Creationism vs. Evolution

[nerdvincent]

And there is another thing boring me, if we don't count the refusal of every scientific evidence. It take works only with arithmetic and logic.

Taking in consideration that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a deluge which killed everybody exept Noah and a core of every species (let suppose we can put 2 representant of a few million species in a boat), how did we succeed to breed enough to get 50,000,000 humans 1000 Before Jezz? And how did animals? Archeological and even historic facts didn't mention that peoples had 120 kids each. What about inbreeding? It a little dirty to think about it, but Adam and Eve child copulating with each other until everybody dies and Noah's child doing the same perhaps 2,000 years later wouldn't give any surviving feotus after four or five genrerations...nor very bright ones after 2 or 3.
We could cite dinosaurs as a valuable interrogation too: what does a 30 feets skeleton doing under 50 feets of mud, without any relating of them in the Bible?

Questions, questions...just questions for you creationists!

[kingmea]

And there is another thing boring me, if we don't count the refusal of every scientific evidence. It take works only with arithmetic and logic. Taking in consideration that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a deluge which killed everybody exept Noah and a core of every species (let suppose we can put 2 representant of a few million species in a boat), how did we succeed to breed enough to get 50,000,000 humans 1000 Before Jezz? And how did animals? Archeological and even historic facts didn't mention that peoples had 120 kids each. What about inbreeding? It a little dirty to think about it, but Adam and Eve child copulating with each other until everybody dies and Noah's child doing the same perhaps 2,000 years later wouldn't give any surviving feotus after four or five genrerations...nor very bright ones after 2 or 3. We could cite dinosaurs as a valuable interrogation too: what does a 30 feets skeleton doing under 50 feets of mud, without any relating of them in the Bible? Questions, questions...just questions for you creationists!

Creationists don't believe in science silly. If you do the math, you can get up to 150 million pretty easily if u double your population every once in a while. As for stupid people, how do you know Adam and Eve weren't uber Mensas and we're all retards? Skeletons in the mud can be exactly what they are, rock foramtions that coincidentally are shaped like a big reptilian creature. Hell, you may find it everywhere, but those are just alot of God's little miracles put there to test you non believers.

[Porfyra]

alright i have some arguments now... finally.

the hummingbird has little spiky things and a glue like substance on the end of its tongue without which it could not eat.

the woodpecker had to close its eyes and refocus each time it pecks. if it did not do this then its eyes would pop out and it would miss its target. thus, not being able to eat.

there is a bacterium which has a tiny, intricately designed motor which even we humans cannot copy successfully. without this it could not survive.

there are countless other examples like these but i havent the time to type them all out.

now please tell me, how in the world did these things evolve? if they have to have these special qualities to survive then how would they make it from some other creature to the creatures they are now without dying out first because of the lack of essential body parts?

[Porfyra]

also....




Archaeologists will say that a clay pot is solid evidence that a civilization once lived there. No one believes that the ground, or wind, or chemicals randomly assembled to form that clay pot and accidentally painted a design on it. People made it. If a simple clay pot shows human design, what do we conclude about an object whose make up is far more complex? Like, the human eye. It can distinguish among seven million colors. It moves 100,000 times each day with automatic focusing. And the eye handles 1.5 million simultaneous messages.1

Are we to believe that though a clay pot did not arise from natural means, the human eye just came about from elements in the atmosphere? Some would say that science demands such a conclusion, because to believe in God is not scientific. How is that different from finding the clay pot and starting with the assumption that people didn't exist in that location, so scientists must now find out how that clay pot developed from the elements in the ground or air.2

We're told that producing a human eye takes a long time. It is assumed that such random chance takes a great amount of time to perfectly assemble something complex.

theory of evolution - intelligent designSo, here is a test. Let's say someone handed you a plastic bag filled with all the parts to a watch, where you were certain that all the correct springs, screws, discs are in that bag. How long would you be willing to shake that bag hoping that the pieces would fall together and the screws would each find the right hole and tighten nicely? There must be some possibility that it could happen. Picture yourself shaking that bag. You probably wouldn't shake it beyond 30 seconds. Why not? Because common sense tells you that no matter how long you shake that bag, the pieces will never align to become a working watch. It wouldn't matter if you shook that bag one minute or thousands of years.

Just because someone argues that "maybe, someday, somehow, by chance"... should that line of reasoning supersede common sense? Like the Emporer's New Clothes, shouldn't there be a voice in the crowd saying, "Yeah, but complex life arising from simple non-life is such an outside chance, wouldn't it make more sense to look for another explanation?"

What about the likelihood of life on Earth? Maybe you are aware of all the perfect conditions that were necessary for us to be here: the earth's perfect distance from the sun, the perfect combination of gases in our atmosphere, the perfect tilt and rotation of Earth, the perfect gravitational force, the presence of water, and on and on.

Astrophysicist George Smoot explains that the degree of fine-tuning required for life to exist on Earth would be similar to shooting an arrow all the way to the planet Pluto (four billion miles away) and having the arrow come within a hundred yards of the target.3

Do you like to bet? Would you be apt to bet if the odds were 5:1 against you? How about if they were 6,000:1 against you? If you were to bet on the universe developing without a Designer, the odds of our universe forming on its own is 10124 to 1.

Again, just because there is a vastly remote chance that all the requirements perfectly fell into place by chance, why would a reasonable person conclude that it actually did come about that way? If the odds of a jet making it safely to its destination were 10124 to 1, who would get on that plane? We are so reasonable in so many areas of life. We look at clay pots and watches and are willing to say that obviously people made these, even if we don't see those people. Could not the same logic be used when we consider the human body and the universe?

Don't the intricacies of the human body and the universe give reason to say, "Though I don't see him, it makes most sense to conclude that God exists"?

(1) Hugh Davson, Physiology of the Eye, 5th ed (New York: McGraw Hill, 1991).
(2) Concept and the hyperlinked article that we recommend later, are by Dr. John P. Marcus. He received his Ph.D. in biological chemistry from the U of Michigan and is research officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. He is currently researching novel antifungal proteins, their corresponding genes, and their application in genetic engineering of crop plants for disease resistance.
(3) Fred Herren, Show Me God, 3rd ed. (Wheeling, IL: Day Star, 1997), 213.

this article is from Common Sense on How We Got Here

[Jack]

Because the ones that didn't have this trait or that trait did die off, leaving that trait in the gene pool to be passed along to each successive generation. We're talking thousands, even millions of years for traits to become dominant. It's not like a hummingbird woke up one morning and said, "Hey, what's that on my tongue?"

[Porfyra]

dude you make no sense...

what about while this partially developed hummingbird was developing the spiky things? what about before? this bird and all the others would have died off! how would they have come from half developed bird-fish things or whatever you evolutionists say they were, to fully developed, perfectly designed hummingbirds witout eating? one of the criteria of life is that the creature MUST be able to take energy from its surroundings and make it into energy for itself. the hummingbird cannot meet that criteria if it is unable to eat because of a missing trait.

[Jack]

Yet Dr. Smoot is hardly a creationist:

2006 Nobel Prize winner-Experimental Astrophysicist George Smoot is an active researcher in observational astrophysics and cosmology. Smoot’s group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley is observing our galaxy and the cosmic background radiation that is a remnant from the fiery beginning of our Universe. Projects include ground-based radio-telescope observations, balloon-borne instrumentation, and satellite experiments. The most famous of these is COBE (the NASA Cosmic Background Explorer satellite), which has shown that the cosmic background radiation intensity has a wavelength dependence precisely that of a perfectly absorbing body, indicating that it is the relic radiation from the Big Bang origin of the Universe. Using NASA’s COBE DMR, Smoot and his colleagues have made a map of the early Universe discovering the seeds of present day galaxies and clusters of galaxies. These seeds show up as variations at one part in 100,000 level in density from place to place. They also reveal information on the Big Bang and the origin of the Universe. In addition to continuing work on the four years of COBE data and on-going balloon experiments, Dr. Smoot has joined with colleagues in Europe to propose a new European Space Agency satellite to extend and improve these measurements. Dr. Smoot has also published a popular book on cosmology: Wrinkles in Time.

George Smoot

As to your question about the eye:

Evolution of the Eye: When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years? If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye? Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities. Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design. Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through. Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye. In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye

and:

How complex and physiologically remarkable structures such as the human eye could evolve has long been a question that has puzzled biologists. But in research reported this week in Current Biology, the evolutionary history of a critical eye protein has revealed a previously unrecognized link between certain components of sophisticated vertebrate eyes - like those found in humans - and those of the primitive light-sensing systems of invertebrates. The findings, from researchers at the University of Oxford, the University of London and Radboud University in The Netherlands, put in place a conceptual framework for understanding how the vertebrate eye, as we know it, has emerged over evolutionary time. Human sight relies on the ability of our eye to form a clear, focused image on the retina. Critical to this function is the eye lens and the physical properties that underlie the transparency of the lens. The eye's ability to precisely refract light is because of high concentrations of special proteins called crystallins found in lens cells. Human sight relies on the ability of our eye to form a clear, focused image on the retina. Critical to this function is the eye lens and the physical properties that underlie the transparency of the lens. The eye's ability to precisely refract light is because of high concentrations of special proteins called crystallins found in lens cells. Vertebrates such as fish, frogs, birds, humans and other mammals all experience image-forming vision because our eyes express crystallins, which helps form the lens that is needed. But our invertebrate relatives, such as sea squirts, have only simple eyes that detect light but are incapable of forming an image. This lead to the view that the lens evolved within vertebrates early in vertebrate evolution, raising the question: How could a complex organ with such remarkable physical properties have evolved in the first place? Perhaps even more remarkable is the finding that expression of the sea squirt crystallin gene is controlled by genetic elements that also respond to the factors that control lens development in vertebrates. This was demonstrated when regulatory regions of the sea squirt gene were transferred to frog embryos where they drove gene expression in the tadpoles' own visual system, including the lens. The researchers say this suggests that prior to the evolution of the lens, there was a regulatory link between two tiers of genes, those that would later become responsible for controlling lens development, and those that would help give the lens its special physical properties. This combination of genes appears to have then been selected in an early vertebrate during the evolution of its visual system, giving rise to the lens. The new findings deal a serious blow to the Intelligent Design movement which has long contended that the lack of an apparent evolutionary pathway for complex eye development indicated the presence of a supreme designer.

Insight Into Eye Evolution Deals Blow To Intelligent Design

[Jack]

the hummingbird cannot meet that criteria if it is unable to eat because of a missing trait.

Volconvo really isn't the best place to receive a decent education in evolutionary biology, but then again it's better than a church.

Let's pretend this example makes sense. Hummingbirds without this trait would be able to eat, just not the best food for them and perhaps not as efficiently. When a trait appears in the population that gives an evolutionary advantage to those with it, the more of them that survive increase the opportunity for that trait to be passed along.

[gallo]

Quote by: Porfyra alright i have some arguments now... finally.

Not 'agruments', actually. What you really have is a serious of incredulous statements that seem to be based on extreme ignorance.

the hummingbird has little spiky things and a glue like substance on the end of its tongue without which it could not eat.

So you are claiming that the hummingbird needs glue on the end of its tongue in order to drink nectar? Or are you talking about the small insects that it catches.

the woodpecker had to close its eyes and refocus each time it pecks. if it did not do this then its eyes would pop out and it would miss its target. thus, not being able to eat. there is a bacterium which has a tiny, intricately designed motor which even we humans cannot copy successfully. without this it could not survive.

There's a couple more 'so what?' statements that you seem to think prove something.

there are countless other examples like these but i havent the time to type them all out.

I'm sure you don't.

now please tell me, how in the world did these things evolve?

Through the accumulation of small genetic changes in a population through many generations.

if they have to have these special qualities to survive then how would they make it from some other creature to the creatures they are now without dying out first because of the lack of essential body parts?

Could it be that they are descended from a population with a less specialized diet? Could it be that the evolution of these special characteristics gave them an advantage in competition with other populations?

Quote by: Porfyra also.... Archaeologists will say that a clay pot is solid evidence that a civilization once lived there. No one believes that the ground, or wind, or chemicals randomly assembled to form that clay pot and accidentally painted a design on it. People made it. If a simple clay pot shows human design, what do we conclude about an object whose make up is far more complex?

But of course, we are quite good at recognizing objects that have been designed and made by mankind.

Like, the human eye. It can distinguish among seven million colors. It moves 100,000 times each day with automatic focusing. And the eye handles 1.5 million simultaneous messages.1

My reaction is, "so what?" And why didn't you just link the article in the first place?

Are we to believe that though a clay pot did not arise from natural means, the human eye just came about from elements in the atmosphere?

But no one makes such an ignorant claim. The eye arises by the differentiation of living cells in a living organism - all kinds of eyes arise in that way. In fact, not a single eye has ever been observed to arise from the atmosphere. They always come about by the differentiation of cells in a growing embryo in a species that has eyes.

Some would say that science demands such a conclusion, because to believe in God is not scientific.

And they would be wrong. Of course, I have only seen that sort of ignorant statement made by creationists. Science doesn't demand conclusions. Science offers explanations. If you conclude explanations offered by science are not compatible with your particular mythology, than such conclusions are yours.

Of course, since the concept of god is a supernatural idea, and since science is the pursuit of methodological naturalism, the concept of god is not scientific. It is a matter of simple definition.

How is that different from finding the clay pot and starting with the assumption that people didn't exist in that location, so scientists must now find out how that clay pot developed from the elements in the ground or air.2

That's pretty silly. Why, after finding human artifacts that only exist because they were made by humans, would anyone assume that humans had never been in that location. The author of this piece seems to be a bit of a dunce. In science, the conclusions are build on the observations through the application of the scientific method. Only creationists begin by making assumptions and then reject observed facts when they do not agree with the assumed mythology.

We're told that producing a human eye takes a long time. It is assumed that such random chance takes a great amount of time to perfectly assemble something complex.

It takes less than 9 months. Of course, we have never seen a human eye arise except by the differentiation of cells in a living embryo.

theory of evolution - intelligent designSo, here is a test. Let's say someone handed you a plastic bag filled with all the parts to a watch, where you were certain that all the correct springs, screws, discs are in that bag. How long would you be willing to shake that bag hoping that the pieces would fall together and the screws would each find the right hole and tighten nicely? There must be some possibility that it could happen.

That is an idiotic statement. Why must there be such a possibility?

Picture yourself shaking that bag. You probably wouldn't shake it beyond 30 seconds. Why not? Because common sense tells you that no matter how long you shake that bag, the pieces will never align to become a working watch. It wouldn't matter if you shook that bag one minute or thousands of years.

But above you said that there must be some possibility that it could happen. Now you say that there isn't. Why don't you pick a horse and ride it?

Here's an experiment for you. Take a plastic bag and put two watches in it. Lay it aside under ideal conditions, whatever conditions that you think might be necessary. How long will you have to wait before you will find three watches in the bag, or two big watches and several small watches?

Just because someone argues that "maybe, someday, somehow, by chance"... should that line of reasoning supersede common sense?

But only creationists pretend that anyone makes such a nonsense argument, probably because they are so dismally ignorant of science or the real world. It is quite humorous to see a creationist argue about common sense when they rarely display any.

Like the Emporer's New Clothes, shouldn't there be a voice in the crowd saying, "Yeah, but complex life arising from simple non-life is such an outside chance, wouldn't it make more sense to look for another explanation?"

But 'complex life' doesn't arise from non-life. No one claims that it does. But what has been observed is that some organic molecules that arise naturally reproduce themselves. Lipid membranes have been observed to arise spontaneously.

What about the likelihood of life on Earth?

One. The question is stupid after the fact. If conditions had been otherwise, the life would be different. What's the big deal. Just because certain conditions exist that make life as we know it possible does not mean that those conditions were arranged by some mythical magic being. The universe and life as it exists now were not the intended, predetermined outcome of all the possibilities at the beginning of the universe. Try this. Take a deck of cards, shuffle it and deal yourself 5 cards. What are the odds that you can have that hand. 2,598,959 to 1. It is clearly almost impossible for you to be holding the hand that you are. Do you see how silly those 'what are the odds' arguments are?

We are so reasonable in so many areas of life. We look at clay pots and watches and are willing to say that obviously people made these, even if we don't see those people. Could not the same logic be used when we consider the human body and the universe?

But clay pots and watches don't reproduce and metabolize. It amuses me that creationists seem to have so much trouble in telling the difference between objects like watches and pots, and living things.

Don't the intricacies of the human body and the universe give reason to say, "Though I don't see him, it makes most sense to conclude that God exists"?

You can do that if you want, but it isn't apparent from the evidence. No one has ever seen your god step in and create a human body from nothing. We always observe that human bodies arise from the sexual union of two previous, living, human beings. Even you.

Quote by: Porfyra dude you make no sense...

But since you apparently thought that the previous article that you posted did make sense, it is easy to see why you might not understand.

what about while this partially developed hummingbird was developing the spiky things?

What partially developed hummingbird? Perhaps an ancestral bird that wasn't a hummingbird had the 'spiky things.' Exactly what are these 'spiky things' and why are they the essential characteristic that makes a humingbird a hummingbird?

what about before? this bird and all the others would have died off!

Why?

how would they have come from half developed bird-fish things or whatever you evolutionists say they were, to fully developed, perfectly designed hummingbirds witout eating?

Why would an ancestral bird - fully developed - not be possible? Why do you think that a hummingbird has to spring into existance from nothing? Just because you need the myth of a magical being who can make things from nothing doesn't mean that the idea is rational.

one of the criteria of life is that the creature MUST be able to take energy from its surroundings and make it into energy for itself. the hummingbird cannot meet that criteria if it is unable to eat because of a missing trait.

Why would it not be able to eat? Do you have these 'spiky things?' Can you eat? What about all of the other kinds of birds? What about the 18 different species of hummingbird in 12 genera? Do they all have these 'spiky things?'

[gallo]

Quote by: Isherwood When a trait appears in the population that gives an evolutionary advantage to those with it, the more of them that survive increase the opportunity for that trait to be passed along.

When that concept was first explained to T.H. Huxley he remarked. "How stupid of me not to have seen that." How bizarre that creationists still don't see that.

[Porfyra]

man you guys are going to beat me up for this (not like i expect anything else...) cuz these arguments arent the best, but here goes:


A great deal of time, effort, and money have been spent trying to learn how evolution brought about the existence of these first living organisms (single cells). Although some scientists can make their beliefs sound very logical, the only scientific “proof” that anyone has provided is merely a statement of theory, something like “billions of years of random atomic collisions created life.” That is, scientists have never demonstrated how this first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism.

People who believe in abiogenesis recognized this problem long ago. To explain this difficulty, scientists proposed that proteins and nucleic acids evolved first, and they later evolved into “life.” (That theory makes sense, since these two molecule groups are the primary building blocks of cellular and multicellular life.) However, as of this date, nobody has discovered any proof that proteins or nucleic acids could evolve from non life either. A review of the scientific literature makes this clear. Michael Behe sums it up well in his book Darwin’s Black Box.

“There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.” [2]

Looking at this evidence, we can make two observations:

* Scientists and universities all around the world have been trying for over 100 years to prove that evolution is the mechanism that created life, yet no scientific evidence has been found.
* Every experiment that does not support one point of view is actually proof for some other point of view.

thats from Where Did Life Come From?

[nerdvincent]

I'm afraid, again, that we will disprove your claim.
All you said was that if we don't know how unicellular life appeared (we've got theories, wait a few more years), but they were created before men nontheless.
The evolution have nothing to do with it anyway: the theory, and life, begin with unicellular life. Thanks for approving us.
Then your website began to lie. For the 100 last years, we had nothing but evidence proving evolution and disproving creationism. Do I need to tell you which one? No, we did it for the last 50 pages of the thread.
Those christians propaganda websites aren't reliable sources: it always begins with "some scientist says..." and then in the end, not able to prove anything it get somewhat " fuck all that, let's pray!".
It's time to think about your beliefs Porfyra.

[Jack]

A great deal of time, effort, and money have been spent trying to learn how evolution brought about the existence of these first living organisms (single cells).

Scientists and universities all around the world have been trying for over 100 years to prove that evolution is the mechanism that created life, yet no scientific evidence has been found.

For a good and simple reason creationists always overlook despite being told over and over again:

Evolution does not concern the origin of life.

Evolution is a process by which a species develops into new and different groups in response to environmental selection favouring the reproductive success of certain individuals The fossil record reveals evolutionary history over long periods of time and shows the modification of species as they have adapted ...
RSNZ/DNA Glossary

Evolution only applies to living organisms, organisms that have already come into existence. Life did not begin through an evolutionary process. Don't blame evolution for failing to account for the origins of life. It has nothing to do with that.

Learning this stuff couldn't be easier in the 21st century. You go to the search box of your browser and type "define: evolution" and look at the results. Those concerning biology consistently refer to a process of differentiation among living species. No one but confused creationists and those intending to willfully obfuscate the issue think evolution has anything to do with the origin of life.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Isherwood No one but confused creationists and those intending to willfully obfuscate the issue think evolution has anything to do with the origin of life.

And no one but confused Darwinians and those intending to willingly obfuscate the issue think that ID necessarily has anything to do with religion.

[rez]

Quote by: Porfyra man you guys are going to beat me up for this (not like i expect anything else...) cuz these arguments arent the best, but here goes: A great deal of time, effort, and money have been spent trying to learn how evolution brought about the existence of these first living organisms (single cells). Although some scientists can make their beliefs sound very logical, the only scientific “proof” that anyone has provided is merely a statement of theory, something like “billions of years of random atomic collisions created life.” That is, scientists have never demonstrated how this first life came into existence from non life by an evolutionary mechanism. People who believe in abiogenesis recognized this problem long ago. To explain this difficulty, scientists proposed that proteins and nucleic acids evolved first, and they later evolved into “life.” (That theory makes sense, since these two molecule groups are the primary building blocks of cellular and multicellular life.) However, as of this date, nobody has discovered any proof that proteins or nucleic acids could evolve from non life either. A review of the scientific literature makes this clear. Michael Behe sums it up well in his book Darwin’s Black Box. “There is no publication in the scientific literature—in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books—that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations.” [2] Looking at this evidence, we can make two observations: * Scientists and universities all around the world have been trying for over 100 years to prove that evolution is the mechanism that created life, yet no scientific evidence has been found. * Every experiment that does not support one point of view is actually proof for some other point of view. thats from Where Did Life Come From?

from your link...

There are two ways of explaining where life came from. A second explanation is the view of the Bible—that God created life.

How ignorant can one be to think that the Christian account is the only form of creationism? What about Hinduism, Chinese folk lore, or the Native American account?

If you are not smart enough to see this double standard, then how can you be smart enough to understand the Theory of Cell Reproduction and disagree with it?

If you are incapable of adding 2 and 2 together, then why should I think you are capable of solving calc problems?

[rez]

Quote by: Zeebadee And no one but confused Darwinians and those intending to willingly obfuscate the issue think that ID necessarily has anything to do with religion.

When you claim that something is designed, then you are saying that there is a designer. Got it? Nah..I bet you don't. That is called "creationism".

Second, if you weren't too worried about what Darwin said in 1859, then you wouldn't be so ignorant to call someone a Darwinist. The Theory of Evolution has come such a long way since that time. So many important discoveries over 148 years, that you seem to not have ONE clue about.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rez When you claim that something is designed, then you are saying that there is a designer. Got it? Nah..I bet you don't. That is called "creationism".

Ok, then "creationism" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. Why do you insist on defining a creator as a religious being? Maybe a creator just wanted to see what would happen with his creation.