story being left out of public school ciriculams, mainly because I believe that everyone if free to choose their own beliefs (did that make sense?) and that many children would be under the impression that teachers are trying to make them believe what isn't part of their culture, and that if they do believe in creation, they should learn about it from their parents or church members.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

Yes and no. When I hear "understanding it" I don't think of it in scientific terms. I have always thought of evolution as the scientific approach in understanding how the world began, and creation as the spiritual explanation. I've never actually considered the physical process of creation. Being more of an idealist than a realist, I understand Creation as it was told in the Bible. I think that the Creation Story in the Bible would put people off in trying to understand creation if they do not believe in God and they think that Creation is trying to contridict the scientific explination of how the world came to be. Now, for those who regard the whole creation story as silly and give no thought on the matter, the Bible may not put these people off at all. Completely scientifically-minded people for the most part have no trouble overlooking the story entirely.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

When Charles Darwin purposed his theory of natural selection, it caused one of the most controversial uproars ever. I believe in creation, however last year when i was a freshman taking biology, and learned about the evolutionary theory of natural selection, I understood the concept. I could see how different forms of life have evolved over types. I studied ammoniom, nitrogen, carbon, and oxygen, and how these elements and polyatomic ions formed the first organisms. And I realized that it all could've happened that way.

My personal arguement is that human intelligence is too complex to have come from a lesser life form. I believe that God, as master of the universe, created humans, giving us the gift of intelligence. I believe it is nothing we could have acquired from below us over time, that everything we are able to do has come from above us, and thats why we can learn about the world.

[DragonslayerX]

i believe in evolution, but i also have a fondness of theistic evolution.

i cant really prove this in that i dont have evidence for the theistic part, but several people have listed the evidence for evolution part.

i believe that if teachers can provide a scientific lesson on creationism, leaving all religious affiliation out of it, then i believe it should be taught in schools. however, i dont really see how this would be possible.

no, i would be thrilled to learn creationism also, becuz it would be something i would enjoy debating

ok, after answering the questions, i want to make a few comments. first off, yes a world wide flood COULD have caused the grand canyon, but the colorado river which flows through it is a much more logical choice. also, the western calenders use Jesus' coming as a starting point and ending point in their calender, becuz the western civilization that created this calender were christians. sorry, but that proves nothing. using the same methods of dating humans u mentioned, vegas, other animals have been dated back several million yrs. and finally, why would human's population be larger now? first, there were several things (such as the black death and what not) that decimated the human population. also, human lifspans were a lot shorter, and baby mortality rates were much higher. finally, that would cause the earth to overpopulate, which would kill more humans from hunger and such, causing the population to go down

[HF-kun]

I'm more of an intelligent design man myself. It helps crave my theological and scientific side. But at the same time I'm afraid it doesn't hold much water.

I refuse to believe in pure creationism, which relies on a story I believe to be highly symbolic, or pure evolution, a theory made before the scientist even knew atoms existed. So its impossible for either of the two to be 100% correct. At the risk of sounding like a fundamentalist, Darwin thought the smallest organic structure was the cell. But natural selection and evolution in all I believe to be fairly accurate. Despite there being several gaps that are impossible to ignore.

[DragonslayerX]

OK, at the risk of sounding very stupid, isn't the cell the smallest organic structure? Or are you referring to the things that make up a cell?

Because, an atom is not organic, if that is what you are referring to.

[Justin Etre]

I believe that creativity is just unproven science

[Midnightsfire]

I have read another forum with many points and counter-points on the old "Creation vs Evolution" argument.

If no one minds, I'll post the debate here, omitting some of the more harsher language used, of course. (such things sometime do "devolve" into ad hominem attacks. *sigh*)

Some of it is rather technical and dry...

The two participants will naturally be id'ed as "C" (the one that leans toward creationist thought) and "E" ( the one who is in favor of the theory of Evolution)

Anyone against this?

[Morgoth]

I have no objection to such an argument being posted here, as long as it remains civil and doesn't ring of any sarcastic nastiness towards each others views.

[Midnightsfire]

From �C�:
Well, the whole concept of evolution infers that a creature must begin in one state, and adapting to it's living conditions it mutates to a form which grants it increased survivability. The problem with this is, it's such an engrained theory in the backbone of science that this is the case, with absolutely no scientific evidence to back this up. By that I mean, an indication of creatures that evolve or change over time. What there is instead is a vast amount of follil evidence of various creatures which have existed as their own species for anywhere up to 200 million years unchanged. In this example, the modern horseshoe crab.

In contrariness to the evidence of unchanging fossil states within each species, scientists have invented a host of theories to outline plausable sounding theories on the "evolution" of single-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, fish to amphibians, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, and mammals to humans. What has happened this century is a constant rewriting of the human "family tree" as subsequent discoveries "prove" their finding is centric to the direct lineage of modern man. Given proper scientific method, which is strangely overlooked in favour of an unquestionable acceptance that evolution of species actually occurs among scientists, the fossils point to a much more obvious conclusion than this. It indicates a more sudden appearance of individual species, a wide proliferation of variety in the species, and no evidence of evolving to a more "adaptable" form: rather, a dying out of one species and a thriving of an already "fitter" species.

Further, there isn't the proof of mutation within one species to another. Beyond cosmetic changes such as skin pigments, hair growth, or eye colour - changes common to any species - none actually change genetic code sufficiently to develop extra limbs, grow feathers, web feet, and so on. Mutations produced in labs (ie the mouse with the human ear on it's back) are as hybrids, and while they occur .1% of the time, they are - even among most evolutionists - considered A) To be caused by outside agents such as radiation or chemicals, and B) Deletrious to the species. Just as hybrid seed needs to be continually created in ag labs because it produces normal seed, those mutations that do survive produce normal offspring if they are to survive at all for having harmful defects.
Yet mutations are the very basis for evolution.

So that's where I'm going with these arguments, but it takes specific examples to get into anything backing these points. We're right to question the most basic tenets of Darwins brainchild because over the centuries the fossil proofs have pointed otherwise. Scientists have been more imaginiative than we give them credit for, and the illustrations, trees, and so forth are the results of wishful thinking.

It points to a more obvious conclusion, that of the rather sudden creation of various species. The thing that sucks for us humans is that we continually "discover" all the life forms around us, which are most likely not new but simply new to us, and have not been around on the planet long enough to actually witness a process of creation. Or else if we have, it's been as a tree falling in a forest without anyone around to discover.

Anyway, if this continues I don't plan on dwelling on the "mythical" overtones of it. This has solid scientific basis. Not am I doing my own research, still, I've good sources. (Which is for the best, that I am relying on research that is.)

Slight disclaimer here: This and following arguments aren't my own. I merely post these for to further the argument for both sides of the coin. That and I found both sides interesting and I wished to share such.:tu:

[Midnightsfire]

From �E�:

One thing I will say (because I'm certain I can do so legibly), is that the job of the scientist is not to actively disprove creationism. It isn't a scientific theory, and as such has no meritable points that can be proven or disproven. By continually finding evidence that supports evolutionary theory, strict creationism loses credence as a valid worldview. This in no way disproves a Creator. Science can't do that, because such a being is supposedly outside the physical realm that is observable, and Science is a tool based on observation.

You've done a lot of research into evolution, you say, but you're using bad resources. If I want to learn about religion, I read a Theologian's work. If you want to learn about Evolution, read an Evolutionist's work. Not a theologian’s. That only propagates the false arguments and wrong ideas. A smart man like you should know that.

From �C�:

But an evolutionist bases their ideas and findings on the theories of evolution, instead of looking objectively at the evidence: With fossils or with germ/insect studies. Anyway, the human family tree that someone else brought up which has a lot to address over. It's underwent so many changes in the last 150 years based on new finds, and has been a case of many scientists trying to make a name for themselves by placing their discoveries in the most direct lineage.

From �E�:

Scientists look at the objective evidence, and then see how it works with the theories of Evolution. When we get new evidence, we have to change the existing structure of the theories. While scientists do like making names for themselves, with peer review, you can't do so without actually having credible evidence to support your point.

Peer review. If you publish your findings in a journal, you've got this. It's credibility: Your scientific peers have looked over what you've done, and agree that you've reached an appropriate conclusion. If you haven't published in a journal for the peer-review, you really haven't done anything. You are awarded no points, and your work does not go into the canon of scientific knowledge.

From �C�:

I understand the theory behind it well enough, but you can't say it's a fact until proven. Those rare useful mutations are so far and few between that the chances of them making a permanent change on the species is well, impossible. The horseshoe crab, 200 million years old and still unchanged: our oldest living example I believe. Species become extinct, others thrive in their place, but species changing from one to another is the crux of the matter.

Example: prehistoric horses. They were smaller, their brain sizes and skull shapes were less, but they still had fur, a tail, ran on four legs, and so on. They grew larger over time, since likely the fastest and strongest survived the trials of the times to breed. Modern day pygmies survive too, but they are still considered part of the race of modern man, and they don't have feathers yet to help them escape the jaguars that might hunt them on the forest floor. Their survival is also a gift of their intelligence.

But the size of dinosaurs would suggest they should have remained the dominant creatures on earth. Unfortunately for them they could not adapt to global cooling, or a dust cloud, or whatever cause spelled their end. The fitter species for the times took their place, in mammals.
But birds are a complete bane to evolutionists, for the simple reason that they appear in the fossil record as almost ready-formed. Retiles are cold-blooded and birds are warm-blooded. Feathers and scales are light years apart in their purpose and design. Ah, but they lay eggs too. That must mean they evolved from reptiles, and by combining skeletons of birds and reptiles who died together, scientists have concocted an evolutionary "link" between the two!

What have I misunderstood that you're so adamant about? I've yet to see it, and I've looked at both sides of the fence. Not just yesterday man, in the past too. You make a lot of claims but they are empty ones so far. That's not me being a tripe, but so far scientific dogma has resulted in a lot of theories and discussion on the subject, not facts. I am relying on PHD research here too. And so far as a creationist "slant" or whichever, it's not really anything more than to state that "creatures breed according to their kinds" as stated in Genesis.
It's science which is trying to prove Darwin correct in his theory that fish became amphibians, etc.

To summarize, I agree that in nature the fittest of the species will survive. As one species dies out, other species more fit to survive will thrive. I also see that within a given species, a certain amount of variety is possible. This change also has limits which are already set about by a creatures genetic code. Mutations are also possible, but the vast majority of them are degenerative. Of those useful mutations which do occur, they are usually bred out in subsequent generations, because no actual change is occuring to the overall species - only a variety of change which was already possible within the species.
Anyway, I'll keep looking into it, and thanks for some good reading to look into all the same.

From �E�:

We've got a knowledge of Hox (Homeobox) genes, which code for development in highly-conserved fashion, in all vertebrate species. We can see variations in those of fish, reptiles, etc.

Edit: Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution by Prof. R. Carroll.
Basics of Selection by Prof. G. Bell.


Slight disclaimer here: This and following arguments aren't my own. I merely post these for to further the argument for both sides of the coin. That and I found both sides interesting and I wished to share such.:tu:

[Midnightsfire]

From “C�:
While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a brood spot on their breast, an area that does not have any feathers and that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs. Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to provide tham with new instincts - for building the nest, for hatching the eggs and for feeding the young - very selfless, altruistic, considerate behaviours involving skill, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger. All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles and birds, but there is much more.

Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many barbules, and each barbule has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had "several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets." These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has 25,000 feathers.

If the barbs of these feathers become separated, they are combed with the beak. The beak applies pressure as the barbs pass through it, and the hooks on the barbules link together like the teeth of a zipper. Most birds have an oil gland at the base of the tail from which they take oil to condition each feather. Some birds have no oil gland but have special feathers which fray at their tips to produce a fine talclike dust for conditioning their feathers. And feathers usually are renewed by molting once a year.

Knowing all of this about the feather, consider this rather astonishing effort to explain its development: "How did this structural marvel evolve? It takes no great stretch of imagination to envisage a feather as a modified scale, basically like that of a reptile - a longish scale loosely attached, whose outer edges frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today." But do you think such an explanation is truly scientific? Or does it read more like science fiction?
Consider further the design of the bird for flight. The bird's bones are thin and hollow, unlike a reptile's solid ones. Yet strength is required for flight, so inside the bird's bones there are struts, like the braces inside an airplanes wing. This design of the bones serves another purpose: it helps to explain another exclusive marvel of birds - their respiratory system.

Muscular wings beating for hours or even days in flight generate much heat, yet, without sweat glands for cooling, the bird copes with the problem - it has an air cooled "engine." A system of air sacs reach into almost every important part of the body, even into the hollow bones, and body heat is relieved by this internal circulation of air. Also, because of these air sacs, birds extract oxygen from air much more efficiently than any other vertebrate. How is this done?

In reptiles and mammals, the lungs take in and give out air, like bellows that alternatively fill and empty. But in birds there is a constant flow of fresh air going through the lungs, during both inhaling and exhaling. Simply put, the system works like this: When a bird inhales, the air goes to certain air sacs; these serve as bellows to push the air into the lungs. From the lungs the air goes into other air sacs, and these eventually expel it. This means there is constantly a stream of fresh air going through the lungs in one direction, much like water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capilliaries of the lungs is flowing in the opposite direction. It is this countercurrent between air and blood that makes the birds respiratory system exceptional. Because of it, birds can breathe the thin air of high altitudes, flying at over 20,000 feet for days on end as they migrate thousands of miles.

Other features widen the gulf between bird and reptile. Eyesight is one. From eagles to warblers, there are eyes like telescopes and eyes like magnifying glasses. Birds have more sensory cells in their eyes than any other living things. Also, the feet of birds are different. When they come down to roost, tendons automatically lock their toes around the branch. And they have only four toes instead of a reptiles five.

Additionally they have no vocal cords, but they have a syrinx out of which come melodious songs like those of the nightingales or the mockingbirds. Consider too, that reptiles have a three chambered heart: A birds heart has four chambers. Beaks also set birds apart from reptiles: beaks that serve as nutcrackers, beaks that filter food from muddy water, beaks that hammer out holes in trees, crossbill beaks that open up pinecones - the variety seems endless. And yet the beak, with such specialized design, is said to have evolved by chance from the nose of a reptile! Does such an explanation seem credible to you?
Same source.



Slight disclaimer here: This and following arguments aren't my own. I merely post these for to further the argument for both sides of the coin. That and I found both sides interesting and I wished to share such.
:tu:

[Midnightsfire]

From "E":

Which source?

I highly recommend my book suggestions: They'll answer a good number of these "problems" you find.

For the most part, these "problems" are only problems if you don't want to get into the deeper layer of the science, and would rather be an armchair expert. An expert is not necessarily a PhD. If you've got your degree in the wrong field, PhD looks important, but isn't. If you've got your PhD from a non-accredited school, same thing. You list your source again for me, and I'll check out his(her?) credibility.

From "C":

Sources are varied. I'll see which ones have been used here.

Cosmos, by Carl Sagan
The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin
The Enterprise, "Macroevolution Theory Stirs Hottest Debate Since Darwin", Royce Rensberger (Sept 14/1980)
Science, "Evolutionary Theory under Fire", Roger Lewin
Science Digest, "Miracle Mutations", John Gliedman (Feb/1982)
Harpers, "Darwins Mistake", Tom Bethell (Feb 1976)
Red Giants and White Dwarfs, Robert Jastrow
The Reptiles, Archie Carr
The Fishes, O.D. Ommanney
The Mammals, Richard Carrington
Processes of Organic Evolution
On Growth and Form, D'Arct Thompson
Liberty, "Evolution or Creation?", Harold G. Coffin
The three Encyclopedias mentioned
Life, How did it get here? By Evolution or Creation?
Watchtower Society
Pretty good sources for the discussion of Creation or Evolution. *shrug*
You better not be getting royalty rights on those books btw :)

From "E":

What are the consequences in a reduction in bodymass in the ancestors of birds form an 80kg dromeosaur to a .5kg archeopteryx?

Potential for flight, unable to regulate heat effectively

Scales and feathers homologous: Developmentally/chemically similar.
Ancestors of birds arboreal (hypothesis)
From structure, gliding not an ancestral habit of birds
John Ostrum (dromeosaur)

Went on to study archeopteryx
Scoop insects down and fly foward along ground w/downy "wings"
Young chicks, with poor wings, very adept at running up angled logs (/).
As older, up vertical trees(|), or even leaning trees (\).
use wings as spoilers (shaping angle of wing), can push themselves to the surface firmly.
Flight evolved from fleeing (hypothesis)
Lower Cretaceous fossils from China/Spain
Fossils for modern evolution of birds, evolution of traits from least recent to most recent:
1. Sternum enlarged
2. Strong coracoid strut
3. Keeled Sternum
4. Long tail to pygostyle
5. Folding of limb (wing above back)
6. Loss of teeth
7. Fusion of metatarsals
8. Loss of distinctive fingers.

I know it's not very good (I take decent notes, but Prof. Carroll can't write on an overhead to save his soul), but Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution goes into much more detail than my notes, which are his synopsis on his book.

Slight disclaimer here: This and following arguments aren't my own. I merely post these for to further the argument for both sides of the coin. That and I found both sides interesting and I wished to share such. :tu:

[Midnightsfire]

From "C":

Is this your profs book that you mentioned, or rather your course text? I'll be happy to look into a lot of things, so sure & ty. I enjoy a good read as much as a classic psycology, and will add it to my "to get to" list, I'll see why you suggested it at the time.

From "E":

Both. They didn't like the evolution texts available, so they wrote their own, each for the section of the course they teach.

From "C":

A couple sources were certainly from that camp although I was keeping to points based on research, mainly because my disillusionment with evolutionary theory lacking evidence is genuine. Thing is, my questions haven't really been answered, but I'm told that science does have an answer to everything I've brought up that fits in neatly with the evolutionary theories. I'm told I don't understand the theory correctly, one which I've understood well since childhood: it's not so complex, and it's certainly not beyond my understanding.

Very well, that leaves me to keep looking into my "misunderstandings" lol. I intend to anyway. I'm sure most of the critiques are based on cutting edge findings, and my sources are somewhat dated. I'm thinking the theory has changed by this point.


Slight disclaimer here: This and following arguments aren't my own. I merely post these for to further the argument for both sides of the coin. That and I found both sides interesting and I wished to share such. :tu:

[Midnightsfire]

From "E":

Well, the whole concept of evolution infers that a creature must begin in one state, and adapting to it's living conditions it mutates to a form which grants it increased survivability. The problem with this is, it's such an engrained theory in the backbone of science that this is the case, with absolutely no scientific evidence to back this up. By that I mean, an indication of creatures that evolve or change over time. What there is instead is a vast amount of follil evidence of various creatures which have existed as their own species for anywhere up to 200 million years unchanged. In this example, the modern horseshoe crab.

Your own words, C. That is not the theory of evolution.

Organisms do not mutate to adapt to their environment. Organisms mutate, and in most cases, the mutation either has no effect, or results in death or failure to pass on genes. Useful mutations increase in frequency. As mutation frequencies increase, representing a better fit of the species to environment.

You want to truly learn how evolutionary theory actually works, read the books I suggested. It might be a simple theory, but it's got a lot of elegance and interesting nuances that you just aren't understanding.
I'm sure this is going to turn into another rant on how "nobody is addressing the important points and holes, and it's all a personal attack", it isn't. From what I've read (and I'll reiterate this, because apparently you don't listen, or you're that egotistical), you don't understand the theory of evolution. It's as simple as that.

A third party:

Someone pointed out something that made sense much earlier in this thread.

Science deals in the hows. Religion in the whys.

That religion must somehow replace or supercede science is old and old and out-dated idea. It goes back to a time when the church felt threatened by the fact that science was beginning to explain away all the old myths. It goes back to a time when the church felt it had to control people.

When I want spiritual answers, I don't turn to science. I turn to my faith. When I want scientific answers, I don't turn to my faith, I turn to science. It's that simple.

So, maybe this is just my sensible side talking, but if each side of the argument could accept thier roles, then don't you think something like amiableness could be reached and maybe people could actually *gasp at the thought* learn something?

From "C":

Well, that first post was still a very brief overview which really doesn't do justice to what I do understand, but at the same time, I think you summed it up well in your second statement. I respect that you're looking into evolution to the depth you are, and know how complex everything becomes from a professional or university-level standpoint. That's fine, I'm not against looking deeper into it before bringing up more than a few points again.

I agree that within a species there is a lot of variety and change that is supported in the fossil record. My stance is that these changes were already possible for the species from the onset, and it's that "onset" that I haven't been touching on. All I'm saying is that with mammals, germs, insects, or with any branch of the kingdoms, only so much change is possible. It has preset limits which prevent the giraffe or horse from ever growing extra limbs, scales, gills, or anything we haven't already witnessed. The frustration I speak of doesn't have to do with the creationist standpoint, of a failure or acceptance to recognize a higher power as the source of creations, but that can save.

What the frustration does stem from is a preconceived notion of evolution that becomes the starting basis (to the point of texts as early as second grade determining it as fact, and losing marks in school because you're giving the "wrong answer") which is indoctrinated. It spurs imaginations to deduce that fish became sharks, and beetles became armadillos (just top of my head, don't worry...) and ignores an entirely more useful tract that could be uncovered. Once we recognize this portion, we can learn the extent of changes that are possible for a given species given their natural makeup. From there we could make far more accurate deductions such as:

"If introduced to an area, will this species take to feeding on our local pests over the similar prey which they are used to"
"Can this strain of plant adapt to arid conditions and provide food and root irrigation for the soil there?"
"Does this lichen need oxygen to survive considering how little use it makes of it now?"

- and going by their genetic read-out it wouldn't be a matter of speculation, but of sure fact once we learn to decipher their capabilities.

That's a far stretch from huge expenditures of time and money in attempting to mutate the species into something new which generally results in single-generation, unbreedable, lab-produced hybrids. There is so much straining at finding those "missing links" between species which is unproductive, and rather unscientific considering that the vast evidence being ignored tells us to accept there is no "missing link"!

There was a respected geneticist named Richard Goldschmidt who spent much of his carreer mutating fruit flies. "After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." Darwin Retried

Add: My own speculation. Was he a "Victim of Darwinism?" to lead this otherwise competent scientist to such fruitless experiments? (Couldn't resist.) Would he have not done groundbreaking experiments in a field that analyzed what inherent possibilities for change fruit flies already contain? To what degree did his education play in indoctrinating him on the grounds of evolution and mutation to lead him into this field? <<

I don't see how you can say changes within species are not a result of cause and effect either, but are passed as happy coincedences. I hope I understand where you're coming from, but think you made it clear enough to. I can see the one useful mutation for every thousand resulting in improved circumstances. That one surviving would be happy circumstance. The rest is still cause and effect though, survival of the fittest determines that those germs destroyed by a vaccine will die, and only those resistant to it will live. Cause and effect, and epidemologists do aim to find "germ genocide" solutions. Likewise, furless or otherwise unprotected animals introduced to arctic conditions will die out, and be uncompetative with native animals if they live their first night. The cause is either vaccine or severe cold, and the effect is a more fit species or an already adapted version of the same species thriving while they die out. However, I think you're talking about something more along the lines of it being chance that two animals out of a hundred have superior traits, (and only then will cause and effect come into place.)

Slight disclaimer here: This and following arguments aren't my own. I merely post these for to further the argument for both sides of the coin. That and I found both sides interesting and I wished to share such.

[Midnightsfire]

From "E":

to my understanding, Creationists hang on the lack of current evidence as proof the theory is wrong, or on straight-out bad science (re: Feathers and scales). We don't have any evidence of ape to man, and therefore it's wrong!

Nevermind that we do have some intermediate examples, sufficient to make a somewhat stable theory. What irks me is that this lack of evidence in their own ideas is perfectly fine, because a book they've got tells them so.

Another third party:

Funny how that works, hm? "We don't have enough evidence of evolution, so it's wrong! But of course, no evidence is needed to have faith in God's glory!" Go figure.

From "C":

I can well imagine. I can understand why it would be annoying too. The thing to overlook is this portion of it, the matter of faith part, and then to realize there are probably just as many scientists who are religious as there are athiest or agnostic. It shouldn't dilute true scientific method, but it does for a few reasons.

From a religious perspective, scientists are stuck in a theory which has grown into the foundation of their thinking and studies, and it's commonly pointed out that they have a hard time seeing past that training to be truly objective in their findings. A straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel as the proverb goes.
They also face the additional hurdle of being part of a community which is unquestioning of those basic theories, and gives lessoning credence to views outside their perspective.

From a critic of the Creationist standpoint, Creationists are automatically stuck in a certain dogmatic perspective despite their education, which may be highly scientific and respectable. They are leery to accept their views, for thinking they might be based on "faith" alone without proofs, and not everyone has the time to analyze findings in detail enough to determine this. The end result is it being "safer" to discount the Creationists findings just in case. (And it's certainly easier to discredit them based on the same line of reasoning, whatever the topic may be).

From "E":

The thing to overlook is this portion of it, the matter of faith part, and then to realize there are probably just as many scientists who are religious as there are athiest or agnostic. It shouldn't dilute true scientific method, but it does for a few reasons.

Doesn't look like that here (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism6.htm) or here. (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm)

From a religious perspective, scientists are stuck in a theory which has grown into the foundation of their thinking and studies, and it's commonly pointed out that they have a hard time seeing past that training to be truly objective in their findings.

From a scientific perspective, I disagree. That's why we have peer review in journals. If your data doesn't satisfactorily back up your claim, you're wrong. Scientists can't get mired in a belief system, because if the data says it's wrong, it's wrong. That's the difference between observational statements (Science) and dogmatic statments (religion).

Edit: The reason we're "mired" in it, is because its got a) sufficient data to make it a useful description and b) makes explaining things in biology much easier, since it universally applies to unite various factors (see a).

From "C":

That was a good article. To summarize, the percentage of top scientists in the States who believe in a diety is around the 15% mark, and unbelief is polled at around 68-70%. That part was surprising to hear.

One possible suggesation for this from the article:

If there is a downside to the Witham-Larson study as presented in Scientific American, though, it is the suggestion that maybe, just maybe, this disbelief among the "greater" cohort of scientific intellectuals is due a process of subtle selection. "Are the deepest contemporary scientific minds drawn to atheism, or do the higher echelons of academia select for the trait of disbelief?" they ask. Matthew Cartmill, president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists is quoted: "Many scientists are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the natural world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives them the grounds for that belief..."

To clarify my statement though: I'm talking about the focuses of studies. Such as searching for missing links in a determination that they exist, x-raying fruit flies to form mutations, and other assorted nonsenses that scientists waste time and research grants on. My critique isn't based on creationism though, it's about flaws in existing theories which they base their directions on. My critique also isn't with the methods they use in their studies, rather in the idiocy of the overall direction some of those studies take. What I'm suggesting is that points made primarily by creationists have merit, because they have managed to look beyond a narrow theory and it's from them I've seen a valid overview of what the evidence actually suggests. I'm not going to state it more clearly than I already have, I find myself harping on the same point. Yes, I know the peer journals will keep findings scientific, I'm more interested in what's not being looked at, and what's not being acknowledged. Most of that understanding lies in answering why certain factioned views - which strike as valid - are being overlooked, and that was my last posts intent.

Slight disclaimer here: This and following arguments aren't my own. I merely post these for to further the argument for both sides of the coin. That and I found both sides interesting and I wished to share such.

[Rosepetal]

1. What do you believe in?

I believe in Theistic evolutionism. I think that we evolved, but that that evolution was guided by God.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

The fossil record is enough support to prove evolutionism, let alone Charles Darwin's observations.

3. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

Yes. It's not so much learning the theory of Creationism, but the fact that they would probably only teach the Creationism theory of one or two religions would bother me. As was stated in the first post, there are about 500 different theories of Creationism. I sincerely doubt that there is any science teacher in the country that has enough knowledge of the different theories of Creationism to properly teach them.

4. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

Yes. Some devout Christians (not all, don't misunderstand me. I'm not being stereotypical; I'm a Christian myself) would simply believe that if the Bible says that it is true, it is true. These type of people would simply believe Creationism as true without even attempting to understand it.

5. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

Yes. I believe that God created the first matter, and designed the Big Bang ( but that's a different arguement). I believe that from there the Universe mostly took its own course, according to the plan of God. God's will is carried out by Nature's own processes.

[Tinkie]

1. What do you believe in?
I am a great supporter of the evolution theory. Not only is it interesting but it also makes sense. Darwin’s theory of evolution and the survival of the fittest explains why we have stopped using parts of our body and why some species have ceased to exist. It all fits. The first beings on our planet were minuscule and they evolved and we have what we have

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
As I have mentioned above, the evidence is out there. Species are evolving to adjust to the changes in Nature. If you look at a particular species, you will see that their bodies have changed for that purpose. Take humans for example. The mouth’s function was only for eating, and not speaking. As man started becoming a more social person, it gained another function: that of communication. Apart from that, if evolution wasn’t valid it would be difficult to explain how come there are so many similarities between primates and humans.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
No, I am not angry at the least. I think it is interesting to know more than ones perspectives. And now that I come to think of it most children believe that God created Earth and everything on it until they grow up and learn about biology and Darwin’s theory.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Yes I think I do, up to a point. I believe that some people believe it just because the Bible says it. And then they feel like they don’t need to look any further.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
This is a difficult question, it depends what you mean by intelligently designed. But I think I understand so I will just say yes. It was intelligently designed by Nature. It is surprising to see how nature takes care of everything and designs everything so that it is in order.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

[DragonslayerX]

Originally posted by Tinkie

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
As I have mentioned above, the evidence is out there. Species are evolving to adjust to the changes in Nature. If you look at a particular species, you will see that their bodies have changed for that purpose. Take humans for example. The mouth’s function was only for eating, and not speaking. As man started becoming a more social person, it gained another function: that of communication. Apart from that, if evolution wasn’t valid it would be difficult to explain how come there are so many similarities between primates and humans.


I think an even more interesting example of this is snakes. They actually have the joints where legs should be in their skeletal system.

[Tinkie]

wow. thanks for the info. I didnt know it.

[orkward]

Originally posted by lanifiel
We all come from Adam and Eve? thats immpossible! It cant work!

Oh, but Eve at least has been scientifically proven by genetic analysis of mitochondrial DNA of all peoples all over the world. There was indeed an Eve and she is thought to have originated in Africa.

God would not have made humans with so many faults. And there are faults in the human body.

That depends on what you mean with "faults" - natural selection is a very "intelligent" process. Maybe a god would have created people faultless (I think it wouldn't have as much fun for it but oh well) but nature selects for faultlessness. So in both cases you should get faultless organisms.
As said, it depends on how you define "faults". For example I don't think there are any faults in the human body at all.

1. What do you believe in?

Evolution. Actually I think evolution isn't really a matter of "belief". It's a scientific theory.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

Yes.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

I think it's quite amusing. I wouldn't be angry, as long as it's not dogmated.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

No.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

Yes.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

Eeeeeh, it's 100% "scientifically accurate". That doesn't mean it's "true" of course - no scientist is trying to argue "truth". All scientific reasoning is substantiated by facts, or it wouldn't survive one paper. All scientific theories are "scientifically accurate" until they are disproven.

[lanifiel]

Ok then...

The Mitochondrial Eve of 200,000 years ago (ME for short henceforth) is NOT our common ancestor, or even common genetic ancestor. She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today w.r.t. matrilineal descent. That may seem like a mouthful, but without even a single one of those qualifying phrases, any description or discussion of the ME reduces to a lot of nonsense.
While each of us necessarily has two parents, we get our mitochondria and mitochondrial DNA from the ovum (and hence from our mothers). Our mothers got their mitochondrial DNA from their mothers and so on. Thus, while our nuclear DNA is a mish-mash of the DNA of our four grandparents, our mitochondrial DNA is an almost exact copy of the DNA of our maternal grandmother (the match may not be exact due to mutations. In fact, the mutations in the mitochondrial DNA provide the molecular clock that allows us to determine how much time has elapsed since the ME lived). The ME represents that woman whose mitochondrial DNA (with mutations) exists in all the humans now living on Earth. That does not mean that she is our lone woman ancestor. We have ancestors who are not via matrilineal descent. For example, our father's mother (who did pass on her mitochondrial DNA to her daughters) is an example of an ancestor who is not matrilineal to us. However, she did exist at one time and was probably of the same age as our mother's mother, who is a matrilineal ancestor of ours and from whom we got our mitochondrial DNA.

ME lived with many other humans (men and women); she was certainly not alone. When she was alive, she was most certainly NOT the Mitochondrial Eve. The title at that time was held by a distant ancestor of hers (and of the many humans who were her contemporaries).

The existence of the Mitochondrial Eve is NOT a theory; it is a mathematical fact (unless something like a multiple-origins theory of human evolution i.e. the human species arose independently in different geographically separated populations, and that the present-day ease of interbreeding is the result of a remarkable convergent evolution, is true. Few people subscribe to the multiple-origins theory, and the Mitochondrial Eve observation is a refutation of multiple-origins).



I could go on, but I'll be delving into the genetic code some more...

[DragonslayerX]

Well, first of all, I would like to comment on C's posts, even though that seems unfair, as he/she is not able to defend hisself. He said that Creationists are not hindered by a narrow belief that evolution is real. However, true Creationists have a much MORE narrow constraint in that, Creationism is the ONLY possible theory. While evolution scientists may base their research on evolution theory, if their results do not fit into evolution, they at least then look into possible explanations, or even different theories.

Next, I would like to impose this question on Creationists (of the pure breed, anyways): Since it is scientific fact that not all creatures that exist now have existed since the beginning of time (when God created it), and they did not evolve, then how did they come about? Were they created to replace old animals? And if they were, why did God get rid of the original species, when he made sure all would not become extinct after the Great Flood? I know this is a discussion that belongs more in a religious forum, but this thread is half and half, so to speak.

Next, in trying to be fair... if ME is NOT the first woman (or at least the first mother), then, why isn't there other mitochondrial DNA? I mean, the way you described it, your theory would require for her female half of the family tree to be the only one out of millions to have produced a daughter who bred in every generation from her own. Which, is a pretty amazing feat in itself, for you to have a daughter in every generation, out of a million generations, AND to have that daughter have a daughter.

Also, we all do need a common ancestor, whether we were created as is, or we evolved from apes. There has to be the first "human", who was classified as a different species, and only able to breed with other "humans", which evolved later.

[Tarawyn]

From what I understand of Lani's post - which isn't very much - the only ones (possibly not human, as I'm a little out of the whole of this) who could have descended from the ME are those who have the mutated form of the ME's DNA. At the time, she was not the ME, because she and those who lived with her could have traced their mitochondrial DNA back to someone else. We've defined her as ME because we don't have proof that can link us to anyone else, but in reality she wasn't, because there were others before her. In Lani's words, She is the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth today w.r.t. matrilineal descent. And then again, I could be completely wrong.

And there very well has to have been a first "human" - the problem is, it's out of our reach to determine who that may have been.

I've never put much thought into how life and humans were created/developed. I've put trust in evolution, but not complete trust; I guess it all boils down to the fact that I probably don't care. Or perhaps I do. I just don't have enough to go by to make a decision, and I'm not going to dwell on it.

[DragonslayerX]

My point is, how likely is it that EVERYONE in the world has the exact same (minus the mutations mentioned) MDNA has this woman, if she wasn't the in fact "Eve" (not suggesting the Biblical Eve here)? I understood what lani was trying to say, I was just questioning it.

[Tarawyn]

I think that was the point Lani was making - denying the reliability of an ME. Judging by Lani's beliefs and the post, that was what it came down to. The ME, by that standard, was not the Biblical Eve. I suppose ME was named Eve because that's what people had in mind at the time.

[Harry_Potter]

I have seen evolution at work, yet I have never seen God create anything so therefore I am going to have to side with Evolution here...

[DragonslayerX]

The ME was simply named Eve, because to all Christians (and this is a Christian country, essentially), Eve is the first woman, the mother of everyone, which is what the ME is. I do not think it was ever argued by scientists that ME is the Biblical Eve

[RonFan24]

1. What do you believe in?
I think evolution is a part of creation

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
No, not really.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
I didn't care, I learned all about it in Catholic school before I went to public schools.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
I think everyone should have an open mind and just except some people look at this subject religiously and other scientifically.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Yes. I think the Bible is full of fable type stories with morals that are BASED on truth to makes a point and teach a lesson.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
I think maybe a Creator put down a "seed" and just sat and watched what happened.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
I think some things were created and then later versions of it evolved due to survival of the fittest.


http://thechalkallran.net/users/RonFan24Kissing.JPG

[created_to_worship]

1. What do you believe in? I'm a New Earth Creationist

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence? I believe so. I found a website made by a creation scientist. http://www.creationscience.com It has a lot of very interesting evidence and arguments

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools? I realize that they have to put out the point of view that there is no God, but I think there is enough evidence supporting creation that there should at least be an optional class that one can take along with learning evolution.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
not applicable.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it? Probably, but the Bible is the foundation for creationism. See the website.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed? not applicable.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate? I'm not denying microevolution. I'm denying macroevolution. If you visit the site I listed above, it will explain it better than I can find words for.

[philip]

I know you're just posting your opions;but, hey, it is a debate forum after all.

What do you believe in? I'm a New Earth Creationist

Don't you mean Young Earth?

Can you support your beliefs with evidence? I believe so. I found a website made by a creation scientist. http://www.creationscience.com It has a lot of very interesting evidence and arguments

Isn't that Walt Brown's site? *checks* Yep, it is. The guy is a great mathmetician, but his knowledge of biology and physics is a joke.

I realize that they have to put out the point of view that there is no God, but I think there is enough evidence supporting creation that there should at least be an optional class that one can take along with learning evolution.

Except that there is NO evidence to support creationism. And I heartily disagree that Creationism should be taught alongside evolution as an "alternate theory" because a) creationism is not scientific and has no room in a science class, b) they are not competing theories -- there is no great debate, and c) If parents want their children to learn religious dogma, then they can pay for private schooling. Public schools are secular, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[DragonslayerX]

I agree. Regardless of whether or not Creationism is a sound theory, it is not a purely scientific theory. It is based on religion, so it should not be taught in public schools. I think this would be a bad idea to incorporate a class based on religious dogma in school, because students who did not believe in that dogma would ultimately "tune the school out," considering it a religious institution trying to force religious views on its students, which would be more harmful to his/her education than beneficial, IMO.

[created_to_worship]

Ouch... boy, for realizing I was just posting my opinion, you sure jumped all over my opinions. I'm not exactly uneducated. I was only intending to post my views, I wasn't looking for a debate. I probably should have known better than to even post on this thread, but I thought some people who do believe in creationism might want to know where I get my arguments. I think I shall leave this thread now before I start to take it too personally, as I unfortunately have a tendency to do.

~Princess Adora

[Morgoth]

please remember the Knockturn Alley guidelines (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?threadid=69) when replying to people's comments. If they are seen to be attacking or getting personal, members will be warned once, banned second time.

[created_to_worship]

Um... did I sound too touchy? I'm sorry. That probably came out wrong. I guess I'm a little too sensitive to be posting in this particular thread. I think I will stick to Diagon Alley from here on out. Please disregard my previous post, and I will post elsewhere quietly.

*duck ashamedly out of view, feeling like a bit of a jerk, blushing furiously*

[Midnightsfire]

Originally posted by created_to_worship Please disregard my previous post, and I will post elsewhere quietly.

*duck ashamedly out of view, feeling like a bit of a jerk, blushing furiously*


:grumble: :grumble:

Dangit!! Be proud of your stated position. Heck, you posted your opinion and because a couple posters jumped on you about it AND GAVE YOU THE BIG :rasp: , your going to be ashamed of it???

HOLD YOUr HEAD HIGH WOMAN!

LOOK ME IN THE EYE WHEN WALKING BY ME AND BE PROUD OF YOUR BELIEFS!

Sure I may not agree with them and you or I may think differently later on in life but gawda*mmit, we'll both be richer in the long run.

:hug:

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by created_to_worship (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=178656#post178656))
Um... did I sound too touchy? I'm sorry. That probably came out wrong. I guess I'm a little too sensitive to be posting in this particular thread. I think I will stick to Diagon Alley from here on out. Please disregard my previous post, and I will post elsewhere quietly.

*duck ashamedly out of view, feeling like a bit of a jerk, blushing furiously*


I must apologize. The message is intended towards those who are reacting to Creationism in an overly cynical fashion. Your reply was fine and I encourage you to express your views and beliefs in an informed and un-offensive manner, which you have done. Whereas I don't believe in creationism myself, I have conversed with many Christians who do believe it and can back up their statements with some good science. Steve (a CoS admin) really knows a lot about this subject. He just doesn't have time to debate it.

[created_to_worship]

*blushes* Thank you, thank you all. I feel better. I just have a tendency to stick my foot in my mouth occasionally, and I thought maybe I'd done it again. But now my head is back where it ought to be. *beams*

Hey, my tummy feels better! I think I let that get to me a little too much. But hey, I'm not as bad about being too sensitive as I used to be, so I'm making progress... maybe in about another 10 years... :D

~Princess Adora/She-Ra, Princess of POWER! :)

[Midnightsfire]

*shrugs* I don't like the taste of leather myself, however I've become used to "foot in mouth disease" in Knockturn Alley.

*currently boiling his boots*

Needs salt...

[created_to_worship]

Wait a second....!

You mean, I don't naturally have the taste of leather on the my tongue?! *spits emphatically*

Thanks for making me feel better. I do appreciate it. Maybe we should consider searching for a innoculation for FootInMouth Disease. We'd be rich! ;)

[philip]

Wait, you mean there's actually a limit to how cynical you can be towards creationism?

Dag nabit.

[DragonslayerX]

Yes, there is very much a need for a cure for foot-in-mouth disease, especially on this forum

[Midnightsfire]

Originally posted by philip (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=179027#post179027))
Wait, you mean there's actually a limit to how cynical you can be towards creationism?

Dag nabit.


Well..I don't know about everyone else but I refrained from posting my usual :devil: in the other religious threads for at least several pages because I saw that many posting were new to the forums. Those from the prior MNET knew how I felt about Christianity in general and I felt if I had posted my usual :devil: I might have had an adverse reaction to the debate in general as well as...well...being a complete arse...(yeah, I admit it) Attacking a person's opinion is one thing. Communicating an idea to a degree that all involved can...see...feel where you may be coming from...is a good start to a harmonious debate? Not too certain it'd be a debate then but harmony would be nice thing.:ghost:

[daniel4hp]

Yep, we all come from different backgrounds and have very different, often strongly disagreeing, beliefs. It is always wise to use discretion regarding what you say. We encourage members to state their opinions, and we like to hear what others think on topics, but this can all be done without any hurtful comments. Insults, either directed at a person or at their beliefs, do not encourage healthy debate. However, intelligently stated opinions open the door to an interesting and welcoming discussion.

[philip]

I think people are being overly sensitive. I'll say it straight out: CreationISM (not to be confused with creation) contradicts fact. The earth is NOT six thousand years old. There was NO global flood. At no point in the history of life on earth has there ever been a time when all land, flora, and fauna were submerged.

This may sound harsh, but it's the truth.

I would also recommend that people avoid these sites:

-drdino.com. It's run by Kent Hovind. He has a degree from Patriot University (a degree mill located in a sub-divion in Pensacola, Florida). The man doesn't know a fig about science and uses falsified information zealously.

-icr.com. They have an agenda, and don't care much for the truth. Part of membership requires an individual to pledge that the Bible is the absolute truth (how naive) and there is no alternative.

-trueorigins.com. A (bad) joke of a website. The webmaster simply reiterates falsified information (much of it coming from, ironically, talkorigins.org)
.

-answersingenesis.com. General, run-of-the-mill creationists website. However, they do look at things a little more objectively than the other sites listed, and have even shown the error in some of the other more zealous sites, but they still have their own agenda, and it's far from science.

Daniel, this is a discussion of science vs. pseudoscience. Opinions are worthless.

[daniel4hp]

As you see it this is a discussion of science vs. pseudoscience. As you see it creationism contradicts facts, as you see them. There are people who believe in creationism, and saying that their opinions are worthless is very damaging to them and their beliefs. There are people who have looked at the facts and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. There are scientists who believe that there was a global flood. Are they right? Some would say they are, many would say they aren't. However, there are still two differing sides--this thread clearly shows that--and the the opinions of both need to be respected.

[pasalita]

Quick note: All opinions are welcome in this thread none of which are worthless. Questioning ideas of "fact" is always valid; in essence, that is a part of what science is about.

Now, let's bring it back to the topic at hand: Evolution and creationism.

[Midnightsfire]

Funny...I'm reading a piece of fiction right now that is really making me think...

That one may not contradict the other...I'd have to type the whole argument out (over a dozen pages..*screams*) but for a work of fiction it is most thought-provoking.

(uhh...I'll pm a mod first before posting any of it here...It IS LONG and may be a bit much for here.

[Tarawyn]

If a parent wants their child to learn creationism at an early age, the child will be taught. Parents are responsible for early religious upbringing anyway, and I see this as a religious subject, as it's rooted in, well, religion. Creationism spreads by word of mouth anyway, as well. It's not exactly an obscure subject. The easiest way around this, in my view? Teach the kids evolution but make it clear that there are other theories out there. If the kids really care, they'll take a look on their own, or ask their parents. If they don't, there's nothing we can do.

Everything in science, to a point, is theory. "Clear" evidence can be interpreted in more than one way. A "clear" point could contradict the very thing it's trying to prove, and may very well be wrong. Who can say who's right when we don't have the whole story? And do we ever have it?

Contradictory points...it depends on what elements you believe in each, for the most part, and after that, I don't know enough to say.

[MadMagic]

1. What do you believe in?
I believe that creation occured over millions of years. When God created the heavens and the earth there was no sun, therefore no way in which to measure the length of a day. Maybe this first dat was a couple million years. I think that "7 days" is more a symbollic period of time than an actual period of time as we would think of it.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Um, not so much. I;m not an expert in science and I;m not an expert on the bible. However the one thing that I have ever read that has had a serious impact on my beliefs is the book "Inherit the Wind". It is about the Scopes trial where the school teacher was on trial for teaching evolution rather than creation. They have this big trial and it is a real media event. But the defense they presented really won me over. It has been a long time since I read that book, but it has stuck with me. That was also the first time I ever thought to question the who creation process, having gone to a Catholic scool for eight years prior to that occasion. But we actually read the book at that school.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools? It doesn't bother me. I think that religious ideas like this should be taught either at home or at church. School is for scientific and factual learning. The religious ideas should be taught to you by your parents.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement? Yes I would. If you believe in evolution you are probably a pretty factual, scientific person. As there are no scientific facts involved in Creationism, it would probably be a pretty unsatisfying experience.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
I don't know why else you would want to bother with creationism.

[Snowangel]

I think that evolution is the best scientific theory we've got for explaining the origins of life and, for this reason, I go for it over creationism, which really requires a person to be a literalist about the bible and there's not scientific reason to do so. Right now I'm rereading Daniel C. Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", which I studied in one of my classes a couple of years ago. Dennett really is against creationism, not only because he is a strong proponent for evolution, but because he thinks that those who are clinging to this vision of life are simply (and rightly, in some ways) scared of the consequences of believing in Darwinism. He knows that many people think that, if Darwinism is true, then life can have no meaning. He really thinks that evolution does have serious consequences for all aspects of our lives.

However, he says:
"There is no future in a sacred myth. Why not? Because of our curiosity. Because[...] we want to know why. ...Whatever we hold precious, we cannot protect it from our curiosity, because being who we are, one of the things we deem precious is the truth. Our love of truth is surely a central element in the meaning we find in our lives. In any case, the idea that we might preserve meaning by kidding ourselves is a more pessimistic, more nihilistic idea than I for one can stomach. If that were the best that can be done, I would conclude that nothing mattered after all.
This book, then, is for those who agree that the only meaning of life worth caring about is one that can withstand our best efforts to examine it. Others are advised to close the book now and tiptoe away."

I agree wholeheartedly with this. We can't reject evolution because of the fear that life has no meaning. Truth is what matters. And the only meaning worthwhile must be found in truth.

[Morgoth]

Okay, it looks like Darwin has proven Creationists wrong again.

aritcle taken from The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-584528,00.html)

IT STARTED with a biologist sitting on a grassy river bank in York, eating a sandwich. It ended in the discovery of a “scruffy little weed with no distinguishing features� that is the first new species to have been naturally created in Britain for more than 50 years.

The discovery of the York groundsel shows that species are created as well as made extinct, and that Charles Darwin was right and the Creationists are wrong. But the fragile existence of the species could soon be ended by the weedkillers of York City Council’s gardeners.

Richard Abbott, a plant evolutionary biologist from St Andrews University, has discovered “evolution in action� after noticing the lone, strange-looking and uncatalogued plant in wasteland next to the York railway station car park in 1979. He did not realise its significance and paid little attention. But in 1991 he returned to York, ate his sandwich and noticed that the plant had spread.

Yesterday, Dr Abbott published extensive research proving with DNA analysis that it is the first new species to have evolved naturally in Britain in the past 50 years.

“I’ve been a plant evolutionary biologist all my life, but you don’t think you’ll come across the origin of a new species in your lifetime. We’ve caught the species as it has originated — it is very satisfying,� he told the Times. “At a time in Earth’s history when animal and plant species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate, the discovery of the origin of a new plant species in Britain calls for a celebration.�

The creation of new species can takes thousands of years, making it too slow for science to detect. But the York groundsel is a natural hybrid between the common groundsel and the Oxford ragwort, which was introduced to Britain from Sicily 300 years ago. Hybrids are normally sterile, and cannot breed and die out.

But Dr Abbott’s research, published in the journal of the Botanical Society of the British Isles, shows that the York Groundsel is a genetic mutant that can breed, but not with any other species, including its parent species. It thus fits the scientific definition of a separate species.

“It is a very rare event — it is only known to have happened five times in the last hundred years� Dr Abbott said. It has happened twice before in the UK — the Spartina anglica was discovered in Southampton 100 years ago, and the Welsh groundsel, discovered in 1948.

The weed sets seed three months after germinating and has little yellow flowers. The species, which came into existance about 30 years ago, has been called Senecio eboracensis, after Eboracum, the Roman name for York. According to the research, it has now spread to spread to several sites around York, but only ever as a weed on disturbed ground.

However, more than 90 per cent of species that have lived subsequently become extinct, and its future is by no means certain.

“It is important for it to build up its numbers rapidly, or it could get rubbed out — which would be sad. The biggest threat to the new species is the weedkillers from the council,� Dr Abbott said.

However, he does not plan to start a planting programme to ensure his discovery lives on. “The next few years will be critical as to whether it becomes an established part of the British flora or a temporary curiosity. But we will let nature take its course,� he said.

[lanifiel]

Nice, cool article thanks Morgoth :)

[philip]

As you see it creationism contradicts facts

No, it does contradict fact. Fact: if there was a global flood, and only two of each "clean kind" and seven of each" unclean kind" were taken aboard the Ark, then we would see a genetic bottleneck. A species cannot sustain itself with those numbers.



as you see them. There are people who believe in creationism, and saying that their opinions are worthless is very damaging to them and their beliefs.

I don't care. I would hope it would damage their beliefs. Maybe they'll start looking at the facts-- not at what Pastor Fred taught them in sunday school.

There are people who have looked at the facts and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. There are scientists who believe that there was a global flood. Are they right?

No, they're not.

Some would say they are, many would say they aren't. However, there are still two differing sides--this thread clearly shows that--and the the opinions of both need to be respected.


Why should opinions be respected? I can understand respecting someone's right to an opinion? If someone believed that Farky the Fantastic Ferret created the world three years ago and that all our memories were implanted in us by him, I would far from respect it.

Morgoth: Good article. I saw that earlier.

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by philip (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=180726#post180726))

I don't care. I would hope it would damage their beliefs. Maybe they'll start looking at the facts-- not at what Pastor Fred taught them in sunday school.

Why should opinions be respected? I can understand respecting someone's right to an opinion? If someone believed that Farky the Fantastic Ferret created the world three years ago and that all our memories were implanted in us by him, I would far from respect it.



Evolution and Creationism is a strong subject with many proponents and opponents each with their own views that are all welcome. Heck, even me & Daniel differ on our views, but we don't let it get in the way on the bigger picture and that's the forums. When debating on CoS, it is essential to respect the other persons views, even if they don't add up to you. If members cannot respect and reply in a manner befitting of our own standards laid out in the rules and guidelines then you will be asked to re-think your membership of this forum. If you cannot break those rules, you will end up banned. This applies to everyone, not just one person.

To remind everyone, Daniel is also a staff member with the full respect and support of the staff. His warnings should not be ignored.

Thanks

[DragonslayerX]

Actually, Philip, your fact "disproving" a world wide flood really only disproves the theory of noah's ark. Not the flood itself. In the Dark Ages, the "facts" supported the belief that the Sun revolved around the Earth. This was later disproved, when more facts were discovered. So, unless you know something for certain, do not be so quick to laugh about other theories. It's not healthy for evolution. ;)

[philip]

Actually, your Dark Ages example is more akin to the Creationist's blind faith. It's a poor analogy..


Part of CreationISM is a literal reading of the Bible, and the story of Noah. There are other reasons why the flood story should be be and is ridiculed. For instance the strata. In all honesty, there is nothing wrong with believing in Creation (not Creationism, there's a difference)etc. However, when you zealously hold on to those beliefs and they are based on a literal reading of a book written by a nomadic tribe of religious fanatics thousands of years ago and changed and translated by many different people over many years, then you're just being arbitrary.

Morgoth, I'll respect someone's right to their own views, but my Farky the Fantastic Ferret example still stands. When an opinion is inherently flawed, and peddled as science, it becomes pointless. It seems people on this site don't understand what a valid opinion is and what an invalid opinion is.

[Morgoth]

Originally posted by philip (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=181364#post181364))
Morgoth, I'll respect someone's right to their own views, but my Farky the Fantastic Ferret example still stands. When an opinion is inherently flawed, and peddled as science, it becomes pointless. It seems people on this site don't understand what a valid opinion is and what an invalid opinion is.


It's how you refute people's opinions. Now, like it or not there are many people who believe in Creationism. Whether that's valid to you or not, the simple fact remains that members have the right to those opinions and have the right to have those opinions respected. You respectfully refute something, with your own science. Farky the Ferret or not, a person must not be made to feel small. A belief is something that is hard to change and if everyone worked off of an idea, we would be more flexible in our acceptance of alternative theories, however that's not the case, so I ask that when exchanging with one another you take a moment to respect where that persons coming from, as I'm sure they do for you.

[philip]

Refute with facts, eh?

-there is NO evidence to support creationism

- a) creationism is not scientific and has no room in a science class, b) they are not competing theories -- there is no great debate

-Fact: if there was a global flood, and only two of each "clean kind" and seven of each" unclean kind" were taken aboard the Ark, then we would see a genetic bottleneck. A species cannot sustain itself with those numbers.


Also, I think people should know that the scientific meaning of theory is different than the meaning of theory in "Bob's theory on why women can't drive". The latter is the layman's definition and simply means speculation. The former is an explanation of a set of facts, supported by a tested hypothesis, and has the ability to make extrapolation. For instance, knowing how evolution works, if we separate bacteria culture A and bacteria culture B from each other, and conditions in petri dish A are different from petri dish B, the culture's should be unabe to reproduce with each other after a certain number of generations.

[created_to_worship]

Philip, why are you so adamant about disproving everything I, and many others on this board, believe in? Is it hurting your chances of something? I believe in God, I believe in creation, and you aren't going to change my mind, so why do you keep insisting on trying? My faith in God is the very reason I've gotten through everything that has gone awry in my life, and I feel that you are disrespecting me and other creationists on this board. I respect that you believe in evolution, and I'm not going to try to change your mind. Now please try to treat me like an intelligent person, which (not trying to sound stuck up) I AM. I did not get into a prestigious college by being an idiot. Let me believe what I believe, and I will let you believe what you want. It is as simple as that. If you have a problem with that, I'm sorry. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been offended.

Thank you, I've said my piece.

~Princess Adora

[DragonslayerX]

I think philip does make a good point. These arguments are not really competing, at all. One is based mainly on religion, the other purely on science. Therefore, in a scientific debate, evolution will almost always win over creationism, because creationism isn't based on science. Instead, it bases science on religion.

I do not, however, agree that this disproves creationism, I just think it makes it impossible to prove it. My reasoning is this: in order to believe in creationism, you must assume that there is a God, and it is impossible to prove scientifically that there is an almighty being.

[philip]

Fine, CTW. Just keep your beliefs out of public schools.

Dragonslayer, it's actually impossible to prove or disprove something 100%. We can only support it to a point where it becomes perverse to reject it . . . or vice versa. Creationism has absolutely NOTHING supporting it and even facts that contradict it. It's illogical.

[DragonslayerX]

There are a few things that can be proven (to yourself, at least) beyond any doubt, but yes, I know nothing can be proven 100%. However, it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond any reasonable doubt, which is what I meant.

[The Oracle]

You know.. not to fan the flames, but science isn't neccessarily proof either. Not to people that believe in God and what He can accomplish. Someone can always say that God wants people to believe that He created the earth/world/universe/whatever, but he's testing us. God is -always- supposedly testing us. So maybe God was the one putting little hints here and there expecting us to find them, with the intent that He wants us to see the world with an open mind and a learned one at that. I don't think God wants people to believe in him blindly. Your reasoning could be just as flawed, provided someone believes in God and/or the bible enough.

*Note, I'm not religious at all. I only get annoyed when people downplay anyone's beliefs as false. Both with religious and non-religious people.

[philip]

Dragonslayer, this isn't a debate about the existence of God, though.

[DragonslayerX]

But, in a way it is...because, in order for Creationism to have any merit, you must believe God exists. And this is my point. Since you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, you cannot prove with any certainty that the world was created by God, now can you?

[philip]

You don't have to reject God to accept evolution. There's no reason those two concepts should be mututally exclusive.

If people would just realize that there is a HUGE amount of room for error in the Bible. It's ridiculous to take it literally . . . almost fanatical.

[DragonslayerX]

I never said you had to reject God to accept evolution. My point was that in order to accept creationism, you have to accept God. That is why the two things are totally different. Evolution has nothing to do with your religious views, while creationism has everything to do with them? Now do you understand me?

[philip]

*shrugs*

[Ezra Pippen]

And yet some people's beliefs, at least the indoctrinated, written version of them(luckily, people seem to have a myriad of variation beyond the written words of their religion-I guess the sum total of their experience accounts for it), do have a written code of 'this is the one true religion.' In that case, they WOULD value their beliefs as more valid than another religious system. And this is based on faith. I myself do not take personal offense if someone feels that their opinion is more valid than mine; all I ask is that they lay out their logic.

And as far as science is concerned, some opinions ARE more valid than others-that is the whole point of the process-the experimental process determines which hypothesis or hypotheses are the best explanation for the evidence. The human error comes in when people ASSUME one explanation is better than another before a good amount of evidence is brought in or examined or conciously or unconciously gather incomplete, biased, or otherwise faulty data. If all things are a go than a good explanation should be able to help explain a variety of other phenomena. For example, despite the fact that there is measurable seafloor spread and measureable movement along the transverse faults of California, and indication of plate movement over a hot spot, creating Hawaii, I still have people trying to tell me there is a better explanation than the plate tectonic theory, without providing any measurable means, any compelling evidence to the contrary. Provided with some compelling evidence, I would be remiss not to take their theory more seriously, but as it is, I am forced to wonder where their theory came from, if not completely from assumption.

[Snowangel]

I personally do not think that creationism should be taught in science classes. It can be taught in Sunday school classes. However, I do not see its place in an actual science class. It could perhaps be taught alongside other religious creation myths in a class on World religions or something like that, but it really isn't a scientific theory, in my opinion. It's based, fundamentally, on faith and on the assumption that the bible is literally correct. This rules it out as a stricly scientific theory and that is why it has no valid place in science classes.

Now, I know many people who believe in God and still believe in evolution. This, to me, is where an interesting discussion can emerge. Some people think that, if you accept evolution, then there really is no need for a belief in God. Others disagree. I haven't made up my mind what to think of this. But I know many people who accept the theory of evolution and who still believe that God intended for us to be created. The crux of the matter, for some people, is that evolution is a random process. Can God have intended us to be created through an entirely random process? That doesn't make sense to some people. Very interesting subject.

[daniel4hp]

Yep, some people believe in Theistic Evolution, which states that God created us through Evolution, which was a process essentially guided by him. And there are those who believe in Intelligent Design, who do not believe in Evolution, but who do not come out and say that God created the earth, but rather that some being of Intelligence created the universe. This is the more "scientific" view of Creationism; you can believe in Intelligent Design and believe that the Intelligence was God, but the theory itself does not come out and say this.

[philip]

Theistic Evolution has nothing to do with Creationism.

[Snowangel]

Okay, this is going back a few posts but I noticed the discussion on Mitochondrial Eve and I thought I'd quote from Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea". Lanifiel explained it very well.

Here's how Dennett explains it:
"Mitochondrial Eve is the woman who is the most recent direct ancestor, in the female line, of every human being alive today. People have a hard time thinking about this individual woman, so let's just review the reasoning. Consider the set A, of all human beings alive today. Each was born of one and only one mother, so consider next the set B, of all the mothers of those alive today. B is of necessity smaller than A, since no one has more than one mother, and some mothers have more than one child. Continue with the set, C, of mothers of all those mothers in set B. It is smaller still. Continue on with sets D and E and so forth. The sets must contract as we go back each generation. Notice that as we move back through the years, we exclude many women who were contemporaries of those in our set. Among these excluded women are those who either lived and died childless or whose female progeny did. Eventually, this must funnel down to one- the woman who is the closest direct female ancestor of everybody alive on earth today. She is Mitrochondrial Eve, so named because since the mitochondria in our cells are passed through the materal line alone, all the mitrochondria in all the cells in all the people alive today are direct descendants of the mitochondria in the her cells!"
He also says:
"Consider a few of the things we already know about Mitochondrial Eve...We know that she had at least two daughters who had surviving children (if she had just one daughter, her daughter would wear the crown). To distinguish her title from her proper name, let's call her Amy. Amy bears the title of Mitochondrial Eve;that is, she just happens to have been the maternal founder of today's line of people. It is important to remind ourselves that in all other regards, there was probably nothing remarkable about Mitochondrial Eve; she was certainly not the First Woman, or the founder of the species Homo Sapiens. Many earlier women were unquestionably of our species, but happen to not have any direct female lines of descendants leading to people living today..."

Anyways, sorry about going off-topic but I thought I'd add to the ME discussion to try to clarify it.

[DragonslayerX]

I think it's perfectly on topic, and that explains the questions I had with lanifel's explanation. Thank you.

[philip]

I have to disagree with the concept of Mitochondrial Eve. Evolution involves populations, not individuals.

[DragonslayerX]

But, the idea of Mitochondrial Eve does not say that she is the "mother of the human race," it says that she is the oldest known woman related to everyone on earth today.

Also, I disagree that evolution does not involve individuals. Regardless of whether you believe in creationism or evolution, every species had to originate somewhere. In the theory of evolution, it is through a few individual organisms having mutations, and passing these on, until a new species is created.

[philip]

But, the idea of Mitochondrial Eve does not say that she is the "mother of the human race," it says that she is the oldest known woman related to everyone on earth today.


So? I know that. I still disagree with the concept.

Also, I disagree that evolution does not involve individuals. Regardless of whether you believe in creationism or evolution, every species had to originate somewhere. In the theory of evolution, it is through a few individual organisms having mutations, and passing these on, until a new species is created.


No it's not. It's when a population within a population becomes genetically different and no longer able to reproduce with its parent species.

[Ezra Pippen]

Yes I concur with phillip. If individuals passing on a genetic change, alone, were evolution, every unique variation in every living thing would be evolution. However, this is not the case. Evolution is a change in gene frequency within a population. If that change in gene frequency results in a population no longer able to reproduce with other populations, then that particular population has become a new species. If speciation occured at the level of the individual, new species would not have enough variation and the problems associated with inbreeding would occur.

[philip]

Let's just say that we'd see a monstrous bottleneck in species. It's not possible for there to be a "mitochondrial eve" in my opinion.

[Annerach]

1. What do you believe in?
Well first of all, I don't need to believe evolution. When you have proof you don't need belief. Since evolution has proof and creationisn doesn't, I have to side with Darwin.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Yes, I can support evolution with evidence. Notice that I didn't use the word "Belief".

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
N/A


4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
Yes. Creationism involves a god. It IS religion and not science. There is nothing scientific abut religion. If anyone wants to learn about their gods they should go to a religion class and not try to insinuate their beliefs and try to convice people that that's science.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
I puts ME off of trying to understand it. Why should I take the word of some ancient tome for something as important as where we came from? The bible has no proof that anything in it is near the truth. Again, there is nothing scientific about religiom.


6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
I don't see how. I don't know what happened before the big bang, and I'm not going to pretend I do. But, just because I don't know doesn't mean that I'm going to conclude that a deity that I have no proof for was behind it all. I do know that there are way to many mistakes and atrocities in the universe for there to be a benevolent being behind out existance. I am at LEAST sure that the christian god is not real.


7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifically accurate? N/A

[AvidSkyRise]

I've gone to Catholic school for basically my whole life and although we taught Evolution and they gave us examples of how it works they usually enforced the few of creation through evolution and such things. I really don't like to think we come from apes however I do believe that evolution does definitely happen...hey you never know, maybe the radiation from our computers will form a new gene and it'll be like X-men hahaha

[doctor23]

Wow another thread I'm excited to read this should be a good one.

So questions...

1. What do you believe in?

By the definitions in the first post of this thread I would be defined as a Creation Scientist

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

Absolutly. Let's begin shall we? First let's take the Sun. The sun is shrinking at a rate that has been determined by scientists. Off the top of my head I cannot remember the exact rate but it is a definable number. Since the sun is shrinking, which makes complete sense as it is using energy to support it's fusion reactions and throws off matter into space at certain intervals, then it used to be bigger. Since that rate is known we can use simple arithmetic to discover that the earth cannot be millions of years old as descibed in evolutionary theory, because only something like 20 or 30 thousand years ago the surface of the sun would have been to close to the earth for this plaent to support life. That is assuming a constant rate of shrinkage. That rate could have been faster or slower in the past we don't know we weren't there. However, it is known that the rate was never zero. We know how the sun works. Therefore we know that it has always had to burn material for it's fusion reactions to continue working. That's one example.


3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

I'm appaled that both are not being taught. These are the two most widely held theory's about the origins of life on this planet. Neither is proven as undeniable FACT. Both should be taught and then let the student use their own mind to determine what is truth for them.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

I am not a supporter of Evolution so I cannot answer that question.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

Completely. The only way to bring the "non-beleivers" in to at leat be open-minded enough to listen to the evidence is to use science to convince them. Empirical Science to be precise that being science which can be seen and measured not extrapolations based on assumptions. For instance radiometric dating is not empirical science because there is no way to know how much of a substance was contained in a fossil or a rock when it was deposited. My shrinking sun problem above is empirical science because it can be measured. The only thing that can't be measured is the exact time. However we do know that in the not too distant (in geological terms) past the sun was to large for the earth to support life.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

Again I'm not on this side of the issue

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

Of course, in fact it is. Just not on the scale that pure evolutionists push it too. Micro Evolution happens all the time and is empirical science. For instance there are diffenent breeds of cats, of dogs, of horses, and of humans. However in all these cases they are still the same species. Example a caucasian and an african human are both human. One has different pigmentation and features but they are both human. So long as one is male and one is female they could mate and bring forth a viable child. Viable meaning non-sterile. Whereas a cat and dog can not mate and bring forth a viable child. The reason is because they are different species. I once had an evolutionist tell me about a moth in Brittan that over the course of several years became a differnt clor because it needed to adapt to it's enviroment. She was attempting to use this as proof of macro-evolution (theory of all life developing from a single organism). However, in fact this is a perfect example of micro-evolution. This moth became a different breed of the same species of moth. It didn't become a frog, or a cat or even a butterfly, for that matter it didn't even become a different species of moth. It's exactly the same as it was before with a difference in appearance. But it's still a moth. See the difference?

Originally posted by DragonslayerX (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=182707#post182707))
I never said you had to reject God to accept evolution. My point was that in order to accept creationism, you have to accept God. That is why the two things are totally different. Evolution has nothing to do with your religious views, while creationism has everything to do with them? Now do you understand me?


-----

To accept creation yes you must accept a belief in a Higher Power. However, it does not mean that you must accept the bible as the inerrent, word of the living God. I happen to but it is not required to understand creationism. Creation Science is science whether certain people on this board choose to recognize that or not. I guarantee you I will never argue creation from a standpoint of "Genesis Chapter 1 states this" because that will just close-minds. To offer tham concrete data however, cannot be refuted. I for one have never seen concrete data for evolution. For instance evolutionsts explain this: African Termtes in fact all termites digest their food by means of a parasite that lives in thier stomach. Now the termite can't live with out the parasite. Nor can the parasite live without the termite. Please explain to me which evolved first? Also please show me any intermediary species.

----

Originally posted by DragonslayerX (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=178058#post178058))
I agree. Regardless of whether or not Creationism is a sound theory, it is not a purely scientific theory. It is based on religion, so it should not be taught in public schools. I think this would be a bad idea to incorporate a class based on religious dogma in school, because students who did not believe in that dogma would ultimately "tune the school out," considering it a religious institution trying to force religious views on its students, which would be more harmful to his/her education than beneficial, IMO.


But evolution is just as much of a Religion as Creationism. I have seen no sound scientific evidence for macro-evolutioneither.

Great thread Morgoth

[Goldie]

1. What do you believe in?

Evolution.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

I don't have to. Others have already done it for me.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

N/A

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

Yes. I really don't think science class is the place to teach religious beliefs.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

It certainly would in my case, but then "creationism" is religion, not science. People will believe what they want to believe, all evidence and proof to the contrary, if the facts don't fit their world view.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

No. Too much evidence to the contrary.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

N/A

[Annerach]

Creationists assume that any data that counts against evolution counts in favor of creationism. But to argue this way is to commit the fallacy of false dilemma; it presents two alternatives as mutually exclusive when, in fact, they aren't. Creationists often attack evolution by citing a specific fact (in this case termites!) that they believe evolution can't account for. But notice how hypocritical this strategy is. On the one hand, they claim that evolution is untestable , while on the other hand they claim that it fails certain tests. They can't have it both ways. If evolution is untestable, no data can count against it. If data counts against it, it can't be untestable. Biologists have discovered thousands of transitional fossils. The transitions from primitive fish to bony fish, from fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, from reptile to bird, from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human are particularly well documented. Regarding teaching creationism in public schools, I'll let Supreme Court Justice William Brennan explain: "Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment...The act violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (See: How to Think About Weird Things by Theodore Schick, Jr. & Lewis Vaughn)

[doctor23]

Originally posted by Annerach (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=319964#post319964))
Creationists assume that any data that counts against evolution counts in favor of creationism. But to argue this way is to commit the fallacy of false dilemma; it presents two alternatives as mutually exclusive when, in fact, they aren't. Creationists often attack evolution by citing a specific fact (in this case termites!) that they believe evolution can't account for. But notice how hypocritical this strategy is. On the one hand, they claim that evolution is untestable , while on the other hand they claim that it fails certain tests. They can't have it both ways. If evolution is untestable, no data can count against it. If data counts against it, it can't be untestable. Biologists have discovered thousands of transitional fossils. The transitions from primitive fish to bony fish, from fish to amphibian, from amphibian to reptile, from reptile to bird, from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human are particularly well documented. Regarding teaching creationism in public schools, I'll let Supreme Court Justice William Brennan explain: "Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment...The act violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose." (See: How to Think About Weird Things by Theodore Schick, Jr. & Lewis Vaughn)


That's absolutly untrue to say that any evidence that counts for or against either side rules out he other and if you read my posts above you will find that I have not done that. Nor have I said that evolution is untestable. It's very testable. All you have to do is find the intermediary species. You have cited above that there are "thousands" of these transitional fossils. Please cite them? I will be happy to go and look into it. Futher the First ammendment states "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. " I would argue that by not teaching both sides that the supreme court have gone against this same
ammendment by not allowing the freedom of a teacher to show both sides of the coin thus removing his/her right to free speech and further infringing upon the right to free excercise of a religion since everyone here seems to find this to be a religious topic. I personally do not find it a religious topic to talk about creation science. If you will notice no where in any of my posts have I quoted the Bible, Koran, Torrah, or other Holy Text. What I have done is bring two distinct and different examples to the table to show my side. Others have brought different and distinct examples to show the side for creation. All I have seen on the side of evolution is "thousands of transitional fossils" and "scientists have shown over and over again" or "this is scientific fact" give me examples. I assure I at least am open minded enough to read your arguments and proof for your side. However, no one has offered me any. Tell me about the thousands of fossils. Give me distint examples. Show me where I can go look into it. Then we can have an intellegent debate.

I'll even start here's a few things for you to parse through. Please notice that The Bible is no where included and that all of these are scientific texts and publications.

a
. “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely be reliable.� Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.

b
. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.� Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,� Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

c
. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature, “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.� Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

u Bowden, pp. 56–246.

u Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 298–305.

u Ibid., pp. 193–200.

d
. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see� a clear simian signature in them; and “see� in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data. Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.

u Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, (–) who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, “Box of Bones ‘ Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,� Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261–262.]

e
Before 1978, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey
. Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,� Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.

f
and others in a form resembling part of the human jaw.
. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,� Natural History, August/September 1979, pp. 86–91.

g
Ramapithecus was just an ape.
. Hammond, p. 43.

u “The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.� Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.

h
. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skull cap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.

Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man� to Java “gibbon.� Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.

u “Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.� Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,� Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

“Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.� Ibid., p. 5.

u “The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.� W. R. Thompson, p. 17.

W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species� by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man� at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link� would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.

u C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.

u Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.

u Hitching, pp. 208–209.

u Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.

i
Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man� to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man
. Ibid., pp. 108–138.

u Bowden, pp. 90 –137.

u Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.

j
. “ [The reanalysis of Narmada Man] puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.� Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed?� Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11.

k
The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis have recently been discovered. They show this animal clearly had apelike proportions
. Donald C. Johanson et al., “New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,� Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205–209.

l
and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).
. “We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus.� Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, “The Human Genus,� Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.

m
. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as “Lucy.�

u “... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.� Zuckerman, p. 78.

u “Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...� Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973–1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,� The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.

u Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?� Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389–395.

u “For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.� Zuckerman, p. 93.

u “His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.� Lewin, Bones of Contention, pp. 164–165.

u “This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.� Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,� Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.

n
. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.� Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,� Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

o
One australopithecine fossil—a 3 1/2-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy—was initially presented as evidence that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show this is very unlikely
. Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,� Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, pp. 645–648.

p
She probably swung from the trees
. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,� Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.

u Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,� New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

u Jack T. Stern, Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,� American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317.

q
and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees.
. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,� New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.

r
. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... they were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.� Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,� American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.

u “There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.� Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,� Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

“We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.� Ibid., pp. 348–349.

s
For about 100 years the world was led to believe Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This erroneous belief was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets.
. Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?� Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577–578.

u William L. Straus, Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,� The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348–363.

u Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease,� Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

t
Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today.
. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

u Jack Cuozzo, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,� The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.

u
Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ depictions of them, especially of their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.
. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past,� Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.


Ok now tell me again how I am being unscientific? How I am basing this all on my religion? Yes I happen to be a religious man. That is true. However, I base my religious veiws on the proof that I have found in science. I have just provided 21 sources none of which are The Bible or other religious texts and that is just on one issue of supposed "proof" for evolution in intermediary species between apes and man. You will notice here that the scientific community doesn't belive in these "connections" any more than I do. However, since you learned about them in some High School or College class they must be true right. Well here you go the truth is right before you. I have done what I have asked you to do. Give me proof on the basis of scientific evidence that supports evolution and I will listen. I have just given you proof based on scientific evidence that says no this did not occur. I once went on a search for the truth. I have found that this earth was created by a supreme being that I call God. I have not based this on any religious text but instead on scientific evidence such as what I have quoted here. I would hope that each of you has or one day will embark upon a search for what you call the truth. It is an experience like no other. Those of you that have and are on the other side from me please I ask again give me your evidence? I will listen. My search did not close my mind. Instead it opened it.

[pasalita]

Ay ya.

doctor23: Thank you for your very informative post. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us. For some ideas on why there are those of us that agree with the idea of evolution, I would suggest that you check out Evolution - bring your questions here (This is NOT a debate thread) (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5204) thread.

But, I must contest the idea that is implied in the above post that Annerach was singling your response out. True, she may have referred to the ideas conveyed regarding termites, but I don't believe that she was specifically challenging you or your way of disproving evolution. I believe that she was merely trying to share her general observations about some Creationist theorists. I would expect that we can accept that.

Annerach: While I can understand what you're trying to say, please also know that sometimes sweeping generalizations reflect negatively on other members in that they may be interpreted to sound as "fact." Please qualify your responses.

To all: Again, if you feel that your response to a thread is fueled by an anger of sorts at some of the posts you've read that disagree with your way of thought, then please do not post until you've had time to calm down.

We must all realize that no one is truly trying to say that anyone is wrong about their way of belief - they are simply disagreeing with your perspective. We must all remember that disagreement will occur and it is not necessarily on the onus of a disagreing member to prove why they have the right to disagree.

I ask that we don't take any general remark addressed to the entire forum personally, nor make anything personal. If you sincerely feel that you have been insulted, then either PM me with a link to the offending post, or click on the "Report this post to a Professor." Thanks :smile:

So, let's get back to the questions:

1. What do you believe in?

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

[doctor23]

Originally posted by pasalita (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=320347#post320347))
Ay ya.

doctor23: Thank you for your very informative post. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us. For some ideas on why there are those of us that agree with the idea of evolution, I would suggest that you check out Evolution - bring your questions here (This is NOT a debate thread) (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5204) thread.


Thank you Pasalita that's what I was looking for. I shall go look there. Myself I am not angry just relaying the facts as I see them and trying to inspire intellegent debate. So far I've seen a lot of bickering and "well it just is" in this thread. I want to know what people really think and why. Now that I've been led in the right direction I shall go find out.

[Annerach]

Religion is defined by the fact that it involves a god or gods. Evolution does not involve the supernatural, so therefore it's not a religion. I won't go through all the evidence for evolution, but I have to present some. What about the fossil record which shows transitional species that are not Homo-sapiens yet not ape? What about the fact that we share over 98 percent of out DNA with chimpanzees? What about the fact that there are joints on the sides of snakes skeleton where the legs used to be? What about the panda's thumb? However many gaps there are in evolution, there is still a world more evidence for it than there is for creation "science."

[Grindelwald]

For me, evolution has always been the obvious choice. I have seen first hand the evils of organised religion. The way it reinforces the class heirarchy, and its staunch non-denominationalism. Religion, as I see it, is the bane of modern humanity. People act with the most cruelty and least reason when they are at their most religious.

However, my argument is fundamentally flawed, as I don't mind admitting. firstly, i have not backed up my opinion with evidence, merely a rant about how much i hate religion. secondly, this is a moot point, as i neither the patience nor the time to sit down and find evidence to back up my opinion.

[Andeny]

There is clinical evidence of evolution. It was done with a species of bacteria that reproduce every 15 minutes (which is obviously how they were able to see it). The anti-bacterial stuff (basically, medicine) was introduced to the bacteria, and over a few weeks the bacteria evolved an immunity to the medicine.

Also, a point I'd like to make: There's no such thing as a missing link. The consept of a missing link is that scientist would have to show something that is half homo erecticus, and half homo sepien (or some other pair of species). There have already been lots of specimens fitting that criteria. The thing is, a scientist isn't going to classify a skeleton as "kinda erecticus and kinda sapien". They'll classify it as either one or the other. Basically, the missing link has been found many many times, it's just that it has to be filed under one or the other (or you have to make up an intermediate species, but then there'd be a "missing link" between it and the two species it's between).

[Andeny]

Oh ya, I forgot about the most predominant arguement of creationists:

Absolutly. Let's begin shall we? First let's take the Sun. The sun is shrinking at a rate that has been determined by scientists. Off the top of my head I cannot remember the exact rate but it is a definable number. Since the sun is shrinking, which makes complete sense as it is using energy to support it's fusion reactions and throws off matter into space at certain intervals, then it used to be bigger. Since that rate is known we can use simple arithmetic to discover that the earth cannot be millions of years old as descibed in evolutionary theory, because only something like 20 or 30 thousand years ago the surface of the sun would have been to close to the earth for this plaent to support life. That is assuming a constant rate of shrinkage. That rate could have been faster or slower in the past we don't know we weren't there. However, it is known that the rate was never zero. We know how the sun works. Therefore we know that it has always had to burn material for it's fusion reactions to continue working. That's one example.

Before I seriously begin, a theological question: God refuses to proove himself, because then there is no real faith. I don't hae faith that my mailman exists, I know he exists. The same would be true of god, so he refuses to prove himself. If he's all knowing an infallible, why would he overlook this thing that you claim would prove he exists? It would eliminate the entire point.

First off, those numbers are inaccurate. I have heard many people using this fact, but they have never been able to site a source for these numbers, and in all my searching (and I looked quite a bit) I have never found them. (BTW, if you do know a site that they're at, please point me to it.) And you're just plain wrong when you say that stars never stop shrinking.

Right now I'm just talking about yellow dwarfs (like our sun), not the period before or after. Stars generally keep the same mass. They spew out some of the helium that's formed, but they take in cosmic dust too. Also, as a star becomes smaller, it spins faster and becomes hotter, which both cause it to expand. So, it fluctuates between shrinking and expending until it reaches an equilibrium.

So basically, no, the sun doesn't have to have been much bigger than it is now.

[Andeny]

Ok, I'm actually going to get to the questions now. (sorry about posting so much)

1. What do you believe in?

evolution

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

I did in the last 2 posts

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

I assume you mean in school science courses.
Yes. In school we are supposed to be taught the commonly accepted scientific fact (and for those of you who say that evolution is just a theory, look up the term "scientific theory" it doesn't mean the same thing as just "theory"). Creation is (obviously) not the commonly accepted scientific theory. There are scientists who say the the world is flat, and you will find scientists saying just about anything else. We shouldn't be taught "the earth may be round, or it may be flat." If somebody is interested in creationism they can learn abot it at home, at school we should learn facts.

And if you think that "Just because creationism is believed by a minority doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught" then, by your logic, we should be taught all the millions of other creation storys.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

Definately, that is my biggest qualm with christian scientists (other than the fact that they contradict every major christian philosopher, ever).

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

Intelligent design would imply that there is a creator figure, and the contradicts "non-believers".

[vickygirl4]

Honestly, I think neither theory holds much water. Creationism, in my opinion, has no basis in fact (I'm not religious so I don't consider the bible to be a fact) and evolution has too many inconsistencies to seem plausible.

But because I was raised in a very scientifically oriented home I would have to lean towards evoluion.

[Midnightsfire]

No offense to Creationists, but this (http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html) is it's own argument against creationism.

*scrutinizes website*

What the????

[philip]

It's a parody site.

[Annerach]

This is so stupid I feel bad for pople who believe this. This isn't on the topic of Evolution but it's from the link that Midnightsfire put up.


2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences shows that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.


It's very telling that this project was performed by a boy. How on earth can they assume that just because women aren't payed equally that it's because they can't work as well because of some flaw in out anatomical struture!? AARGGHH! That is just really insulting!

[Annerach]

Originally posted by philip (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=400061#post400061))
It's a parody site.

Is it? Good. It was worrying me that people could be that incredibly stupid and ignorant and sexist.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally posted by philip (original post (http://www.cosforums.com/a/showthread.php?postid=400061#post400061))
It's a parody site.


I thought so too at first. After spending an hour looking it over, I've come to the conclusion that it may not be parody after all and that there are people who actually fall for this...stuff (http://www.cafeshops.com/objectivemin.2017145?zoom=yes#zoom).

[jimmy06]

My take on Evolution/Creation is this:

I believe in evolution. There are too many hard scientific facts so think otherwise, in my humble opinion. But of course, who put the monkeys there? Who made them evolve into our living day selves? God did. So if you kind of blend the two stories together, i think that sounds good

[star22]

I have read many books on the subject. It seems to me that Evolution has basically been proven to only happen within species. The probability of everything evolving is so high as to be impossible. Something like 10^500 or something like that.

[aiko amaya]

1. What do you believe in?
The last one, with the whole evolution happened and everything, but it was of gods doing

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
The bible said god created the world, and There are some theories where the formation of the earth follows the order of that in Genesis. Also, if there was no god, what put the particles there, what started it all. They don't know the absolute beggining, there has to be something that was there before the univers.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
Well it's really not, we learned about different religions in social studies class. Though I do find it a bit offensive that they put more emphsis on creationism, vut it is the scientific way of figuring things.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
Why should you I mean I support evolution and all but I alos support creation. But even if I didn't beleive in it and all that jazz, I hate losing oppurtunities to learn about how other people think, and I wouldn't want to lose such a great chance to broaden my mind.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Sometimes, especially if they don't like christians always trying to convert them. People don't really see the bible as this book anymore, it's alot more than that.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
yes

[Azimuth]

Absolutly. Let's begin shall we? First let's take the Sun. The sun is shrinking at a rate that has been determined by scientists. Off the top of my head I cannot remember the exact rate but it is a definable number. Since the sun is shrinking, which makes complete sense as it is using energy to support it's fusion reactions and throws off matter into space at certain intervals, then it used to be bigger. Since that rate is known we can use simple arithmetic to discover that the earth cannot be millions of years old as descibed in evolutionary theory, because only something like 20 or 30 thousand years ago the surface of the sun would have been to close to the earth for this plaent to support life. That is assuming a constant rate of shrinkage. That rate could have been faster or slower in the past we don't know we weren't there. However, it is known that the rate was never zero. We know how the sun works. Therefore we know that it has always had to burn material for it's fusion reactions to continue working. That's one example.

No, the Sun is not shrinking. The Sun is expanding, and will eventually turn into a Red Giant. When this happens, the Sun will engulf the Earth and Humans will have to colonise Mars to have any chance of survival. Eventually, the Sun will collapse under it's own weight and turn into a White Dwarf. Your "evidence" is completely incorrect.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

In Missouri, where I live, there is currently a bill in the works that would require schools to teach equal amounts of evolution and intelligent design. I am disgusted, so I thought it would be a good idea to bump this up.

[star22]

I think what annoys me the most is when people lump evolution together with an old earth and say that you cannot believe in one without the other. There is absolutely no evidence for macro evolution. There is tons of evidence for an old earth.
The odds of evolution happening are something like 10 to the 1 billionth power. It just is not possible. The conditions needed could not happen. For instance take RNA. Two of the nucleotides would need boiling temperatures while the other two would need freezing ones. Also, the RNA would need the cell for protection, yet the cell cannot exist without the RNA.
The universe has to be old. There is just no way that it could be young. Personally, I am a Christian, and I believe in a God who created us to explore and discover and who is not a lier. All the evidence points to an old universe. God created us to discover things. He would not have all the evidence pointing to a lie.

[Hagrid442]

1. What do you believe in? I lean towards a Theistic Evolution. Whereas I don't believe in God per se, I do believe there is some sort of force, a "clockmaker" if you will, that controls everything. Call it "God" if you like.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Yes and No. There's a plethora of evidence suggesting that evolution of some sort happened. It probably hasn't happened the way that most theorists believe. But the overall theory of evolution is basically correct. It just needs tweaking. As for the clockmaker. Well, it's more a matter of faith, than anything. "God" cannot be proven to exist. However, I don't think he/she/it can be proven not to exist either.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
Yes, I would. It has no basis in scientific fact. It falls under the category of faith. There are Sunday schools for this sort of teaching.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Perhaps, but really only if it's interpreted too literally. I think it's conceivable that the Bible can be interpreted metaphorically to give a good picture of what happened, like the seven days = seven ages comparison made very early in the thread.
6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed? Sure. I believe this wholeheartedly. I don't think there was some sort of "grand plan", but rather something that happened spontaneously, but not completely random. Confusing, yes, but that's the nature of Theistic Evolution. :)

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
There's too much evidence proving it's accurate. Perhaps not the way that Darwin theorized, but it's way more plausible than the account in the Bible if it's taken as Gospel. (yes, yes, intentional pun... it's the punch-drunkeness)

[Wab]

I don't believe evolution. I accept it on the basis of evidence. It probably helps that as I went to Catholic schools we were taught that Genesis was purely an allegorical story.

[Tane]

I believe in the theory of evolution due to all the genetic evidence that supports the assumption that life can evolve into another form under extreme conditions or over a long period of time. Besides who is to say that God did not create life with the ability to evolve in the first place.

On a much larger scale of evolution, how was the universe created. If you believe the big bang theory then what caused the bang in the first place and therefore what created the precursor to our universe. This is one of the mysteries of science and a scientist would not necessarily disagree on divine intervention for the creation of what triggered the big band and created our universe.

[DrummerboyDT]

I saw a scientific special on some channel. There was a guy talking about dating of fossils. All the fossilized bones he found had a carbon compound that heats up and then scorches the rest of the flesh off the carcass. He and a team of scientists did tests in the U.S. and found out that the same dinosaurs dated to 140 million years old were actually 6,000-16,000 years old. They call this carbon dating. He said that fossils only supply evidence into the thousands, not millions, of years. If he's accurate, that would support the idea of creation. Believe what you want, I just thought it was interesting with the data he had.

[Azimuth]

The odds of evolution happening are something like 10 to the 1 billionth power. It just is not possible. The conditions needed could not happen.

What do you mean? Evolution occurs as a result of genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. Genetic mutations happen all the time - they are the reason that some babies are born deformed, etc. They are nowhere near as unlikely as you said. There are no required conditions.

[Alastor D]

I saw a scientific special on some channel. There was a guy talking about dating of fossils. All the fossilized bones he found had a carbon compound that heats up and then scorches the rest of the flesh off the carcass. He and a team of scientists did tests in the U.S. and found out that the same dinosaurs dated to 140 million years old were actually 6,000-16,000 years old. They call this carbon dating. He said that fossils only supply evidence into the thousands, not millions, of years. If he's accurate, that would support the idea of creation. Believe what you want, I just thought it was interesting with the data he had.

It's true that you can't get very far back with radiocarbon or C14 or whateveryoucallit dating. But that doesn't of course make it impossible for any fossil to be older than measurable with that method.
There is too much evidence for the last dinosaurs dying out about 65 million years ago to be that easily dismissed.

[star22]

What do you mean? Evolution occurs as a result of genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. Genetic mutations happen all the time - they are the reason that some babies are born deformed, etc. They are nowhere near as unlikely as you said. There are no required conditions.

That is micro evolution, within a species. The odds I was talking about were for macro evolution, between a species, and also for it to happen spontanously without an outside source.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

For one thing, the principle is the same. For another, there is extensive fossil evidence for evolution. You can believe in God and still believe in evolution, but evolution happened.

[star22]

What evidence. Everything that I have seen as "evidence" can be easily refuted. Take whales for instance. People say that there is proof that they evolved. However, first of all, given that there are fossils dating from two to four million years apart of vastly different whales ranging from seawater to freshwater, the time in which they could have evolved is impossible. Second, whales would be one of the hardest species to evolve.

I am not saying that all the living things were introduced. On the contrary, there is no way that could be. What I believe is that God introduced new species over a period of time. Some died out while others lived on. This still took a long, long times, as much as the fossil evidence says it did. God stopped introducing new species after humans were introduced.

[Wab]

That is micro evolution, within a species. The odds I was talking about were for macro evolution, between a species, and also for it to happen spontanously without an outside source.

Evolution always requires an outside source be it radition to intiate a usual mutation or an environemental imperative that makes what was once a latent feature more useful.

As seems to be happening with Rocky Mountain Big Horn Sheep. Over the decades the horns of males have been recorded as becoming smaller. The imperative: rams with large racks were targetted by hunters taking their genetic material out of the species leaving the breeding to their less impressive brothers.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

What evidence.
Try this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html).

[star22]

Well, I don't have time to read it right now. I will come back. However, the author does say that it is against young-earth creationism, which I don't believe in and which I think is pretty ridiculous.

[Midnightsfire]

*sigh* This is the closest thread to it, sooo...

Dinosaur Impact Theory Challenged (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3520837.stm)

Scientists have cast doubt on the well-established theory that a single, massive asteroid strike killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.


New data suggests the Chicxulub crater in Mexico, supposedly created by the collision, predates the extinction of the dinosaurs by about 300,000 years.

The authors say this impact did not wipe out the creatures, rather two or more collisions could have been responsible.

The report is published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. An international group of scientists led by Professor Gerta Keller, of Princeton University, US, looked at a continuous sequence of rock - a core - drilled out of the Chicxulub structure.

They analysed rock from this core using five separate indicators of age, including fossil planktonic organisms and patterns of reversals in the Earth's magnetic field.



The results suggest the 180-km wide crater was punched into the Earth 300,000 years before the dinosaurs disappeared from the face of the planet.

At numerous sites around the world, a clay layer separates rocks laid down in the Cretaceous Period from those deposited in the Tertiary and is known as the K-T boundary.

It marks the point in time when the dinosaurs died out and was first linked to the Chicxulub crater in 1991. Professor Keller and her team contend their findings prove the Chicxulub impact did not by itself trigger the extinction of the great beasts.

Instead, they believe a cooling of the global climate shortly followed by a period of greenhouse warming placed enormous stress on the dinosaurs.


This warming could have been kicked off by carbon dioxide released by a massive eruption of lava seen today in the Deccan traps of India.

The Chicxulub impact occurred during this warming period and, although the environmental effects were severe, it did not cause the extinction of the dinosaurs.

The team believes a second impact, 300,000 years after the Chicxulub collision, finished off the creatures.

"When the K-T boundary impact finally came, it hit an already stressed community. To use a cliche, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. Almost anything could have wiped them out at that point," Professor Keller told BBC News Online. The structure of the sea bed beneath the Indian Ocean suggests this second impact could have been there, Professor Keller added.

Understandably, the team's conclusions have met with strong opposition.


"It appears to contradict many other lines of evidence that seem rather unambiguously to indicate that the [Chicxulub] crater formed at the K-T boundary," said Dr David Kring of the University of Arizona, US.

Professor Alan Hildebrand of the University of Calgary, Canada, told BBC News Online: "[This theory] has survived every test. The asteroid that made Chicxulub acted alone."

Professor Hildebrand and Dr Kring were authors of the 1991 paper proposing Chicxulub as the site of the K-T boundary asteroid strike.

Strong supporting evidence comes from molten material laid down at the K-T boundary in rocks from Haiti which is similar to deposits from the Chicxulub crater.

In addition, debris thrown out by this collision gets thicker the closer you get to Chicxulub like a trail pointing to the impact site.

And Dr Joanna Morgan, of Imperial College, London, UK, told BBC News Online: "An impact the size of Chicxulub occurs on Earth about every 100m years.

"That two such impacts occurred within 300,000 years and both hit the Earth at almost exactly the same place is statistically unlikely. "Not impossible, but very, very unlikely," said the researcher who is also investigating Chicxulub core material.

(Pics and graph at link!)

[Master Qui-Gon]

I saw a scientific special on some channel. There was a guy talking about dating of fossils. All the fossilized bones he found had a carbon compound that heats up and then scorches the rest of the flesh off the carcass. He and a team of scientists did tests in the U.S. and found out that the same dinosaurs dated to 140 million years old were actually 6,000-16,000 years old. They call this carbon dating. He said that fossils only supply evidence into the thousands, not millions, of years. If he's accurate, that would support the idea of creation. Believe what you want, I just thought it was interesting with the data he had.

C14-dating is only able to measure the age of organic material some 50,000 years back. The older the material is, the more inaccurate the measurments will be. Organic material that is hundreds of millions years old will be completely unsuitable for being measured by the C14-method.

Now, the method used for measuring material that is up to billions of years old, is called radiometry. Radiometry only works on volcanic minerals, but as soon as you have measured the age of the mineral, the age of what's in it, such as dinosaur bones, will be the same.

The methods of radiometry is built upon the knowledge that all radioactive materials are decomposed at a constant pace. Radioactive uranium will at a constant pace turn into lead, just as radioactive calium turns into argon. The benefits of this connection between calium and argon is useful, not only because calium is the 8th most common element on earth, but also because the argon will be trapped in the mineral it is "made" in, in this case calium. The inaccuracy is only half a percent, meaning if something is measured to be 400 million years old, the inaccuracy is only +/- 2 million years. This method was among other things used to determine the age of the earth (about 4.5 billion years old) and when dinosaurs disappeared from the world (about 65 million years ago).

Why this "scientist" would use carbon dating to determine the age of dinousars is completely beyond me, but I do know that the method of C14-dating is not suitable for dating dinousaur fossiles.

(Information about dating methods taken from an article in "Science Illustrated" (a Scandinavian science magazine) nr. 1/2004)

[Wab]

Just a cross post. If life were find on Mars where would it fit into the Creationist model?

[Tane]

Just a cross post. If life were find on Mars where would it fit into the Creationist model?

It would not fit into the creationist’s model and therefore reinforce my belief behind evolution. If life were to be found on Mars then it would support the theory of adaption and therefore evolution.

[GryffindorGr]

1.What do you believe in? I believe in Creation and evolution.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence? Not precisely but here is my take on it, and I tend to think too fast:

Let’s take for example evolution in terms of scientific discoveries. Science isn’t fact, its theory, correct?
Some say it is one of the most common misconceptions in science. Theory is a way that something is explained and supported by evidence, used to predict the future. A "theory" used to interpret how things are the way they are biologically. How could anyone deny it as fact who examined the supportive evidence? Simply not a chaotic thing.

3 million years, is the number that mankind have been living in tribes, like the aborigines or american indians, The oldest humanoid fossil; human & part apelike, is 4.3 million years old. the oldest fossil of the fully erect walking homo genus is 1.5 million. Homo sapiens species, we have only been round a 100,000, maybe 200,000 at the most. (I've read this) So as far as is relevant for discussion (i would not consider communal or tribal habits of other huminoids relevant), we have only been living in tribes approx. 90,000 years. Dinosaurs were here longer. (another subject I'd like to indulge in--my favorite)

an example; Native Americans had disease before the white man. Just different ones. They died because they did not have the immunities to when the white man came and conquered. Same goes if you were to go South Africa or South America and you will catch malaria or some other disease. Most times you have to get a shot before going to those countries.

In evolutionary thought, evolution is a change in allele frequency. A criteria for evolution is a closed population. This is not possible anymore. It is now global community where anyone anywhere we can breed with any race and produce offspring. Otherwise we can’t evolve. There would have to be a huge selecting factor to cause evolution to take place on a global scale. more likely than that is for something to happen to isolate various groups of people long enough and in small enough groups that their allele frequencies can change, and then if those change in a way that makes them able to reproduce better than others, then certain frequencies will become predominant in the pool, and natural selection has then taken place. When in small groups, we were still under the influence of natural selection.(could this be like the aborigines and Native Americans? Or the tribes in South Africa?) on a evolutionary timeline, it's not long enough to evolve past our current state, unless someone tells me differently.

Natural selection doesn't have an agenda like we humans seem to think or does it? Whatever means more reproduction is what is selected for. Animals are in communal groups. These make them more successfully produce. Communal groups evolved. You have safety in numbers, if you don’t get eaten, you might get to reproduce. Like the rabbits and mice.
It is wrong to think that people live together in a tribe because it makes them happy and they like helping each other. our programming is that we put ourselves first. Greed is natural. why? Because the nature of any living thing is to pass on their genetic code.

Take a look at the human population now. it has allowed us to feed so well that we reproduced exponentially. That is success, in terms of evolution. Many populations follow some sort of sinusoidal. It goes up, it hits a top limit that the area can provide, then crashes to an acceptable level or lower, then goes up again. and repeats. Smaller animals such as fish (bottom of food chain) and our ancestors and also early us probably followed the same curve. but wait...our brains got bigger. That is evolution too.

As humans where do we go? Is there a limit? As for creationism, it all ties in to what I’ve discussed above. One must remember that Darwin was a minister and had beliefs in God. In the literature of the bible, many of the apostles and most especially in the new testament, where Jesus gives his messages to his apostles that in essence we must evolve and use our god given gifts. Our ability to think, rationalize and give birth to our imagination. Many philosophers will say the same thing but in different variations.


3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
It shouldn’t be. This is constriction to leave out any possible means of knowledge that would help us understand better what philosophies and reason were developed over the past centuries.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it? It depends on the person giving the evidence. Some are not fit for giving out the information.

[Tiberius]

Okay, here's my two cents.

Creationism, as I understand it, teaches that all life on this planet was created by God, and not a single species has ever been created or destroyed, or allowed to change in any way. If I'm wrong here, i'm sure someone will correct me.

First of all, this disagrees with the fossil record. And I'm quite sure that the fossil record is correct, because we have very sophisticated techniques in carbon dating and the like. Creationists may tell me that carbon dating is wrong, but I find it very hard to believe that so many scientists, archeaologists and the like all over the world for the last few decades have not only been getting it wrong, but been getting it wrong by the same amount. It just strains credibility.

Secondly, creationism teaches that no new life forms have appeared on our planet since God created them. I could point out all the new species of virus and bacteria that have evolved from earlier species. Hey, we give them plenty of motivation to evolve with repeated doses of anti bacterial medication and the like, don't we? But I won't, because there is an even beter example.

Two species. The Tigon and Liger. Both are species of Big Cat, formed from the mating of a Lion and a Tiger. The difference between the two is whether the male was the Lion or the Tiger. Unfortunately, I can't remember which is which, but that doesn't matter to this example, and if you really want to know, it can probably be found out very easily.

Now, if you think about it, Lions and Tigers don't generally meet in Nature. I mean, the Lion lives out on the plains, and the tiger lives in the jungle. In Nature, they won't ever meet. Not unless one of them walks a really long way. I'm talking a few thousand kilometers. And being the territorial animals Cats are, this doesn't happen. Tigons and ligers were only created when Lions and Tigers came into close proximity. As in Zoos. And as zoos are created by Mankind, it is impossible for nature alone to create either a Liger or a Tigon. therefore, both of these species of cat were created by Man, in direct opposition to what Creationism tells us.

So, on the basis of this, as well as other evidence, I can't possibly find a way to believe in Creationism.

[OrbitingElle]

I believe that evolution makes sense. Look at all the creatures that exist today and how similar they are to each other.

I'm sitting here with my cat in my lap, and even though he's 10 lbs and covered in fur, we still both have all the same basic things. Eyes, ears, nose, mouth, brain. We both eat, sleep, breathe and are capable of the same basic emotions. It makes sense that we all came from the same place.

I don't want to be rude or insulting, but Christianity seems so outdated. I wonder why people in our modern society can still believe all the things in the Bible when the stories are so unusual and unrealistic. A friend of mine attends a catholic university, and even her professors teach that the bible is meant as a series of lessons, like fables, not to be taken word for word.

[Animagi rock!]

1. What do you believe in?
I believe in evolution.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
The theory of evolution is consistent with all the facts that as of yet are known about our origins (or it would have been rejected). Here are a few:

- the fossil record (incomplete as it is)
- molecular data: we have many genes in common with even the more simple organisms, embrionic development genes for example. Quite apart from the fact that all known organisms have the same genetic "language", DNA, (or RNA in some viruses), and replicate this DNA by similar mechanisms, which is too big a coincidence to explain any other way than by assuming we all have a common ancestor IMO.
- many animals have "vestigial organs" which, like the joints in snakes which were mentioned earlier, have no use now but have been retained from an ancestor who needed them
- the imperfection of animals is, IMO, evidence against creationism, as god would have made them perfect.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
I believe that creationism belongs either in church or in religion classes and not in a science class. At least not in a public school (private schools can do what they like).

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
It puts me off, because it's most often impossible to have a decent discussion with people who base their views only on the bible. The only thing we can say is that they believe what that book says and I don't. End of discussion. Which is sad, IMO, because I like discussions :p .

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
Sure. I don't believe in it, but the universe could have been created by god (or whatever you want to call it) in the beginning. I can't believe that that being still influences us now, but as to how the universe was created in the first place, your guess is as good as mine. I won't completely discard the possibility until I hear evidence for something more likely.

[Tane]

When did man first assign the emotions of good and evil to god and the devil?

I mean when you look at it as depicted from the bible the first primates where not even able to conceive the theory of Adam and Eve so that is farcical to me. What it does pose is the question: when did our evolutionary ancestors first conceive the idea of a god and a devil. It was common among them to assign different gods to things they could not understand. So where in our evolution did we realize that there was a good and bad and therefore assign gods to each emotion because I doubt the first primitive species would have understood what those emotions truly meant. Perhaps the first ones to even think about such feelings or acts may have themselves been seen as having a gift from some god. I think good and evil developed with our evolution so there must have been a time when there was no distinction between the two.

So I think god and the devil where created when man first gained a sense of morality but just could not fully explain it.


SPECIES TIME PERIOD
Ardipithicus ramidus 5 to 4 million years ago
Australopithecus anamensis 4.2 to 3.9 million years ago
Australopithecus afarensis 4 to 2.7 million years ago
Australopithecus africanus 3 to 2 million years ago
Australopithecus robustus 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo habilis 2.2 to 1.6 million years ago
Homo erectus 2.0 to 0.4 million years ago
Homo sapiens archaic 400 to 200 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens neandertalensis 200 to 30 thousand years ago
Homo sapiens sapiens 200 thousand years ago to present

Rough guide to what each species was capable of understanding or learning (http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html)

So what is the oldest dating evidence to suggest that there was a god and a devil, considering that for quite a long time in our existence we could not speak? Is it possible that god and devil where created by one of our non-speaking ancestors and hence is depicted through drawings.

I am not putting this down as a thread though because it would get slaughtered but it is something I think about a lot. We all talk about Christianity and god and devil but even the bible states that those concepts predate the Christian belief.

Imagine what it must have been like for the first person or species of our evolutionary kind to realize that something they saw was wrong when the concept of wrong or right did not exist at that time.

It is just hard for me to rationalize what that must have been like. I guess not that dissimilar to the way we see terrorism today. To think that terrorism will have its place in our evolutionary history as something that may even change the way society thinks today, just as the man who picked up a bone and used it for the first time as a weapon was seen as changing the way the human species thinks and evolves to introduce the notion of war and defense.

[OrbitingElle]

A lot of ancient cultures came up with the idea of a God or Gods to explain things that didn't make sense to them, most of them seem a little silly now that we look back on them. How does everyone feel about the thought that we might be looked back on as silly one day in the future?

Assuming the human race lives long enough, I wonder if another major religion will ever come about and what it will have to say about our origins.

[Confessor]

How does everyone feel about the thought that we might be looked back on as silly one day in the future?

I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty indifferent, really.

even the bible states that those concepts predate the Christian belief.
Where? I'm not trying to discredit you, I just want to know where it is.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

Nope. No chance. That is, assuming you mean "atheists" by "non-believers," the universe was not created by a intelligent being. It had to have been designed beforehand, then later altered -which is a very impossible feat to achieve.

It puts me off, because it's most often impossible to have a decent discussion with people who base their views only on the bible.

I could say the exact same thing about a text book. Or any other written report on "facts gained." For all I know, some whackjob woke up one day and decided he'd mess up a few opinions. Of course, the same goes for the Bible.

Again, it's all my opinion.

[Wab]

IWhere? I'm not trying to discredit you, I just want to know where it is.


They're mentioned in the OT which predates Christianity.

[Midnightsfire]

When did man first assign the emotions of good and evil to god and the devil?
It was really taken seriously by Zarathustra who completely (or nearly so) separated aspects of the universe on the basis of moral dualism.

Of course there are concepts of good and evil in most other ancient cultures.

What it does pose is the question: when did our evolutionary ancestors first conceive the idea of a god and a devil. It was common among them to assign different gods to things they could not understand. So where in our evolution did we realize that there was a good and bad and therefore assign gods to each emotion because I doubt the first primitive species would have understood what those emotions truly meant. Perhaps the first ones to even think about such feelings or acts may have themselves been seen as having a gift from some god. I think good and evil developed with our evolution so there must have been a time when there was no distinction between the two.
The time-frame your looking for may predate Neanderthal man. Some tribes seemed to have knowledge of compassion if I remember correctly. This link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1943960.stm) shows how socially advanced they were. (I had another link....somewhere...)

The concept of deity and mythmaking is almost as old. (Shamanism and spiritualism is the first of all religions.)

My opinion: The idea of "moralising" is connected to the belief that "if it hurt me, it would hurt others," i.e. empathizing and feeling compassion. (Sound familiar?)

Feelings and emotions were confusing...Hey...(What am I saying? They still are!)

Posted in Muggle History Division's Search for Magic Thread (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=14806) thread:
How prehistoric societies viewed and feared the elements and desired some form of control over these fears. For the nonce, I'm going to skip over this since I tend to get lost in all that prehistory. Such as the first language (http://www.fsu.edu/~fstime/FS-Times/volume8/nov02web/8nov02.html) (Or exploring "Nostratic (http://132.74.76.215/lessons/1/Babel/Preview/Babeltxt.htm)" as the first spoken language) and exploring what may have been the first written language, (Egypt? Sumer? It's debatable (http://www.english.uga.edu/~hypertxt/040699sci-early-writing.html).)

And therein lies some of our most ancient deities. The idea that going against their wishes were evil came with formal religion.

[siriusgurl]

1. What do you believe in?
hmm well I belive in Theistic evolution, that any peaceful religion or even good ethics are just different paths to the same goal, I believe in souls and living after death though I doubt it will be in a physical sense. I believe in a supreme being though I think it is impossible to proove its existance since where ignorant of the grand scheme of things.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Where here aren't we? There's stuff we can't touch and stuff our race has never been able to understand, and even if you can proove how something happened I don't think you can rule out a higher power.
3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
Hey my beliefs aren't anyone elses they shouldn't be forced I don't think it harms anyone if its not taught you can learn threw parents, talking, and/or your place of worship
4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
depends on the person I think we have to remember that logical there must be some lyway for human error, and that not everyone shares the same exact beliefs if you wanna learn with the bible you should have the choice.
6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
n/a
7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

n/a

[LewsTherin]

1. What do you believe in?
Creationism.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Yep. See the bit after the questions.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?
Well, in schools kids are encouraged to open their minds and learn about a whole variety of things. Christianity and Creationism are the only things not represented. In all fairness, shouldn't they be?

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
It shouldn't. The Bible provides a description of the origin of the universe and as such must be studied just as other historical documents are studied.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?
No. There is no credible evidence to support evolution. All scientific evidence points to intelligent design and hence a creator.

Here follows the evidence I have...

This chapter comes from the book Understanding the Times by David A. Noebel. (Forgive any spelling mistakes. I had to type this out instead of copy/pasting it.)

****

“And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind.“ - Genesis 1:21

Perhaps no aspect of Christinaity has troubled believers more in the last century that the question of origins. Because many biologists treat evolution as scientific fact, Christians have struggled to reconcile their faith in the Bible with the “fact” that man and all living things evolved from a single speck of life.
The reconciliation is impossible from a rational perspective. Christians who believed that God created the first glimmer of life on earth and then directed its evolution to generate man (the belief known as theistic evolution) must take substantial liberties in interpreting the Bible, and they face the most of the same arguments that Christians use against atheistic evolution.
Jesus Christ declares in Mark 10:6, “But at the beginning God 'made the male and female.'” Theistic evolutionists have, through semantic acrobatics, managed to interpret this verse and others like it so that they appear to support the evolutionary position. Theistic evolutionists contend that the term creation simply means that God created the first spark of life and then directed His creation through the vehicle of evolution.
Thus, some Christians believe that the Bible does no necessarily deny evolutionary theory as an explanation of origins. This may appear to be a tenable position when discussing only verses concerned strictly with the questions of origins; however, when one examines the entire message of the bible, the doctrine of theistic evolution severely undermines Christian understanding of God and man's place in His universe.
For example, while it is true that God is capable of anything that is logically possible, so that He could have used evolution to generate all species, why would He employ such an inefficient (and often totally ineffective) mechanism. If God designed the world to operate according to specific natural laws requiring minimal routine interference, why would He use an evolutionary mechanism that would require His constant meddling with the development of life? Further, such a mechanism seems an especially cruel method for creating man. As Jacques Monod notes, natural selection is the “blindest and most cruel way of evolving a new species.”

More important, if evolution is true, the the story of the Garden of Eden and original sin must be viewed as nothing more than allegory, a view that undermines the significance of Christ's sinless life and sacrificial death on the cross. Why? Because the Bible presents Jesus as analogous to Adam. The condemnation and corruption brought on us by Adam's sin are the counterparts of the justification and sanctification made possible for us by Christ's righteousness and death (Romans 5:12-19). If Adam was not a historical individual, and if his fall into sin was not historical, then the Biblical doctrines of sin and of Christ's atonement for it collapse.
Of course, this conclusion is unacceptable for the Christian. Thus, it is our contention that the proper Christian worldview requires a belief in the Creator as He is literally portrayed in Genesis.
For a Christian to have believed in creation forty, thirty, even twenty years ago might have seemed radical because, until recently, evolution appeared to be unassailable scientifically. Understandably, many Christians turned to theistic evolution as the only means of reconciling their reason with their faith. Today, however, the scientific objections to evolution are so strong that Christians who wish to integrate faith and reason would do well to abandon evolution as a rational explanation for the origin of species.

Modern science's roots are grounded in a Christian view of the World. This is not surprising, since science is based on the assumption that the universe is orderly and can be expected to act according to specific, discoverable laws. An ordered, lawful universe would seem to be the effect of an intelligent Cause, which was precisely the belief of many early scientists.
Renowned philosopher and historian of science Stanley L. Jaki specifies that “from Copernicus to Newton it was not deism but Christian theism that served as a principal factor helping the scientific enterprise reach self-sustaining maturity.”
Inherent to this early scientific dependance on the orderliness of the world was the belief that the world was ordered by a Divine creator. As Langdon Gilkey points out, “The religious idea of a transcendent creator actually made possible rather than hindered the progress of scientific understanding of the natural order.” Modern evolutionists have lost sight of this order. According to their perspective, all lide is the result of chance processes.
This problem of perspective causes many evolutionists to lose sight of the marvels that abound on our universe. Whereas earlier scientists accepted Christianity and therefore were able to recognize the order of their world as a reflection of the Creator's omniscience, evolutionists must now view everything as fortunate accidents (with emphasis on chance instead of cosmos).
Creationists understand that the vast order and design in our world point unequivocally towards a Desinger and Creator. Thus, creationists use teleology-design in nature-to support creationism.

Willaim Paley presented the most famous version of the teleological argument-that of the watch and the watchmaker. Since the nineteenth century, however, it has been widely believed that Paley's argument for a universal designer was effectively answered by philosopher David Hume. Hume claimed the Paley's analogy between living things and machines was unfounded and unrealistc and, therefore, that life does not need an intelligent designer, as machines do. Hume's reply to Paley caused mane people to discredit the teleological argument in all its forms, which also contributed to science's willingness to ignore design in nature and suggest that all life arose by chance.
But science can no longer ignore teleology. Indeed, science has recently discovered that life really is analogous to the most complex of machines, thereby reinforcing Paley's argument. Michael Denton, a molecular biologist, states, “Paley was not only right in asserting the existence of an analogy between life and machines, but was also remarkably prophetic in guessing that the technological ingenuity realized in living systems is vastly in excess of anything yet accomplished by man.”
Science is re-learning an old lesson: the more one discovers about the universe, the more one discovers design. Many notable scientists inadvertently support Paley nowadays as they describe the design in nature revealed to them by science. Physicists Paul Davies, who does not profess to be a Christian, supports teleology-and ultimately creationism- when he says, “Every advance in fundamental physics seems to uncover yet another facet of order.”
At first, this seems to be an obvious conclusion of little significance. But strict evolution demands chance rather than a Law-maker as the guiding force. When a world-class non-Christian scientist like Davies declares that the universe cannot be viewed as a product of chance, it is a severe blow to materialistic evolutionary theory.
When one truly understand the ordered complexity of life, it is hard ot imagine chance producing even bacterial cells, which are the simplest living systems. Denton explains: “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10(-12) gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousand of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million toms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.”
As Paley pointed out almost two centuries ago, this type of design requires an intelligent mind-chance processes cannot produce such intricate order.

The existence and properties of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) supports creationism both through teleological argument and by demonstrating evolutionary theory's inability to explain crucial aspects of life. DNA contains the genetic code and is a crucial part of living matter, yet evolutionary theory is powerless to explain how it came into existence, let alone why DNA evidences such phenomenal design.
This teleological quality of DNA is overwhelming. Charles Thaxton believes DNA as the most powefrul indicator of intelligent designL “Is there any basis in experience for an intelligent cause of the origin of life? Yes! It is an analogy between the base sequences in the DNA code and written language sequences in a book...there is structural identity between the DNA code and written language. ” That is, we can assume that DNA is the product of intelligence because it is analogous to human languages, which are, without exception, products of intelligent minds.
Even excluding the teleological nature of DNA, its very existence severely undermines evolutionary theory. Walter Brown points out, “DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 different types of proteins. But these can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must explain the origin of the other. Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously. This implies Creation.”

DNA obviously present one of the most pressing problems for evolutionists. It is an intensely complicated substance, yet it must be present in the very earliest forms of living matter. How can evolutionists explain this?
They cannot. In fact, no one has shown how life itself could arise from non-living chemicals, let alone such a complex aspect of life as DNA. This inability to demonstrate spontaneous generation (the development of life from non-life) is another key weakness in evolutionary theory.

For the atheistic evolutionists belief to be rational, the major problem biology must overcome is the impossibility of spontaneous generation. In order for life to have arisen due to random processes, at some point in time non-living matter must have come alive.
Many evolutionists point to the work of Alexander Oparin in defense of spontaneous generation. Oparin described a theory that supposedly allowed for chance processes working in a prebiotic soup to give rise to life. Unfortunately for evolutionists, this theory is rapidly being refuted by science. In fact, the further science progresses, the more unlikely spontaneous generation seems. Dean Kanyon, a biochemist and a former chemical evolutionist, now writes, “When all relevant lines of evidence are taken into account, and the problem squarely faced, I think we must conclude that life owes its inception to a source outside of nature.” He bases this conclusion on four premises: (1) the impossibility of the spontaneous generation of genetic information, (2) the fact that most attempts to duplicate the conditions necessary for chemical evolution yield non-biological material, (3) the unfounded nature of the belief (necessary for a chemical evolutionist) that prebiotic conditions encouraged a trend toward the formation of L amino acids, and (4) the geochemical evidence that O2 existed in significant amounts in the Earth's early atmosphere (organic compounds decompose when O2 is present).
Brown also believes the existence of O2 creates an insurmountable problem for chemical evolutionists: “If the earth, early in its alleged evolution, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life to begin would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone in the upper atmosphere. Without this ozone, life would quickly be destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation.” Ozone and life, therefore, must have originated simultaneously-at the time of creation.

In order to understand the clash between evolution and the second law of thermodynamics, we must first understand a few implications of the second law. A.E. Wilder-Smith explains, “The second law of thermodynamics states that, although the total energy in the cosmos remains constant, the amount of energy available to do useful work is getting smaller.”
This law has important implications regarding the effect of time on the orderliness of the universe. While the evolutionist calls for the universe to grow more orderly as evolution progresses, the second law of thermodynamics assures us that order tends to disintegrate into disorder. Wilder-Smith puts the contrast clearly: “The theory of evolution teaches, when all the frills are removed, just the opposite to this state of affairs demanded by the second law of thermodynamics.”
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't just contradict evolution, either-it also reinforces that creationists explanation of man's origins. First, it suggests that the universe had a beginning. “If the entire universe is an isolated system, then, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,” says Brown, “the energy in the universe that is available for useful work has always been decreasing. However, as one goes back in time, the amount of energy available for useful work would eventually exceed the total energy in the universe that, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, remains constant. This is an impossible condition. Therefore, it implies that the universe had a beginning.”
Second, it suggests that the universe began as a highly ordered system. Wilder-Smith says, “The second law of thermodynamics seems thus to describe the whole situation of our present material world perfectly and the Bible very clearly confirms this description. For example, Romans 8:22-23 teaches us that the whole creation is subject to 'vanity' or destruction. Everything tends to go downhill to chaos and destruction as things stand today.”
The creationists position, then, is more in sync with science than evolutionary theory. This becomes even more obvious when one considers genetics.

Evolutionists believe that no breeding limits exist, sine life-forms must ultimately break these “species barriers” to create new species. Indeed, evolutionists see beneficial mutations as breaking all barriers to change, since these mutations supposedly can produce a vast array of structures, even a human eye, given enough time.
Unfortunately for evolutionists, however, science simply has not been able to demonstrate that any mutations break these limits to change. Pierre Paul Grasse, after studying mutations in bacteria and viruses, concludes, “What is the use if their unceasing mutations if they do not change? Inj sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect.”
If indeed such limits exist, then evolution is a meaningless explanation. If a species can only evolve so far before it hits a barrier and is forced to remain the same species, then no macroevolution occurs. This notion if the gene pool limiting the possible variation of species has troubled a great number of evolutionists, including Alferd Russel Wallace, one of the founders of the theory of natural selection. Wallace grew to doubt his theory later in life, largely because he became aware of Gregor Mendel's genetic laws, and could not reconcile the apparent limits to change with evolution's need for boundless development.
Incredibly, Edward Deevy Jr. Also recognizes these limitations, yet remains an evolutionist: “Some remarkable things have been done by crossbreeding and selection inside the species barrier, or within a larger circle of closely related species, such as the wheats. But wheat is still wheat, and not, for instance, grapefruit; and we can no more grow wings on pigs than hens can make cylindrical eggs.”
How can Deevy remain an evolutionist in the face of such evidence? How can one believe in virtually unlimited change when limits abound within species? Rationally, one cannot. The creationist believes the evolutionary position is opposed to reason, and therefore rejects it.
It would seem the case against evolutionists and in favor of creationism is quite formidable-indeed, retreat appears to be the only option available to the evolutionist. Incredibly, the conclusion seems justifiable even without reference to what many consider the most powerful refutation of evolutionary theory: the gaps in the fossil record and the absence of transitional forms. A brief explanation of this evidence should leave few doubts as to the bankruptcy of evolutionary theory.

So far each of our arguments has focused on whether evolution is theoretically possible. Now we turn to the question whether the empirical evidence suggests it happened.
Over one hundred year ago, Darwin wrote, “The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record will rightly reject my whole theory.” When Darwin made this claim, he was correct in asserting that the geological record, as scientists knew it then, was imperfect. A century later, it is safe to say that the geological record has been thoroughly scrutinized. And rather than confirming Darwin's theories, the fossils condemn them.
One reason the fossil record condemns evolutionary theory is that many complex life forms appear in the very earliest rocks without any indication of forms from which they could have evolved. Creatures without ancestors cannot help but imply special creation. As Brown says, “The evolutionary tree has no trunk.”
This explosion of life is not the only way in which the fossil record condemns evolution. The lack of fossils supporting the transitional phases between species is perhaps the single most embarrassing topic for evolutionists. And yet, this absence of transitional fossils is undeniable.
This fact is grudgingly recognized by leading evolutionists. David Raup, a geologist, admits, “The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”
The problem for evolutionists unable to produce transitional fossils is made clear by Brown: “If [Darwinian] evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all forms of life. Actually, many gaps and discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record.” An evolutionary tree with no trunk (no life forms earlier than the already very complex ones in Cambrian rocks) and no branches (no transitional forms) can hardly be called a tree at all.
This problem presented by the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record also extends to the lack of transitional forms observable in nature or even conceivable in the human mind. Evolutionists are unable not only to point to a specific form observed by science as an indisputable transitional form, but also present a reasonable explanation for the survival of any hypothetical transitional forms in nature, since many forms would be useless until fully developed.
Evolution demands that mutations be beneficial to cause them to be reproduced and become dominant in nature, and yet half-developed transitional forms provide no clear advantage; on the contrary, they are more likely to be handicaps. Brown elaborates: “If a limb were to evolve into a wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a good wing.” Again, underneath the whole current of debate, we find the teleological argument to be among the best answers to evolutionists and the strongest support for creationism. It is clear that God as Designer provides a much better explanation for teh design evidenced by life than does a theory that requires transitional forms guided by natural selection.
The fossil record, the observation of living organisms, and the teleological nature of numerous forms testify to the impossibility of gradual change. Yet gradual change is absolutely critical to traditional evolutionary theory. Darwin himself admits, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
This is precisely what creationists have claimed for years-that Darwin's evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Reason requires the biologist to abandon evolution and embrace the more rational explanation: creation. Of course, creationism is untenable for atheists; therefore, even if the atheist recognizes the irrationality of traditional evolutionary theory, he must postulate an equally indefensible theory to circumvent the notion of God.

Thus, evolutionists have recently suggested the theory of punctuated equilibrium. This theory allows the materialistic evolutionist to escape some of the inconsistencies of neo-Darwanian evolution while ignoring the possibility of the existence of God.
Punctuated equilibrium basically claims that evolution occurs in spurts, in relatively short periods of time, which supposedly accounts for the absence of transitional forms. Stephen Jay Gould is the theory's leading proponent, largely because he recognizes the untenability of any evolutionary theory that requires gradual, intermediate change, but is still unwilling to abandon the theory of evolution. This forces him to postulate an alternate evolutionary theory custom-built to fit the facts.
The alternative, unfortunately for evolutionists, still faces severe problems. Punctuated equilibrium still relies on the Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the fittest (albeit at a much faster pace and in isolated segments of a species' population). The problem with this reliance on Darwinian mechanisms, even if the mechanisms themselves were viable, is that Darwin explicitly declared that they must work gradually, imperceptibly.
The biggest problem with punctuated equilibrium, however, is that it is no based on evidence. Instead, it is assumed to be correct explanation because if fits the lack of empirical evidence. But this is an illogical assumption-the lack of evidence for one proposed method of evolution does not necessarily prove the veracity of another proposed method. It might, instead, be interpreted that evolution itself did not occur.
An origins theory that cannot postulate a satisfactory mechanism but rather is based on the absence of evidence is no better than it parent theory, neo-Darwinism. Further, the speculations of punctuated equilibrium may avoid the problem of transitional forms, but they still are faced with the insurmountable problems presented by spontaneous generation, the lack of observable beneficial mutations, and evolution's contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics.
Punctuated equilibrium, then, is every bit as faulty as traditional evolutionary theory. Creationism proves to be a much better explanation of man's origin, when one takes into account evidence of intelligent design throughout the universe, the complexity and ingenuity of DNA, the fossil record showing no transitional forms but rather “kind begetting kind,” the extinction of species rather than new species evolving through natural selection and punctuated equilibrium, the low of biogenesis, and the second law of thermodynamics.

Evolutionary has come full circle-from an assumption of the gradual appearance of all species to an assumption of the virtually instantaneous (geologically speaking) appearance of all species. From the Chritian biologist's perspective, this is an interesting turn of events. It suggests that the evolutionists faith in evolution is so unshakable they are willing to believe any theory that they can twist to fit the “facts” (or absence of facts).
The belief that God created all things, including man in His own image, requires faith. But evolutionary theory requires more faith, since evolution runs contrary to reason, science and history. Still, many evolutionists hold desperately to their theory, simply because it is the only explanation of origins that excludes God. The scientists who believes that everything can be explained in natural terms cannot tolerate the concept of a supernatural Being. But for the Christian biologist, the world is only comprehensible in the light of God's existence.
Ironically, it was Darwin's wife who eloquently verbalized the creationists' remonstrance to evolutionists. In a letter to her husband, she wrote, “May not the habit in scientific pursuits of believing nothing till it is proved, influence your mind too much in other things which cannot be proved in the same way, and which if true, are likely to be above our comprehension?”

****

Well, there you are; a very convincing argument against evolution.

Now, regarding the archaeopteryx. People claim that this half-reptile, half-bird proves that evolution is correct. However, it does not, as the Bible mention it as distinct class of animal, not as a “link” at all. (This excerpt is taken from [i]The Science of God[/i] by Gerarld L. Schroeder).

****

The archaeopteryx lived 150 million years ago, in the late Jurassic period, an era when reptiles dominated the main ecological niches. At the time, central Europe, including what is now Germany, had a tropical climate. The specimens of the archaeopteryx appear to have fallen into a saltwater lagoon and been covered with silt. Their preservation by nature was so gentle that the structure of their feathers has been retained in the fossil.
Feathers on wings speak of a bird. So does the archaeopteryx's furculm and wishbone. The wishbone arises from the fusion of two collarbones and provides that necessary solid base of the wing muscles. The feathered tail is further evidence that the archaeopteryx was a bird. But this animal also had jaws with teeth, not a beak, a long bony tail, and claws on its wing-like arms and its feet. It begins to sound like a reptile, not a bird.
Or was it a mix of the two? It is called “the perfect example of a transitional form in the evolution of modern birds an reptiles.” It combines two distinct classes (reptile and bird) in a single animal. So impressive is this link in the ling of evolution that “a visiting professor actually fell upon his knees in awe” when he first saw the specimen housed in Britain's Natural History Museum.
In the third book of the Bible, Leviticus, there is a list of ritually pure and impure animals. The list divides animals into categories: the insects in one place, fish in another, and so forth. In Leviticus 11:18 birds are listed. Among them we find the [i]tinshemet[/i]. Twelve verses later (Lev 11:30), the reptiles are listed. And behold, the [i]tinshemet[/i] appears again. The same name, spelled identically ([i]tuf nun shin mem tuf[/i] in Hebrew) is given for a bird and for a reptile because at one level of biblical meaning the animal fell into both categories.
In the entire Bible, there is the one reference to an animal that falls in two categories, the [i]tinshemet[/i]. In the entire fossil record there is on fossil that falls exactly midway between two classes of animals, the archaeopteryx. And both the archaeopteryx and the [i]tinshemet[/i] are part reptile, part bird. It is the “link” that never was missing.

****

Books to read...

[I]Understanding the Times[/i] by David A.Noebel - This book compares atheism, the New Age movement and Christianity and sees which is valid.
[I]The Science of God[/i] by Gerald L.Schroeder - This book takes scientific findings and compares them with the Biblical account in Genesis. It shows how Genesis and science actually agree, rather than disagree.
[I]Genesis and the Big Bang[/i] by Gerald L.Schroder - Similar to [i]The Science of God[/i] but concerned with the Big Bang theory and Genesis rather the origins of life and Genesis.

[Wab]

There is no credible evidence to support evolution.

Absence of evidence is not disproof and Creationist pseudo-science is not credible.

[Azimuth]

If God loves all the things he creates, why did he kill all of his Dinosaurs (and everything else) with a comet?

[LewsTherin]

Absence of evidence is not disproof and Creationist pseudo-science is not credible.
Creationists pseudo-science? You know, people are encouraged to keep an open mind in this forum. That is exactly why I posted what I did, as a reasonable arguement for Creationism. Yet it seems people stubbornly refuse to even consider that Creationism could be right, which I understand. After all, if God is real than atheists have been living a lie - which is not a fun thing to think about. But at least try to keep an open mind.

[GryffindorGr]

If God loves all the things he creates, why did he kill all of his Dinosaurs (and everything else) with a comet?
Well think about it this way, why are we killing each other through wars & strife? And why is Mother Nature so cruel (ie, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, storms, etc).
Comets or not, does anything really last forever?

[Wab]

I do have an open mind but what you've posted lacks peer review; the benchmark by which true science is measured.

All scientific evidence points to intelligent design and hence a creator.


Seems that your mind is made up (closed).

[Azimuth]

Comets or not, does anything really last forever?
The Dinosaurs would still be here today if God hadn't wiped them out. Why create something that you're going to destroy?

[GryffindorGr]

The Dinosaurs would still be here today if God hadn't wiped them out. Why create something that you're going to destroy?
Species today are wiped out either because we can't control our expansive, often environment-harming nature, or because of other factors. It's no different with the dinosaurs I suppose.
I dont think God wiped them out by saying, Okay you guys are just useless. They were reputed to have lived a long long time so that gives you an indication of their survival. We really don't know if comets or whatever caused their extinction. There are people who claim that there's a fossilised footprint in Africa by a river, of a dinosaur, with a human's footprint inside it, as though tracking and hunting the dinosaur. So there's still discoveries going on naturally. I dont know how long we as humans will live on earth and frankly I dont think we'll find out in our own lifetime or in our grandchildrens and so forth.

Things just have a way of wiping itself out, but we as a more higher level species can obtain a way of continuing. Maybe expand out in the universe or something because eventually everything breaks down. Take a look at ourselves, we are born and we grow old and die. Even when you wipe out a species, you can have for example, the 200 carrier pigeons left that existed before man wiped them out completely, but now they are no more. Naturally other factors caused species to be wiped out and if there's not enough to maintain a level of resilence to keep the species going, then its going to go.
People will say that the sun will burn out at some point. When it does, either we'll freeze to death very very quickly, or it'll go supernova and cook us all in an instant. In the meantime, we'll continue to consume our natural resources and outgrow this planet. Or not. Our ozone will deplete, and it would whether or not we drove cars, use aerosol cans, etc, we just might be speeding the process along.

[Azimuth]

Species today are wiped out either because we can't control our expansive, often environment-harming nature, or because of other factors. It's no different with the dinosaurs I suppose.
It isn't the Dinosaurs' fault that they were made extinct...

We really don't know if comets or whatever caused their extinction.
We do, actually. The impact site was near Mexico.

There are people who claim that there's a fossilised footprint in Africa by a river, of a dinosaur, with a human's footprint inside it, as though tracking and hunting the dinosaur. So there's still discoveries going on naturally.
That's just false. Humans and Dinosaurs never existed at the same time. If they did, Humans would have been wiped out along with the Dinosaurs.

I dont know how long we as humans will live on earth and frankly I dont think we'll find out in our own lifetime or in our grandchildrens and so forth.

Things just have a way of wiping itself out, but we as a more higher level species can obtain a way of continuing. Maybe expand out in the universe or something because eventually everything breaks down. Take a look at ourselves, we are born and we grow old and die. Even when you wipe out a species, you can have for example, the 200 carrier pigeons left that existed before man wiped them out completely, but now they are no more. Naturally other factors caused species to be wiped out and if there's not enough to maintain a level of resilence to keep the species going, then its going to go.
People will say that the sun will burn out at some point. When it does, either we'll freeze to death very very quickly, or it'll go supernova and cook us all in an instant. In the meantime, we'll continue to consume our natural resources and outgrow this planet. Or not. Our ozone will deplete, and it would whether or not we drove cars, use aerosol cans, etc, we just might be speeding the process along.
Again, the Dinosaurs are not to blame for a comet hitting the Earth. The fact remains that if God exists, he killed almost all of the life that he had created.

[MarcKal]

The Dinosaurs would still be here today if God hadn't wiped them out. Why create something that you're going to destroy?

Because somethings must die in order for somethings to live.

[GryffindorGr]

That's just false. Humans and Dinosaurs never existed at the same time. If they did, Humans would have been wiped out along with the Dinosaurs
We're still discovering aren't we? But I'd like to say I doubt it as well, pretty skeptical myself...although...

Again, the Dinosaurs are not to blame for a comet hitting the Earth. The fact remains that if God exists, he killed almost all of the life that he had created.
No one said they are to blame really. It's just the way it is living on earth. Like I said, we're born, we grow old, we break down, and die. If other factors around help us into extinction as a species then we won't exist.
I'm like you, still wondering why these things happen. Why can't we all just live forever right? We're always fighting against aging.
Then we should blame God for our aging and inevitable death?
If we do, we should go back to the "why God causes suffering if he exists etc" thread.

[nerdypants]

I'm a Wiccan, and I believe that the earth was created by the Goddess and the God. I believe that they made the world the way it is, with evolution and the Big Bang and everything. I think science and my religion can go together, since the Goddess and God created the laws of science.

I also believe that Creationism should stay out of schools altogether. Too often people only look at it as being between Evolution and Christian Creationism. There are so many other different creation stories, we can't possibly represent them all in school. If we only teach about the Christain story, then that is establishing a religion, and that is against the Constitution. I think religion should stay out of school except for history and religion classes. We need separation of church and state to make sure no one is discriminated against.

[MoodyHarry]

Creationists pseudo-science? You know, people are encouraged to keep an open mind in this forum. That is exactly why I posted what I did, as a reasonable arguement for Creationism. Yet it seems people stubbornly refuse to even consider that Creationism could be right, which I understand. After all, if God is real than atheists have been living a lie - which is not a fun thing to think about. But at least try to keep an open mind.Well, when I die, I guess I'll find out if there is a God!! :)

In my view, there is too much uncertainty and too much that science has explained that refutes the Creationism belief. My personal view is that the stories in the bible were written to explain what curious humans - thousands of years ago - wanted answered. A kid asks "Where did we come from?" and a nice story - eventually published in the Bible - explains that. In my mind, it really makes sense. The Bible also contains rules and stories that are designed to teach the individual life lessons and a moral code to live by.

The Bible explains what science cannot explain.
Once science can explain it in a logical fashion, the Biblical story becomes irrevelant.

But that is my belief. Each individual has their own. In my own view, creationism just explains what science couldn't, thousands of years ago. Evolution, to me - seems the correct and logical path. I think that when someone asked where they came from, thousands of years ago, all the learned could do what tell the story of Adam and Eve and how God created everything in 6 days and rested on the seventh day. As a raised Roman Catholic, I have read the Bible over and over again, so I know the stories very well!!

[ComicBookWorm]

I saw a scientific special on some channel. There was a guy talking about dating of fossils. All the fossilized bones he found had a carbon compound that heats up and then scorches the rest of the flesh off the carcass. He and a team of scientists did tests in the U.S. and found out that the same dinosaurs dated to 140 million years old were actually 6,000-16,000 years old. They call this carbon dating. He said that fossils only supply evidence into the thousands, not millions, of years. If he's accurate, that would support the idea of creation. Believe what you want, I just thought it was interesting with the data he had.
Then this guy would not have known much about carbon dating or how to use it since it isn't reliable for ages over 50,000 years. So either he was ignorant or he was deliberately trying to mislead. Either way it was completely incorrect.

There are people who claim that there's a fossilised footprint in Africa by a river, of a dinosaur, with a human's footprint inside it, as though tracking and hunting the dinosaur. So there's still discoveries going on naturally.
The key word here is claim to have a footprint. Not prove, now even demonstrate. Just claim. Science requires more than a superstitious rumor. Show me the photo and then have someone examine the "footprint" to make sure it wasn't faked.

I remember some phony claim like this, but they found chisel marks in the footprint. Maybe this is this same thing.

Creationism isn't a science it is pseudoscience. No one who understands all of the sciences that study the age of fossils, the age of the earth, and the science of geologic forces can accept any part of this. It has so much more to discount it than just evolution. It is religion claiming to be science. And in doing so they have to ignore mountains of science to do it. I don't believe the earth is flat or the that the sun revolves around the earth. I don't believe that the moon is made out of green cheese or that there is man in the moon (other than the ones we landed there 25 years ago).

There's something else I have to say about the "human footprint" supposedly found in the dinosaur print. First dinosaurs died out 65,000,000 and even the most primative version of human ancestor didn't show up until 6,000,000 years ago. And don't you think that we would have heard about it on the news since it would have been revolutionary? Just think about all the fuss about the "hobbits" they just found.

To ignore the age of fossils requires that we ignore the science behind the decay of radioactive isotopes. It requires rejection of the chemistry and physics in that analysis. It requires ignoring what geologists know about mountain building (and creation of rock from sediments) and the rates of erosion of stone, including hard rock like granite.

[GryffindorGr]

by CBW
There's something else I have to say about the "human footprint" supposedly found in the dinosaur print. First dinosaurs died out 65,000,000 and even the most primative version of human ancestor didn't show up until 6,000,000 years ago. And don't you think that we would have heard about it on the news since it would have been revolutionary? Just think about all the fuss about the "hobbits" they just found.

Honestly when I first heard it, I thought it was planted, but like to keep an open mind. Yet when a few of my Christian friends liked this idea and also proposed the idea of perhaps Noah brought in dinosaur eggs into the ark-- that’s when I thought, how so? Even joked that that was some huge ark to hold the baby after being born—thinking of all the food it would have to eat. Perhaps I find no logic in it. So yes, I agree that when it comes to the earth, there is a need to have a scientific approach using the tools to make an almost accurate prediction or conclusion. I think because this footprint episode wasn’t taken as serious as the fuss around hobbits was exactly the very reasons you stated in your post.

byLewsTherin
Evolution demands that mutations be beneficial to cause them to be reproduced and become dominant in nature, and yet half-developed transitional forms provide no clear advantage; on the contrary, they are more likely to be handicaps. Brown elaborates: “If a limb were to evolve into a wing, it would become a bad limb long before it became a good wing.” Again, underneath the whole current of debate, we find the teleological argument to be among the best answers to evolutionists and the strongest support for creationism. It is clear that God as Designer provides a much better explanation for teh design evidenced by life than does a theory that requires transitional forms guided by natural selection.
The fossil record, the observation of living organisms, and the teleological nature of numerous forms testify to the impossibility of gradual change. Yet gradual change is absolutely critical to traditional evolutionary theory. Darwin himself admits, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
This is precisely what creationists have claimed for years-that Darwin's evolutionary theory is bankrupt. Reason requires the biologist to abandon evolution and embrace the more rational explanation: creation. Of course, creationism is untenable for atheists; therefore, even if the atheist recognizes the irrationality of traditional evolutionary theory, he must postulate an equally indefensible theory to circumvent the notion of God.

Forgot to mention, that was a really nice read, LewsTherin. Since some things cannot be explained away to evolution I don’t think that evolution and/or science alone can elucidate everything. Some parts clarify about the combination of feathers and jaws in one life form. I look to how we live now as a human race and the animals around us in our geographical separations to note the same simple enlightenment. Is it not so simple to conclude that the sun—closeness of how we are to the sun, living near the equator, to the earth-soil, and the climate are just part of the reasons why living organisms can survive?

[Pilum]

When posting links, please ensure that they are not a) intended to bash one side or the other, and b) contribute to the debate.
(http://sazmatazz.users.btopenworld.com/)

[Midnightsfire]

Oh Christ...

Sorry...

But Jesus Horses anyone (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/12/evolution.embarrassment.ap/index.html)?

[Hagrid442]

Hey Midnightsfire. Check out the elections thread. A school superintendent that advocated teaching Creationism in schools has been indicted on theft of federal funds.

[Mundungus Fletc]

I'm a Christian and a pretty orthodox Christian at that but why would God play such a huge practical joke on us? Every bit of Scientific research adds to the evolution theory (Which of course it is - Scientific theories can never be proven they are merely the best way of understanding the facts at any given time)

Do creationists believe that God deliberately gave us solid evidence of an earth thousands of millions of years old for the fun of it. As far as I'm concerned he gave us brains and left us to use them.

[HollywoodBob]

Do creationists believe that God deliberately gave us solid evidence of an earth thousands of millions of years old for the fun of it. As far as I'm concerned he gave us brains and left us to use them.Well that's were it gets all twisted. Creationists either disregard the evidence as lies propagated by evil scientists to turn us all into devil worshippers, that the evidence is wrong and that the scientific methodology for collecting it is flawed, or they simply ignore the evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. It's like the people who say the world is only 6000 years old and that the grand canyon proves it.

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) Oiy vey!

-HollywoodBob

[FirefightingMuggle]

1. What do you believe in? Evolution

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Things change over time. Things grow, things adapt to the conditions surrounding them.

If Adam and Eve had two sons, and one of those sons was killed, who did the other son have his children with? If it was Eve, that was incest, if there was a sister who was not mentioned, that was incest..if it were another woman an unrelated woman, this proves Adam and Eve's story false.

Also, not just Christian mythology depicts a great flood. Quite a few cultures have a great flood in their mythologies. Not all of those myths mention Noah and the ark....there were other civilizations around that survived that flood. Did people spread so rapidly as to make other distinct races and civilizations as quickly as what they did?

Also, if it were 1 man, 1 woman, wouldn't we all look more or less the same? We would all have the same DNA. How does creationism account for different hair, eye, and skin colors? are these all merely genetic mutations? or are they a species evolving over time?

Also, the many fossils, rocks, ect. that have been found over the years suggest that the Earth is older than about 6,000 years. The millions of years prior to the story of the creation of man, as offered in the Bible, are not really accounted for in that book definatively. We can guess that one "day" is only a figurative day and was in truth millions of years, yet we can not be sure.

Who created God? Where did God come from? What did God do for those bajillions of years before he said "let's create the universe?" There aren't really answers for these questions, but they helped me to come to the conclusion that evolution is my thing.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement? Yes. Religious knowledge should be taught in it's place. School is not that place. I also think that teaching one faith's view of creation would be stepping on the toes of the beliefs of other faiths. If you are going to teach one, teach them all.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it? I know it does for me. I don't believe that the Bible is anything more than a great big book of mythology, much like that of the Ancient Greeks or Ancient Romans. These are simply my views. I would be more open to Creationism if the Bible were left out of it. I raised some of my questions about the Bible's mythology in an earlier question.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
Yes, I will keep my mind open to other possibilities that differ from my beliefs. You can't learn without an open mind. There must have been some intelligence somewhere that made order out of chaos, I just hesitate to name it god and claim that one religion has it all right.

I figured that I would answer those questions before I jumped into the argument. I haven't really thougt about what I think about this topic for quite a while, so it's taken me some time to think about my answers and actually post them.

[GryffindorGr]

Oh Christ...

Sorry...

But Jesus Horses anyone (http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/12/evolution.embarrassment.ap/index.html)?
Omg. I'm like....surprised. Let's just say I echo the same sentiments this lady, Maria Jordan in the article says: . "It's just a flat-out embarrassment."
Noooo. Jesus horses? I don't see anything wrong with evolution or the word.
Mundungus Fletc says it best:As far as I'm concerned he gave us brains and left us to use them
by FireFightingMuggle
if it were another woman an unrelated woman, this proves Adam and Eve's story false
Curiously, how so?

[FirefightingMuggle]

If Adam and Eve were the first man and the first woman, then everyone would be related to them. If one of their sons married an unrelated woman, then Adam and Eve could not have been the only people who were created at that time. There would have had to have been others. Yet, others have never been mentioned that I know of. Where did this other woman come from??
I guess what I'm saying is that the Adam and Eve story is not false (even though I said that.... oops, didn't think that one through enough...) but there were omissions from it, such as others created at the same time, if in fact the creation theory is true. Why then, in the Judeo-Christian version of the story, are these others omitted? Why not just say that God created a number of men and women, instead of focusing solely on one man, one woman?

[Hagrid442]

"I think the (evolution) theory is atheistic. And it's all that's presented. It's an insult to their intelligence that they're only taught evolution," said Marjorie Rogers, the parent who first complained about the biology texts.

Oh dear God. Not the "Christians are oppressed!" complaint!

Interesting. Georgia? That state and Creationism have been in the news alot lately.

http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=1538584&postcount=457

[GryffindorGr]

If Adam and Eve were the first man and the first woman, then everyone would be related to them. If one of their sons married an unrelated woman, then Adam and Eve could not have been the only people who were created at that time. There would have had to have been others. Yet, others have never been mentioned that I know of. Where did this other woman come from??
I guess what I'm saying is that the Adam and Eve story is not false (even though I said that.... oops, didn't think that one through enough...) but there were omissions from it, such as others created at the same time, if in fact the creation theory is true. Why then, in the Judeo-Christian version of the story, are these others omitted? Why not just say that God created a number of men and women, instead of focusing solely on one man, one woman?
I guess it is more logical to assume that there is a man and woman that started it all. We all have to come from one source, and maybe it’s like this pyramid scheme. Even if it’s not named Adam and Eve from the bible, you could possibly see that the male and female counterpart had to be at the top and the human race spreads out towards the infinite bottom.

Okay the way I see it, man is resilient. I see that certain species cannot survive with only a few of them left. (this as explained in my previous post of the remaining 200 carrier pigeons) this is also explainable in wolves going extinct. Or rather almost to extinction. As I see it, the human race is a predator but did anyone think that we are also a prey species? Not in terms of animals hunting us down but rather we turn on eachother. (ie, wars and strife) Now this idea was from how coyotes are a predator species and also a prey species. They’re being hunted by man. Their only main predator before man were wolves. And the most interesting thing is, coyotes multiply more when man hunts them down. Maybe this is the same thing with mankind. The more man makes wars, the more we multiply (ie, Baby boom after WW2) and someone mentioned before that all the wars put together and all the deaths in it still created a multiple boom in the complexity of a rising population. And this could very well be why this pyramid scheme works if there is a couple who started it all.

[ComicBookWorm]

Well that's were it gets all twisted. Creationists either disregard the evidence as lies propagated by evil scientists to turn us all into devil worshippers, that the evidence is wrong and that the scientific methodology for collecting it is flawed, or they simply ignore the evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. It's like the people who say the world is only 6000 years old and that the grand canyon proves it.

Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/) Oiy vey!

-HollywoodBob
They wanted me to do some consulting for them several years ago. I could not bring myself to work for them since it would have required me to subvert what I believe far too much.

[daniel4hp]

Why then, in the Judeo-Christian version of the story, are these others omitted? Why not just say that God created a number of men and women, instead of focusing solely on one man, one woman?
If you assume that the story is true, minus the omissions of other people, then the most logical explanation is simplicity: myths have a way of simplifying things, and the natural way to simplify the Adam and Eve story is to only talk about the two main characters. If the others were irrelevent to what happened to Adam and Eve, and the author thought that what happened to Adam and Eve was the most important, then he might not mention others.

Another view would be that Adam and Eve represent a group of people. Often myths simplify things by taking a certain type of person and personifying it in a single person. Following this interpretation, there was no Adam or Eve per se, rather, they stand for the first homo sapiens.

Alternatively, if you do not believe that Adam and Eve, or their counterparts whom they might represent, existed or shared the experience of the Adam and Eve of the Bible, then it would be logical to assume that the story is simply a myth about our first ancestors, and the writer, not knowing better, thought it logical that all people would trace back to two common parents.

But this is all off topic... I just like thinking about mythology and interpretations.

[ComicBookWorm]

If you assume that the story is true, minus the omissions of other people, then the most logical explanation is simplicity: myths have a way of simplifying things, and the natural way to simplify the Adam and Eve story is to only talk about the two main characters. If the others were irrelevent to what happened to Adam and Eve, and the author thought that what happened to Adam and Eve was the most important, then he might not mention others.

Another view would be that Adam and Eve represent a group of people. Often myths simplify things by taking a certain type of person and personifying it in a single person. Following this interpretation, there was no Adam or Eve per se, rather, they stand for the first homo sapiens.

Alternatively, if you do not believe that Adam and Eve, or their counterparts whom they might represent, existed or shared the experience of the Adam and Eve of the Bible, then it would be logical to assume that the story is simply a myth about our first ancestors, and the writer, not knowing better, thought it logical that all people would trace back to two common parents.

But this is all off topic... I just like thinking about mythology and interpretations.
As a myth it has interesting implications for the description of our shift from hunter-gathering to farming. Otherwise it is hard to take.

[JofpGallagher]

(By the way I haven't read several posts in this long thread)

Some time ago I was arguing with an Evangelist (A religious group that believe in the Bible's word literally) about Adan and Eve. This religious group he is part of believes that God created Earth some thousands years ago (Unfortunately I can't remember the exact number, but it's less than 10,000 years).

I argued with him that it would be impossible to have 6 billions people on earth in such a short period, and he dare me to make some calculations starting from Noah times (Because when the Flood, earth's population was killed except by Noah and his people)...So we started to make very conservative calculations from that time. I can't remember the detail of that calculation (About 4,5 children per couple), a life expectancy of 50 years old the whole time, some yearly mortality rate which I deemed a bit exaggerated ....well, we spent some good hours doing the calculation and I came up with the results that it was perfectly believable that the humanity had such short period of time...I was abated, and stop arguing with him...he went out satisfied and smiling.
I had that conversation with him very long time ago...I

Has any of you heard about Evangelics? What is that amount of years they believe from the time God created the Earth? Has someone for curiosity calculated whether or not it's possible that from Noah, and those few years we can end having 6 billion people nowadays...

[ComicBookWorm]

(By the way I haven't read several posts in this long thread)

Some time ago I was arguing with an Evangelist (A religious group that believe in the Bible's word literally) about Adan and Eve. This religious group he is part of believes that God created Earth some thousands years ago (Unfortunately I can't remember the exact number, but it's less than 10,000 years).

I argued with him that it would be impossible to have 6 billions people on earth in such a short period, and he dare me to make some calculations starting from Noah times (Because when the Flood, earth's population was killed except by Noah and his people)...So we started to make very conservative calculations from that time. I can't remember the detail of that calculation (About 4,5 children per couple), a life expectancy of 50 years old the whole time, some yearly mortality rate which I deemed a bit exaggerated ....well, we spent some good hours doing the calculation and I came up with the results that it was perfectly believable that the humanity had such short period of time...I was abated, and stop arguing with him...he went out satisfied and smiling.
I had that conversation with him very long time ago...I

Has any of you heard about Evangelics? What is that amount of years they believe from the time God created the Earth? Has someone for curiosity calculated whether or not it's possible that from Noah, and those few years we can end having 6 billion people nowadays...
Many die before they have children. Millions if not billions have died in war. Billions have probably died in famine and disease. The black death alone killed almost half of Europe. So I don't know what kind of number we are supposed to count to.

And they've dated 100% modern human fossils to 50,000 years ago (speech symbolic thinking) and human ancestors (hominids) for 4 milliion years before that. The dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. And they've dated early bacteria to almost 4 billions years ago. They've used various forms of radiometric dating to set these dates. That is determined by the decay of certain radioactive isotopes which is a very reliable measure of dating. They've used mitrochondrial DNA (measuring the rate of mutation) to back up some fossil dating methods and come to similar dates for key points in our ancestry. They've dated our solar system to 8 billion years and the universe to 12 billion years using the speed of light and the physics of light properties (red shift).

So I don't think we need to confine ourselves to a 6000 year timeframe.

[Mundungus Fletc]

For an interesting take on the Adam and Eve story read the Seven Daughters of Eve. This suggests that an analysis of the matrilineal DNA in Europe shows that we Europeans are descended from just seven women. The author goes further to suggest that the entire human race is descended from one woman - who had the particular genetic mutation that led to us.

And I certainly don't regard the Bible as just myth. A simplification certainly and speaking in parables but still the truth for me.

[ComicBookWorm]

For an interesting take on the Adam and Eve story read the Seven Daughters of Eve. This suggests that an analysis of the matrilineal DNA in Europe shows that we Europeans are descended from just seven women. The author goes further to suggest that the entire human race is descended from one woman - who had the particular genetic mutation that led to us.

And I certainly don't regard the Bible as just myth. A simplification certainly and speaking in parables but still the truth for me.
No problem with that approach to the bible. :) I've read Seven Daughters of Eve and found it very interesting.

They've been able to date mitochondrial DNA for an estimate of 6 million years when we separated from chimps, and that is confirmed by the dates of the earliest upright hominids. And they've dated mitochondrial DNA for Eve to 150,000 years ago. And they found the most primitive examples of what they call fully modern humans to around that date. They can also date some of Eve's "daughters" to various migrations and bottlenecking (population crises). It is fascinating when fossil dating gets confirmed by DNA dating.

[JofpGallagher]

Many die before they have children. Millions if not billions have died in war. Billions have probably died in famine and disease. The black death alone killed almost half of Europe. So I don't know what kind of number we are supposed to count to.
Yea, I know, for that reason in our calculation we put a ridiculous mortality index (like 35% per year). People who died in wars most of the time were fathers or mothers already, and Europe is not the only continent in the world. I'm not supporting the theory of my friend. I believe Earth has millions of years. I just think it's interesting that we found that today's population could've been reached in a few thousands years, and no need of millions of millions of years. Don't you agree that is interesting?

And they've dated 100% modern human fossils to 50,000 years ago (speech symbolic thinking) and human ancestors (hominids) for 4 milliion years before that. The dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. And they've dated early bacteria to almost 4 billions years ago. They've used various forms of radiometric dating to set these dates. That is determined by the decay of certain radioactive isotopes which is a very reliable measure of dating. They've used mitrochondrial DNA (measuring the rate of mutation) to back up some fossil dating methods and come to similar dates for key points in our ancestry. They've dated our solar system to 8 billion years and the universe to 12 billion years using the speed of light and the physics of light properties (red shift).

So I don't think we need to confine ourselves to a 6000 year timeframe.

That's exactly what I told him, but it seems you haven't dealt with Evangelists. They believe everything the Bible says, and they believe that for God there is nothing impossible, so God "aged" the Earth, bacterias, bones, dinosaurs bones so we believe planet Earth has millions of years....I asked him why God could have done that? I'm still waiting for his answer.

[ComicBookWorm]

Yea, I know, for that reason in our calculation we put a ridiculous mortality index (like 35% per year). People who died in wars most of the time were fathers or mothers already, and Europe is not the only continent in the world. I'm not supporting the theory of my friend. I believe Earth has millions of years. I just think it's interesting that we found that today's population could've been reached in a few thousands years, and no need of millions of millions of years. Don't you agree that is interesting?

That's exactly what I told him, but it seems you haven't dealt with Evangelists. They believe everything the Bible says, and they believe that for God there is nothing impossible, so God "aged" the Earth, bacterias, bones, dinosaurs bones so we believe planet Earth has millions of years....I asked him why God could have done that? I'm still waiting for his answer.
I have dealt with them. I was once offered a consulting job by a creationist institutute, but I turned them down since I couldn't work for a company that actively involved in denying reality. The more information you provide, like radiometric dating and fossil evidence, and geologic forces (like mountain building through vulcanism and sedimentation) they have other explanations. We have mountains that are built from coral reefs, and we know how long it takes for coral to build a reef since we have measured that. It doesn't make any difference. We've actually measured the changes in mountain heights over the last century or so as another confirmation of how slow it takes place. No matter what, they have an alternative answer. They even have answers for why the universe seems as old as it is. A lot of it involves either God changing things to fool us, or the devil doing it to mislead us, or us making repeated colossal mistakes in the analysis and conclusions.

There isn't an answer for someone like that since they fear their religion is being challenged by knowledge. The intelligent approach is to realize that the 6000 year date for the age of the earth was derived by Bishop Usher in 1650 by adding up all the generations listed in the bible and maybe not all of them were listed, and maybe he didn't have the scientific knowledge that we have now. And although I don't need it for my understanding of the science, people just need to accept the science, and if necessary, believe that God is the one who made all of it happen. It seems like a more rational approach then trying to explain away what constitutes libraries full of information.

[halfbreedlover]

1. What do you believe in?

Evolution I suppose. It definitely has it's flaws but creationism has many more.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

Well, as one poster pointed out, evolution cannot account for how complex organs formed. That's about the only flaw with it that I know of.

Creationism on the other hand...well, the list goes on with those flaws. Fossils prove that animals that existed millions of years ago don't exist anymore. Mirco-biologists have observed that bacteria adapts and becomes immune to antibiotics, hence it changes (species can change). The mechanism that adapts the bacteria is probably the same mechanism that adapted camels (and other animals) for their environment.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

The teaching of creationism in public schools violates the separation of church and state and alienates students and teachers who are not Christian.

And I'm not simply talking about atheist students or teachers! Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan as well as students from any other non-Judeo-Christian religion shouldn't have to sit through a lecture on creationism. Perhaps such students should get a free pass from that class and given an alternative assignment, if teaching is allowed.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

If I were a supporter of evolution (which I almost am), yes, I would be angry at having a religion forced on me.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

This is a bizarre question. So if Creationism were in another book called the "Qur'an" or the "Talmud" (or the Upanishads for that matter) and not in the version of the bible I know, I'd want to understand it more?

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

Perhaps, but not according the Creationism model presented by Christians. I could believe that God INTENDED for evolution to happen, and created dinosaurs for a reason. He might have also created primitive life so that it would evolve, but I cannot believe in Adam and Eve realistically.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

As I am not a Creationist I don't have to answer this question.

[Senna Wells]

1. What do you believe in?

Evolution.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

Evolutionism has admitted flaws in the theory, but I think that as science progresses through many, many years, we will find more evidence in favor of evolutionism. People used to believe that the world was flat and that certaintly has changed.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

Religious ideaology has no place in public schools.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

I'll relent and admit that having knowledge of what creationism is can help people decide for themselves what they believe, but even I, raised nonreligiously from childhood, knew the biblical story of how god created the earth. So, I guess what I'm trying to sum up is that having the open ability to learn about creationism can be helpful, but I still don't believe that it's the school's responsibility or place to instruct that theory. That's what churches are for.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

I don't think citing the Bible really does creationism any credit because it was written by humans, who are in nature faluable creatures. True, it was intended to have come verbatim from god himself and all that, but people that don't believe in god really aren't going to buy that story. That and the Bible has been translated too many time to count from ancient languages, so it's hard to believe what has been translated as the original intent of the Bible.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?

The chances of it about a googleplex to one. The only way I'd believe it was if god started the big bang, but you'd have to show me proof first...sorry, I'm an athiest to the last.

Hope I haven't offended anyone too much. Cheers all, and happy, peaceful debating.

[Tiberius]

Senna, I agree with you completely. And a belated welcome from a fellow atheist!

One thing I don't get is that in the book of genesis, there are actually two different creation stories. Which one is the correct one? For any religious types out there...

[MoodyHarry]

Senna, I agree with you completely. And a belated welcome from a fellow atheist!

One thing I don't get is that in the book of genesis, there are actually two different creation stories. Which one is the correct one? For any religious types out there...That's a good point, isn't it. Why are their two creation stories? Maybe they are just stories.....

I don't remember my bible that well....First creation story is how god created the heavens and earth in 6 days, rested on the 7th. The second is the Adam and Eve story. All I can say is that maybe the first one was supposed to describe how the earth, sky, moon and sun appeared and the second one described how humans appeared.

I always want scientific proof with everything, and Evolution (which I believe in) is more sound then the biblical stories - to me.
Now I wonder as science learns more and discovers more about the Universe, it's formation and possiblities, how would religion explain the existence of other planets in the nearby solar system?? Just curious, looking for opinions and ideas.

Signed- another Atheist ;)

[Adalbert Waffling]

Let me clarify this. The "theory" of evolution does exist. It has been proven. It's called a scientific theory instead of a scientific law just because of a technicality.

1. What do you believe in?
Evolution.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Just the work of evil, atheistic scientists.

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
Not at all. I am a student, and I believe that we should have our minds open to every possible solution. Even though I am 99.785694% sure evolution is how the human race was created, I still believe that students should have a basic knowledge of other possibilites, to account for that leftover .214306%

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Yes, it does. The bible has no hard evidence to support it. We have not confirmed one single story in the bible. When people say "this is what the bible says, so it MUST be true," I stop listening to them right then and there. I stop arguing, because now they are blindly grasping something, and will most of the time not open their minds to new possibilities.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
That's where that .214306% comes in. :)

[Bertha Blotts]

[b]1. What do you believe in?

Evolution

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?

I'm out of public school, so I'll answer as a potential parent. I would not object to creationism being taught in a history or social studies class. Discussing it as part of what a certain portion of our population believes, as part of the ideas that have shaped our nation, and especially as part of the social/religious divide would be totally appropriate. I also wouldn't object to a science teacher giving it up to 15 minutes in class, just to mention that the theory exists and what its central tenents are. But it deserves no more time in a science classroom than that, and if my child were in a school system that wanted to feature it more prominently I would seriously object, and pull my child out of school if I had to.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?

I think relying on a re-translation of a complilation of a thousands-of-years-old oral tradition of an ancient nomadic herding people as evidence of the nature of the universe and of life certainly played a big part in putting me off of creationism, yes.

[Drater]

My view is creationism. There are way too many reasons to list here, but I will give a link that will explain them all better than I ever could. If you want to see something very interesting, I encourage you go get the seminar videos from this website. It will make you look at a lot of things in a way you probably haven't thought about before. He doesn't this for a living and knows what he's talking about. He gives references to everything he says. And I believe he has the best theory of creation out of any one I've ever heard. I agree almost 100% with him. So enjoy if you get the chance. None of his material is copyrighted, so by all means, copy and share. The site is: www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com)

[ComicBookWorm]

My view is creationism. There are way too many reasons to list here, but I will give a link that will explain them all better than I ever could. If you want to see something very interesting, I encourage you go get the seminar videos from this website. It will make you look at a lot of things in a way you probably haven't thought about before. He doesn't this for a living and knows what he's talking about. He gives references to everything he says. And I believe he has the best theory of creation out of any one I've ever heard. I agree almost 100% with him. So enjoy if you get the chance. None of his material is copyrighted, so by all means, copy and share. The site is: www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com)
He does do this for a living. His ministry, seminars, and many online materials are his living. And don't you find it the least bit incongruous to suggest that because he doesn't do this for a living we are supposed to accept his expertise at doing it. Personally, I would prefer someone with professional experience as a source of information. Some background in the sciences would help a bit too.

According to the website dinosaurs existed along side man in the garden of eden. And the world is only 6000 years old. You have to wonder why they couldn't have fit at least one or two dinosaur eggs on Noah's ark--or even a small dinosaur or two. There were many the size of turkeys and smaller. Or what about baby dinos since they start out quite small. You could have fit hundreds of baby dinos in a relatively small room.

He also goes on to explain away horse evolution and what he called carbon dating. Although most radiometric dating uses other more long-lived isotopes.

[Drater]

I'm sorry for the confusion. I say he does this for a living, meaning that he is well organized in everything that he says. He lists the credible sources for everything he says. I did not mean that you should believe him because he does this for a living. I think that if you have time to watch the seminars that you should then form your own opinion. Don't take everything he says to heart. I don't want anyone to be indoctrinated by his beliefs. Just make your own opinion of things.

As for dinosaurs on the ark, he covers that topic well. I do believe there were dinosaurs on the ark. Man has a history of driving off threatening creatures in whatever territory they occupy. As man expanded throughout the world, he would have more than likey driven dinosaurs off the land, killed whatever he could and so on. Eventually they become endangered and extinct. Almost every civilization has a "hero" of someone who killed a "dragon." Perhaps they're not all fairy tales and these so called "dragons" were dinosaurs that threatened their villiage. There could even be dinosaurs still alive today. There's a swamp in the middle of Africa of which 80% has still never been explored. All the natives around that area tell of creatures in there that greatly resemble dinosaurs. How much of it is true, I don't know, but I do believe its possible.

[ComicBookWorm]

I'm sorry for the confusion. I say he does this for a living, meaning that he is well organized in everything that he says. He lists the credible sources for everything he says. I did not mean that you should believe him because he does this for a living. I think that if you have time to watch the seminars that you should then form your own opinion. Don't take everything he says to heart. I don't want anyone to be indoctrinated by his beliefs. Just make your own opinion of things.

As for dinosaurs on the ark, he covers that topic well. I do believe there were dinosaurs on the ark. Man has a history of driving off threatening creatures in whatever territory they occupy. As man expanded throughout the world, he would have more than likey driven dinosaurs off the land, killed whatever he could and so on. Eventually they become endangered and extinct. Almost every civilization has a "hero" of someone who killed a "dragon." Perhaps they're not all fairy tales and these so called "dragons" were dinosaurs that threatened their villiage. There could even be dinosaurs still alive today. There's a swamp in the middle of Africa of which 80% has still never been explored. All the natives around that area tell of creatures in there that greatly resemble dinosaurs. How much of it is true, I don't know, but I do believe its possible.
Do you have any idea how many milliions of species of animals and insects there are in the world? That's ignoring the billions of fungi, molds, and bacteria. It wouldn't have been possible to get all the animals on the ark or get them to remote areas of the world they now live. Many of these places are inaccessible by most modern means of transport. So I guess God teleported them to their locations. The bible doesn't mention teleportation. It doesn't mention the dinosaurs on the ark either. And no there is no living dinosaur in Africa.

There is hard physics behind radiometric dating--that's how they know how old dinosaurs are and how old humankind is. That's how they date all fossils and the age of the earth. They date the universe to 12-14 billion years old by using the physics of light properties. Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. We first appeared as bipedal hominids 4 million years ago. Or just for giggles lets ignore our pre-modern hominid existence. We have dated fully modern humans to over 100,000 years ago. But humans and dinosaurs have never been contemporaneous.

I'm not worried about being indoctrinated by the website materials. I actually require science and proven knowledge to back up the information I accept. And no what he provides is not science, it is a contortion of facts to fit an untenable assumption.

[Drater]

Do you have any idea how many milliions of species of animals and insects there are in the world? That's ignoring the billions of fungi, molds, and bacteria. It wouldn't have been possible to get all the animals on the arc or get them to remote areas of the world they now live. Many of these places are inaccessible by most modern means of transport. So I guess God teleported them to their locations. The bible doesn't mention teleportation. It doesn't mention the dinosaurs on the arc either. And no there is no living dinosaur in Africa.

There is hard physics behind radiometric dating--that's how they know how old dinosaurs are and how old humankind is. That's how they date all fossils and the age of the earth. They date the universe to 12-14 billion years old by using the physics of light properties. Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago. We first appeared as bipedal hominids 4 million years ago. Or just for giggles lets ignore our pre-modern hominid existence. We have dated fully modern humans to over 100,000 years ago. But humans and dinosaurs have never been contemporaneous.

I'm not worried about being indoctrinated by the website materials. I actually require science and proven knowledge to back up the information I accept. And no what he provides is not science, it is a contortion of facts to fit an untenable assumption.


You wouldn't need to fit every species on the ark. The Bible says "kind" not "species." There are only a few hundred basic kinds of animals in the world. Breeding within the kinds could account for all the different species within the past 4400 years. Insects would not be brought on the ark, because insects breath through their skin not their nostrils. Fungi, mold, and bacteria are just that, not animals. As for getting the animals to different parts of the world, its not that irrelivent to assume that they walked there. Did you know if you lowered the ocean levels just a few miles every continent is connected by massive land brides? Plus, after the flood the ground would have still been settling. The continents could have been connected for hundreds of years before they were finally covered by the sea. Make fun if you will, its all a matter of opinion. Have you explored every square mile of Africa? I highly doubt it. So you have no right to say what's there and what isn't.

Radiometric dating is based on many different assumptions. You're assuming that the atmospheric conditions have always been the same. You estimate how old something is before dating it, therefore you'll use the dating technique which you assume it will take to properly date it. Whether it be Uranium or Carbon depending on how old you already assume it is. Live penguins have been dated at over 2000 years old, so you can't tell me that its always right. Fact is, if you find bones in the ground, the only thing you know about it is it died. You can't tell if it had children especially a child that was completely new kind of creature. You can't tell how old it is because of where its found in the ground. I'm sure a flood would have sorted everything according to its weight, habbitat, intelligence, etc. There have been fossilized feet prints of dinosaurs and humans found together, so either a dinosaurs foot print weathered millions of years of storms and atmospheric conditions until a human could step right beside it or else they at one time co-habitated.

And everything he says has as much evidence to back it up as any form of evolution you want to throw out. Fact is, neither can be proven and its all still just a matter of opinion. Believe what you want, I'll believe what I want, and others can believe what they want. Its all a matter of opinions.

[ComicBookWorm]

You wouldn't need to fit every species on the ark. The Bible says "kind" not "species." There are only a few hundred basic kinds of animals in the world. Breeding within the kinds could account for all the different species within the past 4400 years. Insects would not be brought on the ark, because insects breath through their skin not their nostrils. Fungi, mold, and bacteria are just that, not animals. As for getting the animals to different parts of the world, its not that irrelivent to assume that they walked there. Did you know if you lowered the ocean levels just a few miles every continent is connected by massive land brides? Plus, after the flood the ground would have still been settling. The continents could have been connected for hundreds of years before they were finally covered by the sea. Make fun if you will, its all a matter of opinion. Have you explored every square mile of Africa? I highly doubt it. So you have no right to say what's there and what isn't.

Radiometric dating is based on many different assumptions. You're assuming that the atmospheric conditions have always been the same. You estimate how old something is before dating it, therefore you'll use the dating technique which you assume it will take to properly date it. Whether it be Uranium or Carbon depending on how old you already assume it is. Live penguins have been dated at over 2000 years old, so you can't tell me that its always right. Fact is, if you find bones in the ground, the only thing you know about it is it died. You can't tell if it had children especially a child that was completely new kind of creature. You can't tell how old it is because of where its found in the ground. I'm sure a flood would have sorted everything according to its weight, habbitat, intelligence, etc. There have been fossilized feet prints of dinosaurs and humans found together, so either a dinosaurs foot print weathered millions of years of storms and atmospheric conditions until a human could step right beside it or else they at one time co-habitated.

And everything he says has as much evidence to back it up as any form of evolution you want to throw out. Fact is, neither can be proven and its all still just a matter of opinion. Believe what you want, I'll believe what I want, and others can believe what they want. Its all a matter of opinion.The human print inside the dinosaur print has been disproved. It was a hoax, they found metal chisel marks in the footprint when it was put under a microscope. There was another case where they found a smaller dinosaur print inside a larger one. At first they mistook it as well. I can't for the life of me understand what you mean about the flood sorting things out according to weight, habitat, and intelligence. Floods don't usually sort things like that. Heavy things go to the bottom, that's about it--and even those get tossed around quite a bit due to rushing water. If the world had been covered with water there would be no land until it drained away not the opposite. You wouldn't have land bridges until all the water settled into the basins, not vice versa. That's why they needed the ark. The world was supposedly covered in water everywhere. We only had land bridges during the ice age when the water was trapped in the glaciers (that lowered water levels)--that's the opposite of a flood.

You really believe that we have this level of biodiversity only in the last 4000 years from what you called a kind. What in the world is a kind? And why don't we have evidence for these 200 original kind? 4000 years ago is a blink of the eye. We have preserved pyramids and mummies older than that. We have preserved drawings and writings about animal species older than that. We had the same biodiversity in all the old drawings and writings as we do now. It takes far longer than 4000 years for dramatic speciation to take place. But you are saying that we had rapid and dramatic speciation with all types of animals quickly mutating into the millions of species we do have. And why would insects breathing through their skin instead of their nostrils mean they couldn't go on the ark? Are you suggesting that they wouldn't drown, because they would.

And I don't know what you are talking about with dating a penquin--obviously they did the test wrong. That's why scientists use multiple techniques to date sediments and fossils. I'm trying very hard not to be rude, but it made me laugh. You can tell how old something is because if you date the rock it is embedded in, it can't be any younger than that. It could be older. And the atmosphere would have nothing to do with the radioactive materials in the rock that they use for the dating.

Science is not a matter of opinion. It has years of research, experimentation, and examination behind it. It has dozens of scientific disciplines all lending their varied expertise (botany, zoology, physics, genetics, biology, chemistry, physiology, geology, paleontology to name a few). Biblical creationist explantions are a matter of opinion because all you have to back it up is conjecture and rejection of literally libraries full of scientific knowledge.

And while I would love for there to be a dinosaur alive somewhere, it stands to reason that they would sort of stick out a bit. And if one poked its head out somewhere, someone would kill it or capture it (for all to see). All we have is a native legend. There have been expeditions to find the supposed dinosaur and they haven't even found dino poop (and dinosaurs make tons of it and it is easy to spot). Dragon legends come from the existence of dinosaur bones. You don't need live dinosaurs for that.

[GryffindorGr]

My view is creationism. There are way too many reasons to list here, but I will give a link that will explain them all better than I ever could. If you want to see something very interesting, I encourage you go get the seminar videos from this website. It will make you look at a lot of things in a way you probably haven't thought about before. He doesn't this for a living and knows what he's talking about. He gives references to everything he says. And I believe he has the best theory of creation out of any one I've ever heard. I agree almost 100% with him. So enjoy if you get the chance. None of his material is copyrighted, so by all means, copy and share. The site is: www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com)
I saw part of that seminar and I thought he had a very nice presentation and some areas made me laugh out loud. He has of course his own opinions like not believing that there exists life in other planets or other worlds in the universe, which I disagree. (there are other areas in which i can't agree) I can’t imagine that we’re so ethnocentric to believe we’re the only ones here. For entertainments sake, I think he does a very good job and since I do believe in God, there are moments when I go “yeah that’s right!” LOL. :D
Well--he did say he has a lot of science background but his belief in God and bible overrides that.

by Originally Posted by Drater
You wouldn't need to fit every species on the ark. The Bible says "kind" not "species." There are only a few hundred basic kinds of animals in the world. Breeding within the kinds could account for all the different species within the past 4400 years. <snip> Plus, after the flood the ground would have still been settling. The continents could have been connected for hundreds of years before they were finally covered by the sea. Make fun if you will, its all a matter of opinion. Have you explored every square mile of Africa? I highly doubt it. So you have no right to say what's there and what isn't.

by CBW
And while I would love for there to be a dinosaur alive somewhere, it stands to reason that they would sort of stick out a bit. And if one poked its head out somewhere, someone would kill it or capture it. All we have is a native legend. There have been expeditions to find the supposed dinosaur and they haven't even found dino poop (and dinosaurs make tons of it and it is easy to spot). Dragon legends come from the existence of dinosaur bones. You don't need live dinosaurs for that.
To my disbelief, I’m surprised that anyone would take the dinosaur in the ark seriously. But I guess anythings possible since we weren’t there to see it ourselves. And I agree, they would really stick out! So after the ark hit land, Noah told the dinosaurs to go off on their own way so that they must find a place to hide their big bodies?

[Wab]

[COLOR=Yellow][SIZE=2][FONT=Tahoma]You wouldn't need to fit every species on the ark. The Bible says "kind" not "species." There are only a few hundred basic kinds of animals in the world. Breeding within the kinds could account for all the different species within the past 4400 years.

Are you seriously suggesting the number and varieties of life evolved from a few hudred specimens in 4401 years seven months and 2 days?

Even if you go back to the taxonomic classification of Family (eg Feliades = cats) in you have thousands to choose from.

And yellow on white is really hard to read.

[Azimuth]

Almost every civilization has a "hero" of someone who killed a "dragon." Perhaps they're not all fairy tales and these so called "dragons" were dinosaurs that threatened their villiage.
Dinosaurs that can breathe fire?

There could even be dinosaurs still alive today. There's a swamp in the middle of Africa of which 80% has still never been explored. All the natives around that area tell of creatures in there that greatly resemble dinosaurs. How much of it is true, I don't know, but I do believe its possible.
People say that there's a giant creature in a certain loch in Scotland. Is there? No. Are you going to believe those natives rather than scientists?

[Tiberius]

That African Animal is called Mkela Mbembe, or something similar. I saw a documentary about that, and there was a tribesman who had actually seen the creature. When he was shown a picture of a rhino, he said, "Yes! That's what I saw!"

[ComicBookWorm]

That African Animal is called Mkela Mbembe, or something similar. I saw a documentary about that, and there was a tribesman who had actually seen the creature. When he was shown a picture of a rhino, he said, "Yes! That's what I saw!"Hehe.

I remember some expedition looking for the dino poop and not finding it. That impressed me because of how voluminous the poop can be. :rotfl:

[Scheherezade]

I believe in both Evolution and Creation. I also do not see why one must ultimately be the antithesis of the other. In my view, God created all things, no one ever said he couldn't use evolution as a means of doing it. To me, the way Genesis describes the creation coincides exactly with what geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists have been discovering. Most everything they say today occurs in the same order. And as was said in either Isaiah or Paul, 'A thousand years is like a day, and a day is like a thousand years.' So anything is possible in terms of the timeframe, and I don't see why people insist that it must be one way or the other.

[ComicBookWorm]

That's a good approach. Even though I am an atheist and don't need to interject God into the mix for it to work. When a believer approaches it like you do they aren't ignoring the tons of scientific evidence.

[Byrum]

I believe in both Evolution and Creation. I also do not see why one must ultimately be the antithesis of the other. In my view, God created all things, no one ever said he couldn't use evolution as a means of doing it. To me, the way Genesis describes the creation coincides exactly with what geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists and archaeologists have been discovering. Most everything they say today occurs in the same order. And as was said in either Isaiah or Paul, 'A thousand years is like a day, and a day is like a thousand years.' So anything is possible in terms of the timeframe, and I don't see why people insist that it must be one way or the other.
I don't think anyone was saying that, but if they are then I don't agree with that because no evidence we have can prove or disprove God's existance. It can however prove that the bible's interpretation was incorrect, there is absolutley no way that only 4400 years of inbreeding no less could result in the biodiversity we have today. Even if the Noah story happened a million years ago, which is impossible because humans were not intelligent a million years ago, there would still not be as much diversity.

And fitting dinosaurs on an ark? Even if you only took two they would still be huge, and you would at least have to take two herbivores and two carnivores, and who can trap, transport and cohabit with a carnivorous dinosaur? Especially when most of them exceeded a tonne in weight, the ark would have had to been kilometres long in order to house not only the animals but also food for 40 days and nights plus all the time after that when there were no plants growing (floods don't usually leave an abundnace of food around, it takes a while to grow back).

[Tiberius]

And fitting dinosaurs on an ark? Even if you only took two they would still be huge, and you would at least have to take two herbivores and two carnivores, and who can trap, transport and cohabit with a carnivorous dinosaur? Especially when most of them exceeded a tonne in weight, the ark would have had to been kilometres long in order to house not only the animals but also food for 40 days and nights plus all the time after that when there were no plants growing (floods don't usually leave an abundnace of food around, it takes a while to grow back).

A common misconception. It rained for 40 days and nights, but the flood itself is said to have lasted a year or so.

[Kevin]

1. What do you believe in? Evolution

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence? Dinosaur bones, pre human bones that are millions of years old.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement? People should be given the facts on both points of view. Then the person in question has to weigh up the pros and cons of each and make a choice between them. You cannot believe in both.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
The creation story is a myth. Though there is some element of truth in myths. However what people have to remember is that when the bible was written people from that time would not have been able to understand Evolution or that the Earth is not flat and is not the centre of the Universe. So a simple creation story was needed. And if you look at other creation myths from the ancient world. Then they are similar.
6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed? There is always some sort of order in the choas. I do believe in a god. But not the one thats in the Bible. The original meaning of God in aramic is light/love.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate? I can't answer that. But i do believe that science will eventually lead us to whoever created the universe.

[ArtemisiaDax]

1. What do you believe in? Evolution

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence? Sure can. Bones, fossils, homologous bone structures, even the computer simulation of evolution that's been constructed over at Michigan State University (it's in this month's Discover, read about it!)

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement? Creationism shouldn't be taught in science courses. It's not a scientific theory. (You can't empirically prove it, and I don't think Creationists believe you can empirically disprove it.)

5. I like Kevin's answer. The Bible's creation stories were created for people who couldn't understand evolution.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
Hey! You can believe in God and evolution! I certainly do! I just don't believe that God created people 4000 years ago - I think that he set up the world and used evolution to create people; since he's omniscient, he would know that the life he created would evolve into humans in His own image. (I still don't think intelligent design should be taught in science classes in schools, though; science and religion need to be kept separate. And, as I've said, there's no way to empirically prove or disprove that God created/controlled anything. How do you empirically prove the existence of God?)

[Byrum]

A common misconception. It rained for 40 days and nights, but the flood itself is said to have lasted a year or so.
Well I guess that's even more reason for the ark to have never existed, let alone carry animals, especially dinosaurs. What would you feed them, unless they had some spare unicorns lying around (oops).

[Yrraine]

1. What do you believe in?
Theistic evolution.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?
Theistic versus naturalistic: no. I think one's conception of God is a matter of belief, not something that can be proven. I can't prove God does of does not exist.
Evolution: yes. It draws together evidence from all the branches of natural science, it is predictive, and it has been tested repeatedly and upheld. I'll point to the prediction that if mammals three ear bones evolved from bones in a reptilian jaw, there should be a species in between, which was found. Also the Michigan State work mentioned in pose 195. There is no serious debate within scientific circles about the fact of evolution (versus the details, e.g. what affects mutation rate) because there are no good competing alternatives; they've all fallen by the wayside.

3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
If my children were forced to learn it in science class, I'd certainly be up in arms. It's not science, calling it science doesn't make it science. As pointed out above, science can be disproven. Creationists do not feel anything would disprove creationism. It can go in a class on world religions, or on sociology of science.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Certainly. Which version of Genesis are you using, chapter 1 where man and woman are created together, after everything else, or chapter 2 where God creates man, then plants, then animals, then woman?

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
Certainly. I don't believe in a god who fixes golf tournaments, but everything may be here for a purpose, including people.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

[FawkesFire]

1. What do you believe in?
Evolution, evolution, evolution.

2. Can you support your beliefs with evidence?

Can I pull out about a thousand scientific journals?

Ooooh, the observable evolution of single cell organisms in laboratory settings.

The unusually high occurance of sickle-cell anemia in African Americans as a result of a balanced polymorphism favoring the heterozygous condition of the otherwise lethal gene in environments where malaria is a threat.

The very extensive fossil record.

The noted extinction of the species.

Organs within the human body that serve no purpose.

Similarity in the stages of development of animals (aspects of the human form such as maxilla/mandible, and hyoid develop from GILL ARCHES).

Selective breeding of dogs to create the highly diverse breeds in existence today (an example of micro-evolution that was obchestrated by humans, though it hasn't yielded seperate species.....yet)

All that finch/dog stuff Darwin wrote about.

Evolution is the most logical and therefore intelligently designed (hee) version of how life came about.




3. If you support Creationism, how do you feel about it being left out of public schools?

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
Of course I would be angry! That's just stepping backwards about 500 years! Seperation of Church and State! It's fundamental. I'd definitely yank my kids out of any school that would teach it. If people want to deny the gross amount of evidence supporting evolution under the guise that they want to "teach the controversy" they can send their kids to a private catholic school.

5. Do you think that using the Bible as part evidence for Creationism puts people off trying to understand it?
Well using the Bible is what creationism is based on... It's only off-putting to me that certain creationists hide as proponents of "intelligent design" and use rhetoric to convince schoolboards that their criticism is scientific...even though it hasn't and cannot be empirically tested.
I think using the Bible in such a debate if off-putting because it is NOT science and has no place in a forum of scientific thought until a empirically tested and scientific argument considered respectable by the scientific community is presented.

6. For non-believers, is it possible the universe was intelligently designed?
Designed....no. Not in the sense you mean. I do believe in God, because...well it's a logical thing, where else did the universe come from except some force we don't understand? I refuse to picture god, however, as a man-like being who built the world from the sub-sub-sub atomic particle up. Things just happened the way because the system made sense for it to happen this way. If the system didn't make sense, we wouldn't be here. That is truly intelligent designing.

7. For Creationists. Is it possible evolution could be scientifcally accurate?

[Cuthbert]

4. If you are a supporter of Evolution, would you be angry at having to learn Creationsim against your better judgement?
Of course I would be angry! That's just stepping backwards about 500 years! Seperation of Church and State! It's fundamental. I'd definitely yank my kids out of any school that would teach it. If people want to deny the gross amount of evidence supporting evolution under the guise that they want to "teach the controversy" they can send their kids to a private catholic school.


Whoa! Slow down there cowboy! :rotfl: I believe that we catholics are also a part of the evolutionary enlightened. Just because we believe in devine initiation doesn't mean we believe in creationism.

According to the Catholic church, there is "no real disagreement can exist between the theologian and the scientist provided each keeps within his own limits. . . . If nevertheless there is a disagreement . . . it should be remembered that the sacred writers, or more truly ‘the Spirit of God who spoke through them, did not wish to teach men such truths (as the inner structure of visible objects) which do not help anyone to salvation’; and that, for this reason, rather than trying to provide a scientific exposition of nature, they sometimes describe and treat these matters either in a somewhat figurative language or as the common manner of speech those times required, and indeed still requires nowadays in everyday life, even amongst most learned people" (Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus 18).

"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159).

The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

[Dementor Dave]

Unless I recall incorrectly, John Paul II has embraced theistic evolution. To an extent, anyway.