[dhbuilder]

he was cool.

francis:
"anybody touches my stuff, i'll kill ya."
"anybody talks to me, i'll kill ya."
"anybody looks at me. i'll kill ya."

drill sgt.
(warren oats)
"aw lighten up francis."

a classic movie line if there ever was one.

but i couldn't tell you if it evolved or was created.

 

[kidwoo]

have you ever seen this site? I think you'll find it illuminating.

Aw that sucks.......... It's like listening to a christian.......cept I have to read it.

 

[Changleen]

Did you see the one about him driving to work and his brakes fail, but he decides to keep going? What a tool.

 

[kidwoo]

Did you see the one about him driving to work and his brakes fail, but he decides to keep going? What a tool.

Dude........gawd speaks to him through cashews.


fvck I can't stop reading it either.......must be the good news™ keeping me glued

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Dude........gawd speaks to him through cashews.


fvck I can't stop reading it either.......must be the good news™ keeping me glued

It's sort of like a train wreck. You just can't look away.

 

[Silver]

My spoofmeter is twitching. It's so hard to tell these days...

 

[Secret Squirrel]

My spoofmeter is twitching. It's so hard to tell these days...

Spoof-o-meter Overload

 

[Old Man G Funk]

My spoofmeter is twitching. It's so hard to tell these days...

If it's a spoof, it's a damn good one. I first came across this guy on another forum and he didn't give any indication that he wasn't for real then.

 

[SDH Racing]

Because it accomplishes nothing. You will cling to your ignorance regardless of what I say. If we do this out in public, maybe those who are actually open to evidence will understand. Also, Creationists are known for misrepresenting the arguments of others, and if this is done in private, I run the risk of having that done to my words.

Where would you like to start? There is over 150 years of peer-reviewed scientific literature. We can start with the fact that apes and humans share 98-99% of their genome. How about the fact that we also see similarities to other species of mammal in less and less degree as the lines diverge earlier in time? Vestigial organs? The fact that we have seen bacteria mutate and be selected in lab tests? How about the fact that we've seen bacteria gain the novel function of being able to eat nylon, or gaining resistance to antibiotic medicine? Evolutionary algorithms? Etc.

I would not claim that evolution is proved 100%. It is the best scientific explanation we have for the things we see around us. It is a theory that is ever expanding as we gain more knowledge about the world around us.

Incorrect. Science was moving towards evolution before Charles Darwin came on the scene. If Darwin had not come up with evolution, someone else would have.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html


How is god or Creationism observable or testable?

Has god or Creationism ever been observed by anyone? Only if you take the Bible as literally true. If you assume that the Bible is literally true, then base your science around it, you have no room at all to try and remind me what the definition of science is. Science does not start with conclusions and then fit the facts around it. Further, no one has ever observed "gravity." Should we disbelieve in "gravity" because no one has witnessed it? I mean, sure, people have witnessed a tendency for objects to fall to Earth, but I've never witnessed a "gravity" force that pulls on them. I've never witnessed an electron either. Should I disbelieve in electrons?

As to your "5/6 kinds of evolution," let's just talk about biological evolution, OK? First of all, we have many observations from homology studies to the fossil record to lab experiments to evolutionary algorithms. This page on so-called "macroevolution" should get you started. Also, what denotes the boundary between the microevolution that you accept and the macroevolution that you deny? Why is it improper to expand the process of small changes to larger changes coupled with selection pressures and isolation over vast amounts of time? By the same token, why do we say that gravity is what keeps planets in orbit? Is that not a case of expanding microgravity to macrogravity?

Also, I don't know why you insist on things "having to be believed in." I don't "believe" in evolution. It seems you are trying to equate evolution to a belief system so that you can say that it's on par with your belief system. But, it quite simply is not. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been accepted because of the evidence that supports it. You "believe" in god and Creationism despite the lack of evidence that supports you. Therein lies the difference.

Edit: I have been calling your "arguments" lies because you've bragged about taking classes in evolution. So, you should know better than to spew the ignorance that has come out of you. Knowingly giving false information is lying. How does it feel to lie for god? Do you think god appreciates you lying for him? Or is it OK if it is done for god?

Here we go with the name calling again, because according to you i'm "ignorant" right
What risk? you have hardly any risk yet.... because most people follow your belief about the matter.
Over 150 years? Your forgetting that it all started as an IDEA and didnt become part of real science years later. Again I dont deny REAL science at all, just the added evolution part of it, because 300 years ago there was no such idea in Science at all...ever. Evolution itself, is a very new and very inconsistent(frequent changes) man made idea about life. What I mean is the dates and speculations in it are changing always. When I was in grade school they said the earth was "2.3 billion" years old, when in high school it jumped to "4.5billion". Wow thats quite a jump for such short time. Another example is the "big bang" theory that came out around 1964. That "big bang" object started as 10 light years in size and changed about 5 different times before then settling on a final idea that actually NOTHING exploded and poof here we all are. It takes something to make something, you cant make something from nothing.. thats fact.
And yes believed in, evolution is a type of belief system that simply excludes God and the creation explanation. There's nothing scientific about actual "evolution". All we see is elements already existing and in place operating in a survival setting. Where is the Proof that it took such and such about of years for a whale to be a whale or the earth to be formed how it is. All we know is, things are what we already see now with some changes within it, depending what animal it might be.
As far as your gravity argument, what are you talking about? You can observe it anytime you want... go drop something out a window and observe it fall. And about the evolution definitions why do you keep calling them "my teachings"? Their the basic kinds taught everywhere, i'm using them as examples.
No... no one has ever observed macro evolution (changes between animals and plants) nor are their records of it. nope not the "geological column, that also was made not long ago and isnt even used world wide. And it's a 96% similarity between humans and monkeys and within that missing 4% is a Complete separation between the two. "Were sorry to report that after all our testing we have discovered a complete missing link between monkeys and humans". They said it themself, and that no one has ever seen a living thing completely change into another living thing... a dog is a dog and a fish is a fish.
And going back to my dating quotes, the bible dates have Always been the same... from the Tora to the bibles you can find today. On that matter if God says many times that HE is the maker, then tells humans not to lie, what sense would that make. I think it's pretty clear He follows His own commands as He expects humans too. if He said He made, then thats what He did.

Oh one last thing on your "edit" comment. If you want to keep laying claim that all my info is false... fine. But DONT drag God into it like i'm trying to play Him out on it or be sly about it. Yes I took the classes and believed it all at one time.. but dont anymore... thats my renewed faith coming into play, hardley nothing to "brag" about.

 

[Transcend]

Here we go with the name calling again, because according to you i'm "ignorant" right
What risk? you have hardly any risk yet.... because most people follow your belief about the matter.
Over 150 years? Your forgetting that it all started as an IDEA and didnt become part of real science years later. Again I dont deny REAL science at all, just the added evolution part of it, because 300 years ago there was no such idea in Science at all...ever.

Just to start, I didn't read all of that because i got to the part i quoted and cracked up.

So you believe in REAL science, but evolution isn't scientific enough for ya. That's fair.

Only now you claim that creationism is believeable? So people being popped onto the planet by some all knowing deity is more believable than a process that has been proven in smaller forms (by your own admission).

C'mon, listen to yourself man.

 

[Changleen]

*shakes head in disbelief*

Y'all do have schools in the US right?

 

[Tenchiro]

Over 150 years? Your forgetting that it all started as an IDEA and didnt become part of real science years later. Again I dont deny REAL science at all, just the added evolution part of it, because 300 years ago there was no such idea in Science at all...ever. Evolution itself, is a very new and very inconsistent(frequent changes) man made idea about life. What I mean is the dates and speculations in it are changing always. When I was in grade school they said the earth was "2.3 billion" years old, when in high school it jumped to "4.5billion". Wow thats quite a jump for such short time. Another example is the "big bang" theory that came out around 1964. That "big bang" object started as 10 light years in size and changed about 5 different times before then settling on a final idea that actually NOTHING exploded and poof here we all are. It takes something to make something, you cant make something from nothing.. thats fact.

The changes you speak of are just part of how science works, and are it's greatest strength not a weakness. As new evidence comes to light, theories adjust as they take that evidence into consideration.

Religion however never changes no matter the inconsistency or exidence to the contrary. In fact when someone does question it, they are quickly called a heretic or worse.

 

[Silver]

Over 150 years? Your forgetting that it all started as an IDEA and didnt become part of real science years later. Again I dont deny REAL science at all, just the added evolution part of it, because 300 years ago there was no such idea in Science at all...ever.

Surprise, surprise...but you're wrong. Much like Democritus and his idea of the atom, while understandably primitive, was on the right track, you could say the same thing about Anaximander. Epicurus also had some materialistic ideas that can be seen as a primitive form of the idea. Those ideas are more than 2000 years old, by the way.

By the way, since we're tossing out stuff that wasn't around in "Science" 300 years ago, you feel comfortable tossing out the germ theory of disease, artificial flight, electronics, and a bunch of other stuff, right?

 

[BuddhaRoadkill]

The world is flat, always been flat, and always will be flat. I ain't buyin' none of your round earth sciency mumbo jumbo. Whatta 'bout China? You ever think of that? If the earth was round those people would just fall right off! :teacher:

 

[Jesus_Christ]

That "big bang" object started as 10 light years in size and changed about 5 different times before then settling on a final idea that actually NOTHING exploded and poof here we all are. I

Damn son......even I'm open to revision. Eventually that whole kill your kid for dad ritual got old.

You're right though.....that's about as dumb as the whole rib thing. We all know she came from a whiny horse. At least I do.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Here we go with the name calling again, because according to you i'm "ignorant" right
What risk? you have hardly any risk yet.... because most people follow your belief about the matter.

Either you are ignorant or a liar of the worst degree. Your choice.

Over 150 years? Your forgetting that it all started as an IDEA and didnt become part of real science years later.

As Silver pointed out, you are incorrect. Besides, who cares when the hypotheses were formulated and when they became theory? Does it make the theory wrong?

Again I dont deny REAL science at all, just the added evolution part of it, because 300 years ago there was no such idea in Science at all...ever.

1. What is "REAL science?" What does one have to do in order to be doing "REAL science?" Evolution came about the same way that many other tried and true scientific theories have come about, through the scientific method. In that respect, it is no different from gravity, medicinal science, germ theory, plate tectonics, etc.

2. 300 years ago we didn't have a lot of ideas, like quantum mechanics, germ theory, big bang theory, etc. Again, when something is formulated has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on its correctness.

Evolution itself, is a very new and very inconsistent(frequent changes) man made idea about life. What I mean is the dates and speculations in it are changing always.

As Tenchiro said, that is what makes science work, the openness to accepting new data points, new evidence, new information. Without that, we might as well rely on religion for our source of "knowledge." How can you claim to know so much about "REAL science" yet not know this basic fact?

When I was in grade school they said the earth was "2.3 billion" years old, when in high school it jumped to "4.5billion". Wow thats quite a jump for such short time.

Unable to verify what you were taught, when you were taught this, and how up-to-date it was, this could be due to multiple factors, but once again science is open to new data points and varies conclusions based on evidence as it comes in. It is a process.

Further, the age of the Earth is not part of the theory of evolution.

Another example is the "big bang" theory that came out around 1964. That "big bang" object started as 10 light years in size and changed about 5 different times before then settling on a final idea that actually NOTHING exploded and poof here we all are.

The big bang theory is the best theory we have to explain the phenomena of the universe that we have observed, like the expansion of the universe, the lifetimes of stars, the formation of the heavy elements, etc. Also, once again, the changes are due to new and better information/evidence.

It takes something to make something, you cant make something from nothing.. thats fact.

We don't really know that that is fact, but that aside, who is saying that something came from nothing? Are you going to add the big bang to your list of things you are ignorant of? You've already shown a pretty good ignorance of what evolution actually is, don't make it worse on yourself.

And yes believed in, evolution is a type of belief system that simply excludes God and the creation explanation.

This is simply false. Science does not deal with religious questions, like whether god exists or not. Within the evolutionary framework, one is free to believe in god or not. There are many theists that accept evolution, including the likes of Ken Miller who is a professor at Brown University.

If your religion makes physical claims that are testable that can be disproved, then there may be a rift between your religion and science, but that would be due to religion intruding on the realm of the natural world, which would be your religion's fault, not the fault of science.

Further, if you mean to say that evolution is atheistic, and that all who accept evolution are atheists, then you've strayed into the world of conspiracy theories. This particular one would have to include about 99% of the world's biologists, a good percentage of whom are religious. Do I have to explain how silly that is?

There's nothing scientific about actual "evolution".

Is that so? Why? Evolution was formulated through following the scientific method.

All we see is elements already existing and in place operating in a survival setting.

You obviously did not read the links I have included. Some objections to your argument would be found there.

Where is the Proof that it took such and such about of years for a whale to be a whale or the earth to be formed how it is.

Whales.
More whales.
Whales again.
The formation of the Earth is NOT part of the theory of evolution. But, if you are interested in it, we can discuss that too.

All we know is, things are what we already see now with some changes within it, depending what animal it might be.

No, we know quite a bit more than that. The events that occur in the past leave behind evidence that we can collect in the present time. To deny this is to assert that only what you are presently feeling can be validated. If that were the case, however, you would not be able to survive, because you wouldn't know not to walk in front of cars, or touch hot surfaces, etc.

As far as your gravity argument, what are you talking about? You can observe it anytime you want... go drop something out a window and observe it fall.

And you would observe an object fall, not gravity. You can't actually "see" gravity.

And about the evolution definitions why do you keep calling them "my teachings"? Their the basic kinds taught everywhere, i'm using them as examples.

No, they are not, and you show a basic lack of understanding.

No... no one has ever observed macro evolution (changes between animals and plants) nor are their records of it.

You obviously have not read the links I supplied nor what I said.

Here's another one: Macroevolution linky

nope not the "geological column, that also was made not long ago and isnt even used world wide.

Whatever do you mean by that? Are you actually going to try and argue for a Noachian flood?

And it's a 96% similarity between humans and monkeys and within that missing 4% is a Complete separation between the two. "Were sorry to report that after all our testing we have discovered a complete missing link between monkeys and humans".

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB144.html

Who are you quoting?

How do you explain the fact that our chromosomes are identical, except for the fusion of two chromosomes in humans? And, once again, I gave you a link that outlined many hominid fossils that would constitute links between humans and our last common ancestor with apes.

They said it themself, and that no one has ever seen a living thing completely change into another living thing... a dog is a dog and a fish is a fish.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

And going back to my dating quotes, the bible dates have Always been the same... from the Tora to the bibles you can find today.

But, science is not static. If it were, we would never have gained anything from it.

On that matter if God says many times that HE is the maker, then tells humans not to lie, what sense would that make. I think it's pretty clear He follows His own commands as He expects humans too. if He said He made, then thats what He did.

Of course it all comes back to god. The problem with this is that it requires you to make the assumption that god exists, which is an assumption that is not open for science. Science tries to shed all assumptions because the evidence must drive the conclusions, not the other way around.

Further, this is based on YOUR theological interpretations. What makes YOUR theological interpretations better than anyone else's?

Oh one last thing on your "edit" comment. If you want to keep laying claim that all my info is false... fine. But DONT drag God into it like i'm trying to play Him out on it or be sly about it. Yes I took the classes and believed it all at one time.. but dont anymore... thats my renewed faith coming into play, hardley nothing to "brag" about.

Your info is false, and I've been pointing it out. The fact that you claim to know better either makes you a liar for claiming to know better, or it makes you a liar for knowingly giving false information about evolution. As for bringing god into this, you did that yourself, so don't come whining to me when I use something that you brought into play. Your concept of god is one that tells humans not to lie (your own words.) I believe that you are lying for the above reasons. You make the connection.

 

[SDH Racing]

After seeing all the responces here (and not having a whole lot of time to respond to every one of them), i'm gonig to make a few points here. Let me define whats going on here because i'm see debate flux all over here.
What my main point and the general debate is NOT the real science- (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of the natural world)

What THE debate is... is where, why and How it all got here.
Evolution says the universe and world we all know got here by a slow ever changing process. Creation says God made everything and put all the laws (yes even all the scientific ones) into order. Science itself in the proper definition has nothing to do with either of them in that sence. Because your starting with pre exsisting material thats ready to test and investigate on.
As far as the whale inserts, i'll look at them later, but if it has to do with the "link" of the Vestigial pelvis then I already know. That claim is "Vestigial organs like in whales and also the human tail bone prove we evlove from animals with tail" Well theres nine muscles that attached already to the tail bone so it wouldnt be vestigal, and the whale vestigal pelvis severs as an anchor point. They need them to reproduce as well, has nothing to do with evolving into it.
And about my other point... i'm speaking in absolute terms about the kinds of evolution. The six kinds are taught as a general format in all feilds.
So again to difine what I mean. I'm speaking in absolute terms in both beliefs, either big bang and so on made it all.... or that God did it like He said and later on Jesus Christ confirms it. (Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the BEGINNING the Creator 'made them MALE and FEMALE,' [ Gen. 1:27]
So thats the base... you say evlution brought it all here. I say the God did it, and also has a purpose for it all too. Since He can do what He wants with what He made. Just like you decide what goes into a bike when you build it and what doesnt. Your bike.. your rules, His Earth.. His rules.

 

[Changleen]

After seeing all the responces here (and not having a whole lot of time to respond to every one of them), i'm gonig to make a few points here. Let me define whats going on here because i'm see debate flux all over here.
What my main point and the general debate is NOT the real science- (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of the natural world)

What THE debate is... is where, why and How it all got here.
Evolution says the universe and world we all know got here by a slow ever changing process. Creation says God made everything and put all the laws (yes even all the scientific ones) into order. Science itself in the proper definition has nothing to do with either of them in that sence. Because your starting with pre exsisting material thats ready to test and investigate on.
As far as the whale inserts, i'll look at them later, but if it has to do with the "link" of the Vestigial pelvis then I already know. That claim is "Vestigial organs like in whales and also the human tail bone prove we evlove from animals with tail" Well theres nine muscles that attached already to the tail bone so it wouldnt be vestigal, and the whale vestigal pelvis severs as an anchor point. They need them to reproduce as well, has nothing to do with evolving into it.
And about my other point... i'm speaking in absolute terms about the kinds of evolution. The six kinds are taught as a general format in all feilds.
So again to difine what I mean. I'm speaking in absolute terms in both beliefs, either big bang and so on made it all.... or that God did it like He said and later on Jesus Christ confirms it. (Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the BEGINNING the Creator 'made them MALE and FEMALE,' [ Gen. 1:27]
So thats the base... you say evlution brought it all here. I say the God did it, and also has a purpose for it all too. Since He can do what He wants with what He made. Just like you decide what goes into a bike when you build it and what doesnt. Your bike.. your rules, His Earth.. His rules.

<David Bellamy>

Faced with a rational argument, the creature quickly becomes confused and reverts to repeating the percieved absolutes of his primative religion. As more and more exchanges like this occur, the creatures are forced to retreat, and being apparantly unable to properly understand their tormentors, become more and more irrelevant in the eyes of the world.

</David Bellamy>

 

[Transcend]

Yup, so stuff popped up out of nowhere after god had a bong rip and figured it'd be a great idea. Hmm Platypus...sweet dude!

You're nuts dude. Do you believe in scientology too? I mean, his claims are on the exact same level as creationism's. But lemme guess, his ideas are just silly.

 

[maxyedor]

Let me explain this for you guys so we don't end up saying things we'll regret later.

Evolution is a theory, just like gravity, both are comonly held as true, but scientists are sorta self loathing and love to prove themselves wrong, so instead of calling things facts, they call them theory to leave that option open.

There are lots of "missing links" that scientists have dug up over the years, creationists just don't like to be wrong, so they call the "links" a whole ne species and refuse to accept scientific data that says otherwise.

There is no reproducable evidence of creationism that I am aware of.

There is reproducable evidence of evolution.

There is no proof that God exists.

Humans are much taller now than they were 200 years ago, because good nutrient rich food is more plentifull and we have evolved to take full advantage of this bounty.

People in North Korea have evolved as a shorter people so they do not need as much nutrition in order to maintain health.

Crocodiles did the same thing, as food ran out they got smaller to adapt to the new ecosystem.

Salmon, Bull Sharks, and Steelhead Trout, have developed ways to live in both fresh and salt water so that they can spawn in safer areas, and more of their young will survive.

The Bible says that, and I'm paraphrasing here, everything in the Bible is the absolute truth. So if one thing is wrong, the whole thing is a pack of lies, and God doesn't exist. The Bible also says that men should not have long hair, yet most Christians think of Jesus as having long hair, so take that to meen whatever you want.


So now those are some generally accepted true statements. Take them as what you will, but to me they add up to beleiving in evolution.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

After seeing all the responces here (and not having a whole lot of time to respond to every one of them), i'm gonig to make a few points here. Let me define whats going on here because i'm see debate flux all over here.

Take your time.

What is "debate flux"?

What my main point and the general debate is NOT the real science- (The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of the natural world)

You say this, but then you rely on your Bible to tell you what "real science" is, thus negating everything you said in the above sentence.

What THE debate is... is where, why and How it all got here.
Evolution says the universe and world we all know got here by a slow ever changing process.

Evolution says that through different mutational mechanism and selection species changed over time from a common ancestor to create all the variety that we see today. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. If you would like to speak about that, be my guest, but you will have some very difficult facts to explain, like why we can receive light from stars that are billions of light years away.

Creation says God made everything and put all the laws (yes even all the scientific ones) into order.

You mean to say that YOUR theological idea of Creationism says that.

Science itself in the proper definition has nothing to do with either of them in that sence. Because your starting with pre exsisting material thats ready to test and investigate on.

Finally, we can agree on something. Science says nothing about religion. One is free to believe or not believe in any religious idea one wants and still follow science, so long as that religious idea does not make testable claims about the real world that are proven false.

As far as the whale inserts, i'll look at them later, but if it has to do with the "link" of the Vestigial pelvis then I already know. That claim is "Vestigial organs like in whales and also the human tail bone prove we evlove from animals with tail" Well theres nine muscles that attached already to the tail bone so it wouldnt be vestigal, and the whale vestigal pelvis severs as an anchor point. They need them to reproduce as well, has nothing to do with evolving into it.

It is about the evolution of whales and how they went from land creatures back to the sea.

You also don't understand "vestigial". A vestigial organ is not necessarily completely useless, but has degraded functions that are not degraded in other animals. The human tail bone is a great example of that.

And about my other point... i'm speaking in absolute terms about the kinds of evolution. The six kinds are taught as a general format in all feilds.

There is one Theory of Evolution and it deals only with biology. Once again, if you would like to discuss other areas of science, we can do that as well.

So again to difine what I mean. I'm speaking in absolute terms in both beliefs, either big bang and so on made it all.... or that God did it like He said and later on Jesus Christ confirms it. (Matthew 19:4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the BEGINNING the Creator 'made them MALE and FEMALE,' [ Gen. 1:27]

And, that is a false dichotomy. There are many creation myths.

Also, you are equivocating. Evolution is not a "belief" in the same vein as Creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory that one accepts because one accepts the evidence. Creationism is a belief in that it hinges on completely untestable assertions. In order to accept any "evidence" for Creationism, one must make assumptions that are neither testable nor verifiable. I.E. one must have "faith" which is why it is belief.

So thats the base... you say evlution brought it all here. I say the God did it, and also has a purpose for it all too. Since He can do what He wants with what He made. Just like you decide what goes into a bike when you build it and what doesnt. Your bike.. your rules, His Earth.. His rules.

Believe what you want, but don't lie about what evolution says or is. Be ignorant all you want, but don't try to force others to be just as ignorant.

What I find interesting is also that you insist that it's either god or evolution. So, how do you reconcile that with those who are theists yet also accept evolution? Yes, there are those that accept what science has learned and still find space in their lives to believe in god. How do you explain that?

 

[SDH Racing]

Take your time.

What is "debate flux"?

You say this, but then you rely on your Bible to tell you what "real science" is, thus negating everything you said in the above sentence.

Evolution says that through different mutational mechanism and selection species changed over time from a common ancestor to create all the variety that we see today. The Theory of Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the universe. If you would like to speak about that, be my guest, but you will have some very difficult facts to explain, like why we can receive light from stars that are billions of light years away.

You mean to say that YOUR theological idea of Creationism says that.

Finally, we can agree on something. Science says nothing about religion. One is free to believe or not believe in any religious idea one wants and still follow science, so long as that religious idea does not make testable claims about the real world that are proven false.

It is about the evolution of whales and how they went from land creatures back to the sea.

You also don't understand "vestigial". A vestigial organ is not necessarily completely useless, but has degraded functions that are not degraded in other animals. The human tail bone is a great example of that.

There is one Theory of Evolution and it deals only with biology. Once again, if you would like to discuss other areas of science, we can do that as well.

And, that is a false dichotomy. There are many creation myths.

Also, you are equivocating. Evolution is not a "belief" in the same vein as Creationism. Evolution is a scientific theory that one accepts because one accepts the evidence. Creationism is a belief in that it hinges on completely untestable assertions. In order to accept any "evidence" for Creationism, one must make assumptions that are neither testable nor verifiable. I.E. one must have "faith" which is why it is belief.

Believe what you want, but don't lie about what evolution says or is. Be ignorant all you want, but don't try to force others to be just as ignorant.

What I find interesting is also that you insist that it's either god or evolution. So, how do you reconcile that with those who are theists yet also accept evolution? Yes, there are those that accept what science has learned and still find space in their lives to believe in god. How do you explain that?

Fluxaction within the debate. And yes there's LOTS of science and math in the bible, it's a matter of seeing and reconizing it, it's all there. Just read the end of Job where God describes in detail how he laid out all the foundation work for this world and then some.
Right, a common ancestor... of that certain animal. Horses always make horses, dogs always make dogs. Yes there's changes within those kinds. But it's still the same KIND of animal. Same "vein as creationism" come on Evolution IS a belief because it CANT be absoultly proven since most of it has never been seen or tested. No one has Ever seen 1)the big bang, 2)chemical evo, 3) plantary/star evo, 4)organic evo, or 5)macro evo. Only "micro evo" (changes within the same kinds of animals) has been seen and can be called Science under the definition of it. And finding bones in the dirt of a pre exsisting animals is not evidence for it, all they know is it died. Layers meaning millinos of years? ... They find medium and small size petrified trees upside down going though "millions of years" worth of rock. The layers dont mean as long a time as people try to say they do. The only thing thats proven is that most of it is made up and widley changed because of the acceptence of it, as belief grows colder to some. Example in order of specified dates.. Lucy, Heidelberg man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, Peking man, Neanderthal man, New Guinea man, and Cro-magnon man are ALL made up. Not one of them except for Lucy, the 3 foot tall chimp is actually real but their still taught. The "big bang" theroy... 1964 and downsized many times before settling on "nothing exploded". "Human embryos have gill slits proving man evolved from fish millions of years ago"... actually their drawings Earnst Haeckel made up in 1869 and proven wrong in 1874(they grow into the bones in the ear) but still taught in some places.

Now for some limiting factors for proof of creation (year wise).
Every 25 ot 30 yrs a nova or supa nova happens. In the history of searching space the Hubble telescope has only found a total of less then 300 of them. so if it's "billions of years old", why arent there billions of nova rings found? The current findings of less then 300 year wise, equal out to less then 10,000 yrs max. Or the moon (which causes the tides) moves aways from the earth at around 3 to 4 inches a year. So going back in time to make in closer anything more then even a million years and your going to have a very serious gravitational and tide problem.
Yes I speak in absolute terms. Also in part because there is NO evolution in the bible. God formed everything in 6 days (herbrew origional word for day "molly" means a 24 hour period) 4400 yrs ago the flood which wiped out all the rest of the humans and animals on earth covering them up in layers. 2000 yrs ago Jesus Christ/Church and present day waiting for His return. Thats absolute creation. There is NO middle ground here, they both oppose each other to the T. If people want to beleive that God had to use our modern ideas of evolution to bring things about then fine. But thats not how He did it, besides why use a slow dying off process when you can do it all at once. He could have made it all in 6 seconds if He wanted too.
Take care

Chris

 

[Westy]

Let me explain this for you guys so we don't end up saying things we'll regret later.

Evolution is a theory, just like gravity, both are comonly held as true, but scientists are sorta self loathing and love to prove themselves wrong, so instead of calling things facts, they call them theory to leave that option open.

There are lots of "missing links" that scientists have dug up over the years, creationists just don't like to be wrong, so they call the "links" a whole ne species and refuse to accept scientific data that says otherwise.

There is no reproducable evidence of creationism that I am aware of.

There is reproducable evidence of evolution.

There is no proof that God exists.

Humans are much taller now than they were 200 years ago, because good nutrient rich food is more plentifull and we have evolved to take full advantage of this bounty.

People in North Korea have evolved as a shorter people so they do not need as much nutrition in order to maintain health.

Crocodiles did the same thing, as food ran out they got smaller to adapt to the new ecosystem.

Salmon, Bull Sharks, and Steelhead Trout, have developed ways to live in both fresh and salt water so that they can spawn in safer areas, and more of their young will survive.

The Bible says that, and I'm paraphrasing here, everything in the Bible is the absolute truth. So if one thing is wrong, the whole thing is a pack of lies, and God doesn't exist. The Bible also says that men should not have long hair, yet most Christians think of Jesus as having long hair, so take that to meen whatever you want.


So now those are some generally accepted true statements. Take them as what you will, but to me they add up to beleiving in evolution.

Well said. Religeon is faith, you beleive in something because you believe in it, not because you have proof. There is really nothing wrong with that but to try to explain as science is stupid, just as having complete faith in current scienctific theory is stupid. It is like like comparing apples to yeast infections, a waste of everyones time.

 

[skinny mike]

i remember seeing a book on creationism trying to disprove evolution by saying how putting a stick into a vcr won't make it work better. the best part, was that there was a picture demostrating it.

 

[Changleen]

4400 yrs ago the flood which wiped out all the rest of the humans and animals on earth covering them up in layers.

Could you point to some evidence for your flood? A flood which enveloped the entire planet would clearly leave some pretty obvious traces. Oh and, where did enough water to deluge the entire planet come from? And where did it go?

 

[skinny mike]

Could you point to some evidence for your flood? A flood which enveloped the entire planet would clearly leave some pretty obvious traces. Oh and, where did enough water to deluge the entire planet come from? And where did it go?

the ice caps obviously.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Fluxaction within the debate.

What is "fluxaction" and why are you pointing it out? What does it have to do with anything?

And yes there's LOTS of science and math in the bible, it's a matter of seeing and reconizing it, it's all there. Just read the end of Job where God describes in detail how he laid out all the foundation work for this world and then some.

And, it's pretty much all shoehorned in after the fact, once scientists have made the discoveries. Tell me, where is quantum theory in the Bible? Should we disregard that as you seem willing to do with evolution?

Right, a common ancestor... of that certain animal. Horses always make horses, dogs always make dogs. Yes there's changes within those kinds. But it's still the same KIND of animal.

What is a "kind"? To my knowledge, not a single Creationist has ever really been able to define a "kind". Also, were you aware that sometimes whales are born with little feet?

Same "vein as creationism" come on Evolution IS a belief because it CANT be absoultly proven since most of it has never been seen or tested.

Nothing in science can be "absoultly proven". If you are looking for absolute proof, then you don't understand science. Further, I find this line of reasoning to be inane. If you mean to equate science to a belief system and then have it compete with your belief system equally, then we should go ahead and let them compete on equal terms? Which "belief" system has cured diseases, given us technology, created the computer that you use to write your drivel, etc.? See the problem? Science works by the scientific method, which is a process involving both testing and verification. Your belief structure does not have that. That is why they are fundamentally different. If 2 scientists have a disagreement, they can go into the lab and figure out who is right. What happens when 2 theologians have a disagreement? It pretty much always ends in schism, with no way to resolve the argument.

No one has Ever seen 1)the big bang, 2)chemical evo, 3) plantary/star evo, 4)organic evo, or 5)macro evo.

No one has seen god either. I guess you have to throw your belief in god out the window now, don't you?

The fact is that no one has seen the big bang, but it left behind evidence and we can put that evidence together to piece together what happened. I'm not sure what "chemical evo" is, but if you are referring to abiogenesis, then that is an area that we currently don't know a lot about. We know that life arose somehow, however, and that evolution took over from there. We have been watching the skies for a long time and have seen stars born and die, and it's not a big leap to conclude how planets come about. What is "organic evo" and how is that supposedly different from biological evolution? Macro evo has already been dealt with by quite a few links I've given you; it's nice to know that you don't even look at the pages that I dig up for your edification.

I do have to ask, how do you think forensics works? When a forensic scientist comes to a crime scene, he hasn't seen what happened, but can piece together what happened by examining evidence in the room. By your standard, forensics is a bunch of hooey. I suppose we should let out quite a few criminals who have been unfairly prosecuted over bogus science?

Only "micro evo" (changes within the same kinds of animals) has been seen and can be called Science under the definition of it.

Factually incorrect and it shows a depressing ignorance of what science is. You really have no clue what you are talking about. Science is the process of gaining knowledge about the natural world around us through a specific process. Simply put, that process, called the Scientific Method, is a method of observation, hypothesis, testing, re-testing, verification, and so on. Evolution has been tested and re-tested for over 150 years now and has been verified.

And finding bones in the dirt of a pre exsisting animals is not evidence for it, all they know is it died.

It is evidence for evolution, but not the only evidence. Many fields provide independent evidence for evolution, and they all happen to point to the same conclusions. Imagine that.

Layers meaning millinos of years? ... They find medium and small size petrified trees upside down going though "millions of years" worth of rock. The layers dont mean as long a time as people try to say they do.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD101.html

Who is "they" and please provide evidence that "they" are finding trees that are 'upside down going though "millions of years" worth of rock'.

Also, layers are dated through radioactive dating methods, which are very accurate.

The only thing thats proven is that most of it is made up and widley changed because of the acceptence of it, as belief grows colder to some.

Yet, you cling to specific examples and misrepresent.

Example in order of specified dates.. Lucy,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC080.html

Heidelberg man,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mauer.html

What's the problem with Heidelberg man?

Nebraska man,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

Nebraska man was a mistake, and it was evolutionary scientists and paleontologists who figured out what the bone really was. It wasn't Creationists, but scientists. That kinda makes your claim that scientists are making things up hard to believe, because they were honest about that. Further, the scientist who found the bone never definitively declared that it was a hominid fossil (he thought it might be,) but the press sure did, which helped lead to the confusion.

Piltdown man,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html

Piltdown man was a hoax that was never fully accepted in the scientific community, and yet again it was evolutionary scientists and paleotologists that exposed it.

Peking man,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC061.html

Neanderthal man,

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html

New Guinea man,

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bigdaddy.html

New Guinea man has never been reported to be a transitional fossil. Once again you don't have your facts straight.

Cro-magnon man are ALL made up.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html

Again, I wonder what your problem is with Cro-magnon man.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
Whatever do you mean by "ALL made up?" They do exist, with the exception of Piltdown which is a known hoax and Nebraska which was a mistake, both of which were cleared up by scientists performing science.

Not one of them except for Lucy, the 3 foot tall chimp is actually real but their still taught.

What about all the other thousands of hominid fossils? I see you completely ignore all of those. So, not only are you misrepresenting the fossils you do acknowledge, but you are misrepresenting the number of fossils.

The "big bang" theroy... 1964 and downsized many times before settling on "nothing exploded".

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html

Are you upset that science changes as new information is found? If so, it once again shows how truly ignorant you are about science.

"Human embryos have gill slits proving man evolved from fish millions of years ago"... actually their drawings Earnst Haeckel made up in 1869 and proven wrong in 1874(they grow into the bones in the ear) but still taught in some places.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Now for some limiting factors for proof of creation (year wise).
Every 25 ot 30 yrs a nova or supa nova happens. In the history of searching space the Hubble telescope has only found a total of less then 300 of them. so if it's "billions of years old", why arent there billions of nova rings found? The current findings of less then 300 year wise, equal out to less then 10,000 yrs max.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html

Or the moon (which causes the tides) moves aways from the earth at around 3 to 4 inches a year. So going back in time to make in closer anything more then even a million years and your going to have a very serious gravitational and tide problem.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

Any other "evidence" for a young Earth that I can blow out of the water?

Yes I speak in absolute terms. Also in part because there is NO evolution in the bible.

There's also no electricity, no gravity, no quantum theory, no relativity, etc. Are we to assume that those things are wrong as well?

God formed everything in 6 days (herbrew origional word for day "molly" means a 24 hour period)

According to a book that was not written based on observations. Besides, how do you know that authors weren't taking creative license to make a good story? Why is the Bible more authoritative than any other scripture, or any other book for that matter? There are many religions out there and many creation myths; how can you be sure your creation myth is the correct one?

Also, see here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH100.html

4400 yrs ago the flood which wiped out all the rest of the humans and animals on earth covering them up in layers.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH550.html

Also, if the flood wiped out all of humanity except for 8 people, then we have a serious problem. How do you explain the genetic diversity amongst people that has developed in 4400 years from the genetic pool of 8 people?

2000 yrs ago Jesus Christ/Church and present day waiting for His return.

There are no references to Jesus during the time of his life. He may be fictional. But, this has nothing to do with evolution.

Thats absolute creation.

That's your theological opinion at least.

There is NO middle ground here, they both oppose each other to the T.

Once again, that is your theological opinion. There are many who do not share that opinion. What makes your theological opinion right? What makes you more authoritative on matters theological than anyone else?

Also, your theological opinions contradict many other fields of science, not just evolution. You should rail against physics, geology, plate tectonics, astronomy, cosmology, medicine, forensics, etc. as well. Why do you only attack evolution? (I should clarify, because you are really attacking the other fields, but you only name evolution.)

If people want to beleive that God had to use our modern ideas of evolution to bring things about then fine.

So, what's your problem then?

But thats not how He did it,

Again, that is your theological opinion. It goes against all the observations we have made over the last 150+ years or so, but hey, you disregard verified evidence if you want. Just don't act like you are correct in doing so.

besides why use a slow dying off process when you can do it all at once.

God works in mysterious ways?

He could have made it all in 6 seconds if He wanted too.

But, the evidence says he didn't.

For future comments, I would suggest you actually go into some more detail about what your specific complaints are. Just listing fossil specimens is not an efficient or particularly good way to debate.

 

[binary visions]

You like banging your head against a wall, don't you, OMGF?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

You like banging your head against a wall, don't you, OMGF?

I see it as a community service. I'm doing it for the lurkers and the undecideds.

 

[binary visions]

I see it as a community service. I'm doing it for the lurkers and the undecideds.

I'm actually curious as to how many people are genuinely undecided about this issue?

I guess I'd always figured the people who were creationists had made a mental commitment to be creationists and there wasn't much wavering about it. I may well be wrong, it's just what I have always seen.

I have an ex who was a creationist, as was her family and a lot of her friends... and I'm not sure I've ever met someone who didn't know what side of the line they were on.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'm actually curious as to how many people are genuinely undecided about this issue?

I guess I'd always figured the people who were creationists had made a mental commitment to be creationists and there wasn't much wavering about it. I may well be wrong, it's just what I have always seen.

I have an ex who was a creationist, as was her family and a lot of her friends... and I'm not sure I've ever met someone who didn't know what side of the line they were on.

In any poll there are always people who are "undecided."

I see what you are saying, but I have heard people (like at Panda's Thumb) say that they changed their minds, or that they made their decision which "side" to be on by reading the debates between people on both sides. I don't know how common it is (it's probably not very common at all) but it does happen. I think it might be more possible among the younger crowd that have been raised with one version or another and are now in that phase where they are questioning things.

Either way, it is fun sometimes to point out the lies of people who claim to be so righteous.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

In any poll there are always people who are "undecided."

I see what you are saying, but I have heard people (like at Panda's Thumb) say that they changed their minds, or that they made their decision which "side" to be on by reading the debates between people on both sides. I don't know how common it is (it's probably not very common at all) but it does happen. I think it might be more possible among the younger crowd that have been raised with one version or another and are now in that phase where they are questioning things.

Either way, it is fun sometimes to point out the lies of people who claim to be so righteous.

I know I enjoy it...It's fun to watch too!!

 

[urbaindk]

So thermodynamically speaking, could entropy be the supreme being or would free energy be a more suiting allegory?

 

[Secret Squirrel]

So thermodynamically speaking, could entropy be the supreme being or would free energy be a more suiting allegory?

Now that's just crazy talk.....sheesh...talking about a free supreme energy being....



Heh...you said allegory...heh....

 

[urbaindk]

Anybody ever read this?

Paul Davies "The fifth miricle"

He seems like a pretty interesting guy. I have an old paper of his called "Life force" I think he is one of a few that proportes that life is based more on informatatics (based on quantum mechanical theory) than biology, chemistry or physics. I might have to hunt for the book.


"Paul Davies is theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist, author and broadcaster. He currently holds the position of Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University. His previous academic appointments were at the Universities of Cambridge, London, Newcastle upon Tyne and Adelaide. His research has ranged from the origin of the universe to the origin of life, and includes the properties of black holes, the nature of time and quantum field theory. Davies is well known as the winner of the 1995 Templeton Prize - the world's largest annual prize - for his work on science and religion."

 

[Changleen]

Yeah keep it up OMGF, it's fun to watch.

 

[Changleen]

 

[kidwoo]

I can't tell.......is that god's left hand or his right hand?

Or his liberty spikes?

Damn. Religion is confusing.

 

[Silver]

I can't tell.......is that god's left hand or his right hand?

Or his liberty spikes?

Damn. Religion is confusing.

It's his penis. You can tell, because he appears circumcised.

He should get that wicked hook on the end looked at...I'm guessing that the bride of Christ must walk terribly funny.