Creationism vs. Evolution

[gallo]

Quote by: Isherwood I was trying to reason with the "the universe is created but there was no designer" crowd, trying to illustrate how nonsensical it is to suppose design and purpose without also supposing a being who possesses that purpose and acts upon a design.

Then we are arguing against our different understandings of creationism/ID. My understanding is that simple creationists (G.W Bush, Huckaby) argue that their god created the universe, while IDiots ague that it is all designed, but we don't know who the designer is.

In short, I don't buy "creation without a creator" any more than I do "the creator is god" attitude as espoused by Behe and the The Institute for Creation Research.

Nor do I buy a supernatural designer (but we don't know who he is). It's the same story, except that it is an effort to escape the 1st Amendment ban on teaching religion as science.

That concept is consistently overlooked by IDers.

They don't overlook it, they try to duck it.

[pikatore]

A MAJOR problem here on the creationists side is the fact that thier concept of what creation itself is purely based on thier experiance as a human. That is, we are so used to making things, that the idea of a universal creator seems more viable. We begin to extend that idea based on what we are used to seeing, that is, sentient life building things.

Not to mention that we also force our concept of time, of cause and effect, on phenomena that we can't be sure even follows those rules. But hey, let's not go into that, it might cause a headache, so anyway WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE BIG BANG X 1000000, I'm sure that more we ask the question, the less people would notice the premises holding up the question itself.

You CANT make a logical jump like that, period. To apply one event to another object (sentient creation -> sentient beings) is called changing context without due cause, and that is as intellectually bankrupt as submitting to faith in the first place.

So creationists, you go on and think what you want to think. But as far as reasonable, objective evidence for a creator, be it divine or no, get back to me when you have something.

[loser]

Fossil cockroaches show significant evolution from modern species.

What are these significant changes?

Talkorigins.com rebuts idiotic creationist claims in detail and at length.

Sounds like an agenda to me.

You keep acting like micro and macro are hugely different things, just because the animals they create may look markedly different.

Let's see: micro (little) and macro (big)...hugely different things?

Nah, there's not much difference between big and little, the words are almost interchangeable.

Those that accept the definition tend not to be biblical literalists and actually recognize science as a way of learning about the universe.

That's strange because I haven't met any creationists who are unscientific. In fact, I think more evolutionists take science too lightly, wresting it until it's more like religious dogma.

You see, besides a definition, evolution can also be used in reference to observed events that fit the definition, for example, the change in color of certain moths from exclusively light morphs to almost all dark morphs in the period of 50 years. Since we know the color of these moths is controlled by a two alleles of a single gene, the frequency of those alleles in several populations changed over about 50 generations. Thus, that change in color was evolution.

Those moths can change color for a trillion billion generations but they won't change into frogs. You take recognized adaptations and try to make it prove macro evolution which it simply doesn't. Talk about spin and intellectual dishonesty. That's no different than me asserting that because man has the ability to create, it proves that God created man. No, actually that assertion is more logical than yours.

For example, evidence indicates that humans appeared in the Americas, fully formed and functional, less than 14,000 years ago, whereas, they appeared in Europe some 40,000 years ago. Were these two separate creation events?

You'll shortly find that the evidence is false. I won't be the one to tell you, the fickle scientists that you so rely on will.

Do you know what a transitional is? Undisputed by whom? Creationists? Actually there are many, many accepted (by scientists) transitional species. For example, Eusthenopteron, Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Pederpes, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Metaxygnathus, Aconthostega, Ichthyostega, Hynerpeton, Greerpeton, Tulerpeton, Pakicetus, Ichthyolestes, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dahlanistes, Takracetus, Gaviocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon, Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx,Sinovenator, Byronosaurus, etc. Since you are speaking with authority on this topic, these shouldn't cause you any problem. You probably know, off hand, to which evolutionary sequences these belong.

I love science fiction as much as the next guy but I try not to let it interfere in my rational thoughts. The list of dinosaurs rivals the gods and goddesses of the Romans and Greek but are ever bit as mythical. You're impressed by creatures that never existed!

Actually, mutation is one of the observed processes that tends to increase genetic diversity.

Genetic diversity does not equal evolution.

That is an insulting attempt to reduce science to the level of superstitious religion that is held in spite of no evidence.

Which relegates evolution to the realm of religion...having no evidence.

Humans are like that. We generally don't question what we are told. If our parents tell us that God created humanity, we don't question it. Its not in our nature to go against our parents.

Actually, we tend not to question authority, parents or otherwise. What you say is no different in the classroom. If your science book tells you about evolution and dinosaurs, you don't question it at all. You blindly accept it as fact. It's not in our nature to go against out teachers.

Having once been a catholic I remember the safe and secure feeling of believing in God. I also remember the day I realized there was no such thing as God.

The Catholic religion has done that to a lot of people. Tragic and sad.

To a scientist, this is not a question what to choose to believe. This is a question of reasonable thinking and evidences. Science plays by its own rules, trials and errors, diligent evaluation of the facts comes first and then, comes knowledge. So many good and not so good things we use in our lives today have been obtained not by believes, but by trials, errors, experimentation and observations: vaccinations and right nutrition for health, nuclear power, electricity, Internet, etc. Believers are busy only with interpretations of what is written in their Holy Books.

Not true. I am a scientist and a believer; there is no conflict. I believe what is true and I have faith in what can be true but is as yet unproven. I am not a superstitious person.

Theory of evolution passed all major tests successfully.

Depends on what you read and how you grade, It has utterly failed all my major tests. I'm amazed at how desperately people cling to inviable beliefs (such as evolutionary biology).

[Kite]

Quote by: loser Not true. I am a scientist and a believer; there is no conflict. I believe what is true and I have faith in what can be true but is as yet unproven. I am not a superstitious person.

Then why cant you open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong?

Depends on what you read and how you grade, It has utterly failed all my major tests. I'm amazed at how desperately people cling to inviable beliefs (such as evolutionary biology).

Yes, since the scientific community values your tests over all others, it is very foolish that we would cling to such an archaic theory.

[Century 25]

Quote by: loser What are these significant changes?

No sci-fi here.. just look at GW Bush.. one of the biggest cockroaches on the planet.

[loser]

If you want to read a discussion in some detail you might wish to look at The Evolution of Improved Fitness By Random Mutation Plus Selection by Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D. I don't expect you to bother as it might interfere with your phony tautologies.

I'm guessing that this reading would show how random mutation could have resulted in the creation of life. If so, then it must concede the fact that this first life from which all other life came from could be God. There's no getting around it. The fact that life exists proves that God could exist.

This thread is for debating the merits of evolution, and I will not respond to nongermane assertions. This does not mean the line of discussion is limited to Hall's experiments alone, otherwise the thread would have been named to something more specific. I am open to discussion on other fronts of the evolution debate as well, and I have faith that we will have no trouble keeping posts relevant to the topic. If I sound condescending, my apologies, that was not my intent. I look forward to the replies.

If evolution exists, then God evolved. Afterwards, He created everything else...and evolution continues.

I now see the error of my ways.

Not likely...

the genetic code is not complex, it's just LONG! It's made up of four bases on two strands! It's only twice as complex as morse code!

So why aren't we creating all kinds of new species of creatures? Why haven't we eliminated all diseases? Why haven't we reversed aging? Why can't we eliminate the stupid gene?

Abiogenesis, the synthesis from non-organic matter into organic matter, has been experimentally proven to work.

Could it create a being like God?

Remember that the majority of the Earth's existence was spent WITHOUT oxygen. That's why anaerobic organisms were the first to form.

Was that before water?

Creationists keep begging an idiotic question, one that science has already answered. If you doubt that abiogenesis didn't occur, and instead some invisible being of supreme power did it instead, well, wonderful. But I don't just sign away the unknown to supernatural forces.

How is abiogenesis not supernatural?

Some people once thought that the Earth was flat, and resided on a turtles back. That sounds ridiculous to you now, but they had no way of finding out.

Actually, they did. God told them that was utter nonsense. He enlightened them to the truth.

Scientific inquiry does not require faith. It does not demand blind acceptance. It does not obfuscate its methodologies. Religion does.

Not true...four times.

..atheism is a logic-based line of reasoning.. while religion surely fits the obfuscation shoe.. and they do wear their dogma well.. good for hiking back to the cave..

So where was the logic of creating religion? No, atheism is void of logic...it's PURE DOGMA.

I find no parallels except in the silly claims of creationists. But then they always make stuff up as they go along anyway.

Can you not hear the subjective bias in your own words? You're prophecies are self-fulfilling.

Science doesn't provide answers. It just states what it observes. Then it attempts to find the cause of the observed patterns.

Exactly. Science can merely investigate God's creation.

Religion isn't verifiable, falsifiable and its conclusions cannot be tested.

Why not?

You can either fill that gap in our knowledge with god or leave it as a gap and await further scientific exploration into the matter. I choose the latter.

You need to do both. God is the starting point...scientific exploration proceeds from there. Science is not furthered through idle speculation of unknowable things.

I never said that science was the be all and end all, I said that it provided answers. Answers to questions that one can trustithout losing a shred of intellecual dignity. That's what makes it different from religion.

I think that science raises more questions than it does provide answers but religion is based on science, nonetheless. To say otherwise is foolish.

You need to acknowledge that I do not worship science simply because I strongly oppose religion.

What needs to be examined is WHY you "strongly oppose religion". Strong feelings almost always obfuscate reason.

Theists sometimes don't understand how we can rely on science to increase our understanding of the natural world without worshiping at a scientific alter.

I am a theist who has always relied on science to increase my understanding of our world. There is no conflict between the two; only PERCEIVED conflict by the non-believer.

Creationism has been an explanation for thousands and thousands of years and has never once provided any useful information. What happened was people started to get smart and realized the answers were found in nature.

Creationism has flourished as science evolves. The answers are indeed found in nature and because of this God says man has no excuse (for not knowing He exists).

... I can't connect with any way of "worshipping" science.. science merely is based on the real world.. universe.. no one could possibly conjoin science/worship.. they are like trying to say concrete and ghost.. no connection.. science is fact(s) assembled after repeatable tests.. theory becomes fact only when proven.. deities.. nothing but figments of ancient imagination.. when humans cowered at thunder & lightning.. or sacrificed virgins to the volcano "god" -- or..?? pick yer disaster.. they found a deity to blame..

It's because you use colored logic, asserting false constructs for both science and religion. A religion based on an encounter with an extraterrestrial being is more scientific than a theory based on leisurely musings. You attempt to discredit ALL religion by example of a few. Is a good theory destroyed by a plethora of ridiculous ones? Bias is always misleading.

Even today.. insurance companies call certain storm or tsunami.. earthquake.. etc.. "acts of god" - eek.. my.. that nasty old deity.. sure has it in for us..

Which proves what...the illogic of man?

It is very.. very sad to co-exist in this world of brilliant minds & minds distracted.. forever chained to the cave days.. how can a civilization survive in a nuclear capable world.. a world venturing into space.. with people starving & dying of diseases.. living in garbage.. just unbelievable.

Indeed, and religion is our only hope. One wonders really how far has man advanced when conditions steadily worsen. In fact, it doesn't take much thought to realize that ancient man was so much more intelligent than modern man...what a steady but inexorable decline.

One answers how we started, the other answers how we evolved. Only a gibbering theistic fool... or a self-gratifying science worshiper... would try to pit the two against each other.

On this, we definitely agree!

The analogy is one I use to see the difference between those who seek to know versus those who insist they already know. Unfortunately, the latter type always says they are the former type.

Scary...that sounds an awful lot like me...

Science doesn't make unsupported claims about the unknown.

But it does...all the time.

Actually, it's not science that does this...it's scientists who misuse science.

Creationism is a religious offshoot that does. it's the BASIS of such a claim that i worry about, and as such, in this case, is completely invalid.

Once again, it's your "worry" that worries me.

Religious explanations are not repeatable and universally observable.

Ironically, most scientific explanations aren't, either.

[loser]

againstthewind wrote:

Okay, I believe in the literal SIX day creation, therfore evolution has no place in that since it claims billions of years to evolve. It is like reconciling atheism and Christianity. Atheism denies the central tenet of Christianity. You can't reconcile Islam and Christianity either because Islam denies the biblical Trinitarian God, which is the core of Christianity. That is why you can't have the biblical account of creation and evolution on the same plate. It is one or the other.

Which poses a problem in itself. The Muslims are right to reject the Trinity and the Christians who believe in the Trinitarian God do so because they have been deceived...it's not what the Bible teaches.

Also, the Bible doesn't say that creation was literally in six days. In fact, it makes it pretty clear that it wasn't literal.

If you believe in God then you probably believe that God cannot lie and that Satan is the Father of all liars. God told Adam that if he ate of the forbidden tree that in that day he would surely die. Satan told him that surely he wouldn't die! Adam lived over six hundred years. Did God lie and Satan tell the truth? No! In another scripture, God reveals that a thousand years is like unto a day and a day is like a thousand years to the Lord. Therefore, Adam died within one of God's 'days'.

Also, in the creation story, God is counting off days BEFORE the sun is even created. In fact, the solar system isn't put into place until the FOURTH day. Obviously, then, the creation days recorded in Genesis ARE NOT solar days (24 hour days).

Many creationists believe that the creation story of seven days is representative of seven thousand years because of this. They believe that Jesus' millennial reign on the earth will take place in the seventh day or millennium...corresponding to God's seventh day of rest. They believe that we have been on the earth for about six thousand years and His return is imminent.

Although this seems to fit somewhat (if you accept the Young Earth theory), there really is no reason to believe that God's day is exactly one thousand years. It could be ten thousand years (or more) for all we know.

I applaud you for your belief in God, but I would advise you not to accept blindly what you have been taught. This applies not only to what is taught behind the pulpit but also what is taught in the schools. The Bible says that Satan deceives the WHOLE WORLD! Sadly, that includes Christians, too.

[Jack]

The fact that life exists proves that God could exist.

Which god?

So why aren't we creating all kinds of new species of creatures? Why haven't we eliminated all diseases? Why haven't we reversed aging?

Why hasn't a god done all that?

Could it create a being like God?

What sort of being is this god?

Not true...four times.

Ooo la, there's a convincing rebuttal.

I think that science raises more questions than it does provide answers but religion is based on science, nonetheless. To say otherwise is foolish.

Because you say so? Religion is based on ignorance of science, excusable 2000 years ago, not so much today.

I am a theist who has always relied on science to increase my understanding of our world.

Don't rely on what you don't understand. Science doesn't seek evidence to support a preconceived conclusion. It looks at where the evidence leads to draw conclusions. If the evidence suggested a god, all scientists would be believers. So far the evidence suggests natural processes do just fine without supernatural influence. If you've already decided you know the answer, why ask the questions?

The Bible says that Satan deceives the WHOLE WORLD!

So wouldn't include what you've posted?

[loser]

Quote: Quote by: againstthewind View Post Science confirms the Bible, and scientific facts are found within the Bible as well. Open a thread to support that claim.

Good idea! Has anyone done so, yet? If not, I will shortly. Some of the science revealed in the Bible is thousands of years in advance of man's understanding and/or discovery. It pretty much confirms that it wasn't the imagination of men.

And up is down and black is white. A literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts both science and common sense.

A literal interpretation of what you just said contradicts both science and common sense, as well! "Up is down and black is white"? Do you see how we need to read with cognition and discernment, having enough reason to differentiate between what is literal and what is not?

We understand that the book contains supernatural explanations written by a primitive people who did not have a clue about the natural world around them.

Your misunderstandings are understandable, but only by a very few. Mankind's intelligence has dwindled over the centuries, so that there's little left. The world is now full of clueless people.

When you get injured you don't get someone to take evil spirits out of your body, you get a banaid or a doctor to diagnose you.

Yeah, you do that if you're clueless!

When your car breaks down you don't get someone to put a magic spell on it to make it run again, you take it to the mechanic.

Once again, not the brightest of moves, that's for sure!

That's not completely fair. Christians follow the teachings of Christ (who mentioned the 10 Commandments and added his own) and believe his words override earlier instructions (eating what you want, working on Sunday, women working as pastors - Christ had many women working for him, etc.).

There's a whole lot of deception. though, in what people believe...it's not too much based on what Jesus taught.

Why should they? No one claims that life came from nothing.

Then they are pretty stupid because it's just as stupid to say that life has always existed. The only intelligent answer is "duh,,,I don't know".

There is empirical evidence for the big bang.

Uh, yeah, and I own the moon. Want to buy a piece?

Do you even know what empirical means?

It's been said, "History is written by the victors." What we know of past societies is completely at the mercy of biased record keeping and the impermanence of certain artifacts. We don't know half of what's happened in the past, and no doubt the half we know is far from what actually occurred.

Which is exactly the way it is today. Science is at the mercy of the scientists. When scientists fail, science is compromised.

[loser]

Besides, you can't believe a process where there is observable and provable evidence, yet you CAN believe in a supernatural being suddenly deciding to "create" everything in a few days time?

Tell me how the "big bang" is observable and show me the evidence. Also, what caused the big bang, what was here before the big bang and where did it come from? I so want someone to prove how the universe got here in a way that is less "supernatural" than God.

The theory was called the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow theory because, as a joke, Gamow included Nobel prize winning physicist Hans Bethe as an author, even though he made no contribution.

Those Nobel prize winning physicists are SO FUNNY...what a HOOT!

And it isn't logical to propose that because we don't know that a magical being is responsible

And yet, how superstitious is it to call "magical" an unknown entity? Isn't it silly presumption to believe that we are the only intelligent beings in the universe? Wait...if you believe that, how could you even be called intelligent? No, we have better words for people like that.

Either you have knowledge or you don't.

That's dumb...life is rarely either or...do you make this stuff up as you go?

What is clearly apparent is that you have little idea of what science is or how it works.

What's clear is that you have never had an original thought in your life. All you do is repeat things that you have heard or read. I bet that you have never split an atom. I would even dare say that you have probably never even baked a cake. Have you ever changed out a transmission in a car? Performed heart surgery? Built a house? What amazing thing have you done that makes you feel superior to others? I'm dying to know.

You see, you're not beyond reproach either. Stop all of the personal attacks...it's a sign of weakness.

The theories of gravitation are certainly less well understood and less secure than the theories of evolution.

ROFL...you are a funny one..or two...how many personalities are you, anyway?

No. I don't believe in evolution. But I have studied the evidence and have been doing so for many years. Because of my understanding of the evidence and my understanding of logic and reason, I recognize that the current theories of evolution are the best that we can devise with our current knowledge. I am aware that the evidence clearly shows that young earth creationism is wrong.

You're not able to recognize evidence and you have no understanding. You are completely illogical and unreasonable but that's the best that you can do. Pretty much everything you say is wrong.

I've got to stop...I'm starting to sound like you.

Belief means acceptance without evidence.

No wonder you don't believe in anything. You don't even know what believe means. FYI, belief is based on evidence and reason and truth. Without those, belief vanishes.

gallo, I've grown weary of your pedantic (read as ostentatious) style. Until you start to actually contribute something to the discussion, I'll save time by giving your posts the most cursory perusal.

You sound like my ex-wife, who said all my experience ( in the area we were arguing about at the time) meant nothing because SHE was a different person and the facts I presented didn't apply to her. I get it. OK, discussion over.

Good move!

Our World.. our lives.. are tremendously hobbled by the ignorance of people. War.. greed.. all made possible by the same ignorance that we see from corrupt & greedy "governments" controlling the masses by fear.. and ever constant dumbing-down..

You got that right! Idiocracy made real.

Evolution is pretty much an established fact. Creation is accepted by the majority of people as myth.

Which shows just how far off the mark man has become.

Religion can and does do alot of good in the world, but allowing it to squelch scientific progress is just wrong.

Eliminate religion and science would be a thing of the past. It is religion that has kept science's fires burning brightly. How could any intelligent being in today's world not know this?

nsults instead of substance. How very Republican of you. I admit hat after 35 years I can't type well, and you attack. Nice.

Ever heard the song, "True Colors"? When I read what you just said about gallo, that song came to mind.

There is tons of evidence for evolution, with more coming every day. Do you have ANY evidence for Creation, other than a book of questionable authorship?

That's simply not true. The vagueness of the meaning 'evolution' is causing the dissemination of false knowledge and deliberate indoctrination. Absolutely nothing has been learned that corroborates common descent...it still remains speculative fiction with no grounding in science.

Creationism is a FACT of life. Look around, the world you live in literally teems with things created. And I'm not just talking about things created by humans or even other animals (such as ant hills or beaver dams). The tides of the oceans are created. The Grand Canyon (all canyons, in fact) are created. Hail, rain, snow, wind...all created. None of these things are random accidents. You'd be hard pressed to find anything in this universe that wasn't created. Can you tell me something that wasn't created?

And yet, for some incredible reason (who knows what that reason is?), people want to reject creationism. Go figure.

evidence of evolution: you - AKA Cell Reproduction

No, that's really bad exegesis.

Here's some good exegesis:

evidence of creation: you - AKA procreation

how about...Mitosis or Meiosis.

Don't forget halitosis!

I mean, you throw out evolution then you throw out Biology....

No, biology stands...an incorrect theory and bad science is eliminated!

[Kite]

Quote by: loser Tell me how the "big bang" is observable and show me the evidence. Also, what caused the big bang, what was here before the big bang and where did it come from? I so want someone to prove how the universe got here in a way that is less "supernatural" than God.

How about the Doppler Effect? How about Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? And gasp, scientists are actually looking for the answers instead of reading a 2000 year old story book and getting answers from there.

Those Nobel prize winning physicists are SO FUNNY...what a HOOT!

I detect a hint of jealousy for not winning one for your "All salt on earth is made from Job" theory.

And yet, how superstitious is it to call "magical" an unknown entity? Isn't it silly presumption to believe that we are the only intelligent beings in the universe? Wait...if you believe that, how could you even be called intelligent? No, we have better words for people like that.

Yep, we call them losers.

That's dumb...life is rarely either or...do you make this stuff up as you go?

Its painfully obvious that you do.

What's clear is that you have never had an original thought in your life. All you do is repeat things that you have heard or read. I bet that you have never split an atom. I would even dare say that you have probably never even baked a cake. Have you ever changed out a transmission in a car? Performed heart surgery? Built a house? What amazing thing have you done that makes you feel superior to others? I'm dying to know. You see, you're not beyond reproach either. Stop all of the personal attacks...it's a sign of weakness.

Yes, because all the things you listed, including being a 'scientist' that thinks the Bible is 'proven' by science, is totally original. Also what does doing something 'original' have to do with credibility or validity? Last I checked observations, experiments, and proof came before originality when judging plausibility. This isn't an art contest, you don't get points for being 'original'.

ROFL...you are a funny one..or two...how many personalities are you, anyway?

What does that have to do with the topic? Sounds like a personal dig to me.

You're not able to recognize evidence and you have no understanding. You are completely illogical and unreasonable but that's the best that you can do. Pretty much everything you say is wrong. I've got to stop...I'm starting to sound like you.

Perhaps its a habit you should continue, maybe his sense of reasoning will rub off on you.

No wonder you don't believe in anything. You don't even know what believe means. FYI, belief is based on evidence and reason and truth. Without those, belief vanishes.

Consult a dictionary please. Belief doesn't need evidence or reason or truth behind it, otherwise organized religion would no longer exist. Belief, by its very nature must transcend logic. You cant try to inject it with 10ccs of nonsensical rambling and call it science, it defeats the entire purpose.

gallo, I've grown weary of your pedantic (read as ostentatious) style. Until you start to actually contribute something to the discussion, I'll save time by giving your posts the most cursory perusal. Good move!

Indeed.

You got that right! Idiocracy made real.

I'm sure they would love to thank you for contributing.

Which shows just how far off the mark man has become.

Have you ever stopped to think that perhaps you're the one thats off the mark here? Have you really ever given it serious thought, or are you not the type to question your own fallibility?

Eliminate religion and science would be a thing of the past. It is religion that has kept science's fires burning brightly. How could any intelligent being in today's world not know this?

If you eliminate religion then secular civil wars between opposing factions of religions would be a thing of the past, along with the majority of terrorism, but no, science needs religion as much as a couch needs a built in blender. Its unwieldy and obsolete.

Ever heard the song, "True Colors"? When I read what you just said about gallo, that song came to mind.

I've never heard it no, but I'll be sure to listen to it. Perhaps your taste in music is better than your taste in theories.

That's simply not true. The vagueness of the meaning 'evolution' is causing the dissemination of false knowledge and deliberate indoctrination. Absolutely nothing has been learned that corroborates common descent...it still remains speculative fiction with no grounding in science.

Then why, oh why cant you give us this damning evidence you keep referencing that blows evolution off the face of the earth?

Creationism is a FACT of life. Look around, the world you live in literally teems with things created. And I'm not just talking about things created by humans or even other animals (such as ant hills or beaver dams). The tides of the oceans are created. The Grand Canyon (all canyons, in fact) are created. Hail, rain, snow, wind...all created. None of these things are random accidents. You'd be hard pressed to find anything in this universe that wasn't created. Can you tell me something that wasn't created?

Since I'm noticing the lack of the words 'by god' after the word 'created' in the preceding, no I cant tell you anything that hasn't been created.

And yet, for some incredible reason (who knows what that reason is?), people want to reject creationism. Go figure.

Read a Bible. Creationism refers to God as being the creator, not celestial bodies, or rivers, or combinations of the water cycle and temperatures, respectively. The only thing that has been pointed out is that just about everything can change or 'create' something into something else. Theres no God involved.

No, that's really bad exegesis. Here's some good exegesis: evidence of creation: you - AKA procreation

Procreation is the act of sex. Sex would lead to the sperm inseminating the egg and after that, gasp! Cell reproduction!

Don't forget halitosis!

Thank you for saving me the trouble of showing how ignorant you are. You're doing quite well all by yourself.

No, biology stands...an incorrect theory and bad science is eliminated!

If by bad science and theory you mean ID, then sure, lets go with that.

[Halofan48]

Darn, Kite beat me to it

Well, anyway, i'm going to say that religion has hampered science in the past. Have you heard of Galileo? His proposition that the sun was the center got him in extreme trouble with the Church. Some scientific theories do conflict with religious teachings, and this is a bit of evidence.

Quote by: Loser Yeah, you do that if you're clueless!

So you think all injuries and illnesses are caused by "evil spirits"?

Also, there is a theory that life came from the mixture of elements and chemicals. When the Earth was forming from debris in space, it contained large amounts of elements. Many were key to life. With the addition of new debris and asteroid impacts, more elements were added. This allowed these elements to combine and begin to form the first life: bacteria.

Good idea! Has anyone done so, yet? If not, I will shortly. Some of the science revealed in the Bible is thousands of years in advance of man's understanding and/or discovery. It pretty much confirms that it wasn't the imagination of men.

wheres this proof?

So where was the logic of creating religion? No, atheism is void of logic...it's PURE DOGMA.

Many people used religion to explain what they could not. The ancient greeks said Zeus was responsible for lightning and thunder. It was so they could try to understand something they didn't.

[loser]

Granted; as I said, there is definitely enough evidence for the Theory of Evolution to disregard the possibility of it being wrong.

How can a thinking person arrive at such a forlorn conclusion? It appears to me the exact opposite is the truth.

Yes. But since the pace of evolutionary change is quite slow, we would expect such cases to be quite rare.

It's so slow that it's non-existent, just as I expected.

How do you thwart science? By imposing conditions that make observation and repeatability impossible.

Of course, false conclusions help to skew the scientific method, as well.

As far back as the 50's amino acids were "created" using the very chemicals and substances present in primordial earth, with a bit of electricity added.

What chemicals and substances were present, where did they come from and how was that ascertained?

What some acid heads did in the 50's has little bearing on prehistoric earth.

The building blocks of life, produced in a lab just as science said it happened millions of years ago.

Wow, how could anyone argue with that? Why, that's science...or close enough for those trying to prove a point (Science has said nothing of the sort...just some science-challenged scientists without a clue).

Quote: