EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM

Lawdog · Jul 2, 2001

Originally posted by xvenomousx
c'mon lets slug it out.
please only good arguements and debate, no hitting below the belt, try to be factual and clear and not overly emotional.

Fossils?
Evidence for the Flood and other catastrophies
Age fo the universe?
Could be anywhere from 6000BC-60,000BC
Geological evidence to the age of the planet?
Totally based on radioactive dating, an imprecise science.
Why create a universe to appear as if its 12 billion years old?
It does not appear to be 12 billion years old. You have merely convinced yourself that it is in order to PROP UP evolutionary theory, which is not a TRUE scientific theory.
Why create all of life on earth to appear to be part of a large evolutionary genetic family tree?
PROOF of a single designer
Why, if the universe was created do we have entropy and change?
God also created the laws of the cosmos
Why does all life on earth share alot of the the same basic chemical structure?
MORE Proof of a single designer
Explain Junk DNA? NOTHING God creates is JUNK
Blood types? GOD LOVES VARIETY
Genetic abnormalities? (don't try the work of god answer, that doesn't stand up, as we can SEE what goes wrong in the DNA)
GOD"S MYSTERIOUS WILL, TEST OF FAITH
Aren't we surposed to be perfect? YOU BETTER GET STARTED
Does the universe NEED a god to exist? GOD SUPPORTS AND SUSTAINS ALL REALITY.

Why is science always so right? I mean, my cathode ray TV works.. my processor crashes if I overclock it... I throw a ball and it curves in a arc.. the scientific laws of the universe do seem to be true?
YOU ARE BUYING INTO THE FALSE DICHOTOMY OF SCIENCE VS RELIGION>
SCIENCE IS RIGHT BECAUSE ITS CORRECT. CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS RIGHT BECAUSE ITS CORRECT. BOTH ARE PRODUCTIVE OF GOOD THINGS FOR MAN: CHRISTIANITY TEACHES MAN MORAL TRUTH AND LEADS TO HAPPINESS AND STABILITY OF FAMILY, AND THE GOAL OF HUMAN LIFE: UNION WITH GOD. SCIENCE TEACHES MAN PRACTICAL TRUTHS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL WORLD WHOSE BEAUTY AND COMPLEXITY ILLUSTRATE THE EXISTANCE OF GOD.

BOTH ARE INVOLVED IN HUMAN AFFAIRS, THUS BOTH MAY BE WRONGLY USED BY FALLEN HUMANITY. PROOF ITSELF OF THE FALL IS INQUISITIONS AND THE A BOMB.

RELIGION GOES WRONG WHEN DIVORCED FROM RIGHT REASON AND OBEDIENCE TO RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY

SCIENCE GOES WRONG WHEN DIVORCED FROM LEGITIMATE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY'S ADVICE AND WARNINGS.

TO SAY THAT RELIGION IS A PERSONAL CHOICE IS TO ABUSE THE FREEDOM OF THE HUMAN SOUL. ALL CARS LOOK DIFFERENT IN SOME WAYS AND ARE DOING DIFFERENT THINGS, YET THEY ALL REQUIRE GOOD MAINTANENCE. THE SAME IS TRUE WITH HUMAN SOULS. TAKING YOUR SOUL TO BE REPAIRED BY OTHER PHILOSOPHIES AND RELIGIONS IS LIKE TAKING YOUR CAR TO FAKE OR POORLY TRAINED MAINTANENCE MEN.

TO SAY THAT SCIENCE HAS THE FREEDOM TO DO ANYTHING IS TO BE GRAVELY MISTAKEN AND PROMOTE SUCH IDEAS AS VIVISECTION AND HITLERIAN EXPERIMENTS, ABORTION, AnD MANY OTHER HORRORS.

Caleb · Jul 2, 2001

Obviously, not being a research scientist, without free access to data and equipment needed in research, I can not personally demonstrate these things, however, the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research can.

they are located at www.icr.org

Here is an article from their site dealing with the rapid erosion at Mount Saint Helens:

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r04.htm

it mentions, for instance:

Badlands-type topography containing gullies up to 50 feet deep, that evolutionists would require to form in centuries formed in just five days, and without water erosion.

A one-hundred foot canyon (which is what I was thinking of) that eroded in under four years (and the bulk of it probably erroded within a few days). It is mature, and would appear (by evolutionary standards) to have taken long ages of time to have formed.

The fact that similar mass-erosion events have been located elsewhere, such as Alaska and Louisiana.

You may have only heard of Mt. St. Helens recently, but creationists have been using it as an example of rapid erosion since the 80's. It seems that, like with the Evolutionists as well, there is a time lag between new theories, and their arrival to the public. This isn't a problem so much for evolutionists, since they have the mass media on their side, nevertheless, it does occur in pulling back theories. For instance, how many know that the recently dicovered "transition form" between dinosaurs and birds from Asia was later shown to be a hoax. I remember seeing Peter Jennings (or maybe it was another anchor) getting up and apologizing for National Geographic, and stating that the fossil had been a hoax. The whole story took about 30 seconds. Or, for instance, the evidence that many evolutionists don't accept Lucy as being our ancestor, since an older, "more human" ancestor was found. Or, for example, my error in the fact that the Paluxi site is no longer accepted by the ICR scientists as being conclusive data. There seems to be a definite lag between theory and public knowledge.

Why did the Grand canyon erode only where it is, (and same thing for other canyons, too?) Because most of this erosion occured later, after the Flood proper was over, and while the waters were receeding from the newly-raised mountain ranges and filling the newly-depressed sea basins (and being precipitated in the newly formed ice sheets that created the "ice age"). The common belief is that a temporary lava or rock dam of some sort burst and flooded out the region, which was still relatively soft. You can read a technical article on the process here:

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r02.htm

Apparently, even evolutionists feel that lava dam formation and later breaking was involved in the erosion of the Grand Canyon. But they differ on the time scale. Consequently, this article seems to include a nice discussion of radiometric dating. Another article dealing with this topic in regards to Mt. St. Helens can be found at:

http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm

Using radiometric dating methods, newly formed lava flows at Mt. St. Helens date to around 350,000 years old!!!

LOL! And we are supposed to believe these claims??? If the method fails when it can be experimentally verified, how can we trust it when it cannot be verified.

~Caleb

Caleb · Jul 3, 2001

Don't take my word for it...

Read the responses of some of the evolutionists to their own theory.

<DIV></DIV>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<H1 align=center>IMPACT No. 136</H1>

<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<H3 align=center>EVOLUTION: THE CHANGING SCENE</H3>
By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA
92021 Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469
"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" October 1984 Copyright ©
1984 All Rights Reserved

<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

Prof. Derek Ager of
the University at Swansea, Wales, in Proc. Geol. Assoc. Vol. 87, p. 132
(1976) has stated
<BLOCKQUOTE>"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I
learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's
Raphrentis delanouei, have now been 'debunked.' Similarly, my own
experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among
the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive."</BLOCKQUOTE>
This admission by
Prof. Ager (no friend of creationists) fits in very well with the title of this
article—a significant part of the changing scene in evolutionary circles is the
changing attitude of evolutionists concerning the fossil record—more and more
are now admitting that the missing links are still missing, that they have
little or no evidence for gradual change in the fossil record.
In his article in
Natural History 86:22 (1977) entitled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters,"
Stephen J. Gould, leading spokesman for evolutionists in the U.S. today, said
that
<BLOCKQUOTE>"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support
for gradual change…. "</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are
characteristically abrupt."</BLOCKQUOTE>
From an article
published in Paleobiology, Vol. 3 (1977) by S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge we
find the following on p. 147:
<BLOCKQUOTE>"At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic
morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it
remains the 'official' position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth
intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in
thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil
record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)." In his review of
Steven Stanley's book Macroevolution by D.S. Woodruff (Science 208:716
(1980)), Woodruff says (I believe he is quoting Stanley):</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their
history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant
transition."</BLOCKQUOTE>
The clatter has
become so loud that even the popular press has picked it up. Newsweek in
an article entitled "Is Man a Subtle Accident?" published Nov. 3, 1980,
stated
<BLOCKQUOTE>"The missing link between man and the apes, whose absence has
comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin, is merely the
most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures .... The more
scientists have searched for the transitional forms that lie between species,
the more they have been frustrated."</BLOCKQUOTE>
Some evolutionists
have come to realize that the fossil record is so bad relative to evolution
theory that they want to avoid it entirely as support for evolution. Mark
Ridley, a British evolutionist, tells us in his article published in New
Scientist 90:832 (1981) that
<BLOCKQUOTE>"No real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses
the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed
to special creation."</BLOCKQUOTE>
One might
immediately wonder, then, where does Ridley believe we find all the marvelous
evidence for the "fact of evolution?" Why, from the "observed evolution of
species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy,"
Ridley tells us. He apparently disagrees with his fellow evolutionist and the
most distinguished of all French zoologists, Pierre Grasse', who states in his
book Evolution of Living Organisms (English translation, Academic Press,
New York, 1977, p. 4)
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is
revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore,
a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of
evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of
present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for
paleontological documents."</BLOCKQUOTE>
What Grasse' says
in his book is that biology offers us no help in our attempt to understand the
mechanism of evolution. He says that evolution is a mystery about which little
is, and perhaps can be, known. He says certainly mutations and natural selection
cannot possibly provide that mechanism.
Many others in more
recent times, in view of the growing knowledge that the fossil record produces
no evidence for gradual change and that the gaps in the fossil record,
particularly at the level of the higher categories, are systematic and almost
always large, are now abandoning the neo-Darwinian theory of slow gradual
change. Gould has said that as a general principle, neo-Darwinism is dead,
although it is still textbook orthodoxy.
In his comments on
a new mechanism for evolution postulated by Edward Wiley and Daniel Brooks,
Roger Lewin (Science 217:1239-1240, 1982) says
<BLOCKQUOTE>"Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism, is allowed
for in Brooks and Wiley's theory, but only as a minor influence. 'It can
affect survivorship' says Brooks. 'It can weed out some of the complexity and
so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. It may have a
stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative
force as many people have suggested."' </BLOCKQUOTE>
Let me point out
first of all that all of this sounds familiar—it is the source that is
astounding. The view just stated is precisely what has been said by creationists
ever since Edward Blyth in 1830. Natural selection is a stabilizing force. It is
not a creative force, the driving mechanism of evolution, which has been
responsible for the conversion of one organism into another, all the way from
amoeba to man. But now, notice who is saying this—evolutionists!
Even more, they are
saying that natural selection is not only not the mechanism for evolution, it
actually retards the evolutionary process. They say. that natural selection
slows down the information decay that results in speciation. That statement is
absolutely astounding on two points.
First of all, their
admission that natural selection not only is not the mechanism of evolution but
actually acts contrary to evolution is most revealing. Secondly, that
speciation, and thus evolution, occurs by the decay of information. Now that is
really startling! We creationists have long pressed the point that the random
processes supposedly at work in evolution cannot possibly account for the origin
of new information required for increase in complexity and the generation of new
functions and organs required by evolution. Evolutionists have, on the contrary,
insisted that this was possible.
Now Wiley and
Brooks are claiming that all of us were wrong, both creationists and
evolutionists. Evolution, from the primordial single-celled organisms to the
millions of present-day organisms, including man with his 30 trillion cells of
over 200 varieties, including a three-pound human brain with twelve billion
brain cells and 120 trillion connections, is the result of the decay of
information!
Whatever anyone
might think of that theory, certainly we can all recognize that they are
rejecting Darwinism. As I have said earlier, many others are doing the same.
Science Digest (Sept.-Oct. 1980, p. 55) had an article entitled "Was
Darwin Wrong.?" The British Broadcasting Company produced a television program a
year or two ago entitled "Did Darwin Get It Wrong?" Stephen J. Gould, Niles
Eldredge, Steven Stanley and others have abandoned neo-Darwinism for what they
call "punctuated equilibrium." They suggest that what we see in the fossil
record is that species abruptly appear, fully-formed. They remain virtually
unchanged for the duration of their existence, up to ten million years or even
more, and they then abruptly disappear and are replaced by other species that
also abruptly appear fully formed with no evidence of transitional
forms.
They suggest that
the evolutionary transitions occur somewhere out in an isolated area on the
periphery of the main population and that the transitions occur very rapidly in
small populations. The change is so rapid and the numbers are so small, we are
told, that there are no opportunities for fossilization of the transitional
forms.
Let me point out,
first of all, that this notion of punctuated equilibrium is no mechanism at all.
It is simply a new scenario. They are saying that since we don't find
transitional forms, evolution could not have occurred slowly and gradually, so
obviously, then, it must have occurred rapidly. How and why evolution occurs so
rapidly, no one knows. As a matter of fact, the idea that multiplied millions of
rapid bursts of evolution have occurred is contrary to the science of modern
genetics. The genetic apparatus of a lizard, for example, is totally devoted to
producing another lizard. The idea that by some random evolutionary process the
genetic apparatus of a lizard could be rapidly reorganized to produce something
really significantly different is clearly contrary to everything we know.
Evolutionists simply have no mechanism for evolution.
Secondly, the
notion of punctuated equilibrium doesn't solve the really serious problem
evolutionists have with the fossil record. In fact, it doesn't even address that
problem. The idea of punctuated equilibrium was invented to explain the lack of
transitional forms between species. But that is not the real problem. The really
serious problem is the absence of transitional forms between the higher
categories, that is, between families, orders, classes and phyla. The total
absence, for example, of transitional forms between invertebrates and the
fishes, a vast gulf supposedly spanning 100 million years. We have no
transitional forms between basic morphological designs, or what creationists
call the created kinds.
Evolutionists find
themselves in a most embarrassing position today. They can find neither the
transitional forms in the fossil record that their theory demands nor can they
find a mechanism to explain how the evolutionary process supposedly occurred. I
am reminded of what Owl said in the Pogo comic strip. He said, "If we had some
ham, we could have ham and eggs for breakfast—if we had some eggs!"
Certainly we are
witnessing a changing scene in evolutionary circles today. They are finally
admitting that the fossil record shows little or no evidence for gradual change
(which is precisely what we must predict on the basis of creation). Many are now
rejecting Darwinism and are suggesting radical new theories concerning the
evolutionary process. But, almost all chorus in unison—evolution is a
fact!
Isn't that amazing!
One hundred and twenty-years after Darwin the missing links are still missing,
and that wonderful, marvelous Darwinian mechanism that was responsible for
swinging the majority of scientists over to evolution is now becoming rapidly
discredited. Yet, somehow, we are told, everyone knows that evolution is a fact!
Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,
said in a talk he gave at the American Museum of Natural History, November 5,
1981, that he now realizes that in accepting evolution he had moved from science
into faith. In a recent BBC program Dr. Patterson stated that all we really have
of the evolutionary phylogenetic tree are the tips of the branches. All else—the
filling in of the trunk and of the branches—is simply story telling of one kind
or another.

<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<DIV></DIV>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<H1 align=center>IMPACT No. 194</H1>

 
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

<H3 align=center>EVOLUTION—A HOUSE DIVIDED</H3>
by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
Institute for Creation Research, PO Box 2667, El Cajon, CA
92021 Voice: (619) 448-0900 FAX: (619) 448-3469
"Vital Articles on Science/Creation" August 1989 Copyright ©
1989 All Rights Reserved
 
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

"If a house be
divided against itself, that house cannot stand" (Mark 3:25). Evolutionists
ardently defend their house against outsiders, but squabble vigorously with each
other inside the house. In this article we present a collage of recent quotes
from evolutionists attacking different aspects of their own basic theory. Lest
we be accused of out-of-context quoting, we emphasize that each person quoted is
a committed evolutionist, even though his remarks may make him sound like a
creationist.
COSMIC EVOLUTION
The standard
evolutionary concept for the origin of the universe is the Big Bang theory, but
many eminent astronomers flatly reject it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
Both the 'Big
Bang' model and the theoretical side of elementary particle physics rely on
numerous highly speculative assumptions.1 But if there was no Big
Bang, how and when did the universe begin? ... (Hannes) Alfven replies: "It is
only a myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being....
2</BLOCKQUOTE>
One argument for
the Big Bang is the "red shift," but Halton Arp and other leading astronomers
say "no."
<BLOCKQUOTE>
(Arp) maintains
that quasars, for example, whose large red shifts suggest they are the most
distant objects in the universe, are actually no more distant than
galaxies….3</BLOCKQUOTE>
EVOLUTION OF LIFE FROM NON-LIFE
It is commonly
asserted that life evolved from non-living chemicals by purely naturalistic
processes. However, a leading scientist in this field says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
At present all
discussions on principle theories and experiments in the field either end in
stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.... The problem is that the
principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have
not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under
which these processes occurred are not
known.4</BLOCKQUOTE>
EVOLUTION OF SPECIES
The standard
Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories of evolution argue that new species are
developed by natural selection of random variations to fit changing
environments. Many evolutionists today, however, are rejecting Darwinism, even
though they still cling to evolution. One such scientist is Kenneth
Hsu.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
The law of
natural selection is not, I will maintain, science. It is an ideology, and a
wicked one, and it has as much interfered with our ability to perceive the
history of life with clarity as it has interfered with our ability to see one
another with tolerance.... The law of the survival of the fittest may be,
therefore, a tautology in which fitness is defined by the fact of survival,
not by independent criteria that would form the basis for
prediction.5</BLOCKQUOTE>
EVOLUTION OF HUMAN LIFE
Much ado has been
made about the Laetoli fossil footprints in Tanzania, dated at 3.5 million years
ago, supposedly proving that the australopithecine ancestors of man walked
erect.
<BLOCKQUOTE>
But the first
detailed study of the gaits and footprints of modern people who walk
barefooted indicated the Laetoli prints are much like those of Homo sapiens
and were probably not produced by Lucy's relatives, reports Russell H.
Tuttle of the University of Chicago.6 It should be obvious that
these footprints were made by true human beings; the only reason for rejecting
this fact is the assumed 3.5-million year age, a time long before man is
supposed to have evolved.</BLOCKQUOTE>
THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE
The fossil record
has traditionally been considered the best evidence for evolution, but the utter
absence of true transitional forms continues to be an embarrassment.
<BLOCKQUOTE>If we were to expect to find ancestors to or intermediates between
higher taxa, it would be in the rocks of late Precambrian to Ordovician times,
when the bulk of the world's higher animal taxa evolved. Yet transitional
alliances are unknown or unconfirmed for any of the phyla or classes appearing
then.7</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>"We conclude that ... neither of the contending theories of
evolutionary change at the species level, phyletic gradualism or punctuated
equilibrium, seem applicable to the origin of new body
plans.8</BLOCKQUOTE>
EXTINCTION VERSUS SPECIATION
Evolutionists seem
unable to realize the anomaly in the slow rate of speciation versus the high
rate of species extinction.
<BLOCKQUOTE>Today's rate (of extinction) can be estimated through various
analytical techniques to be a minimum of 1000, and possibly several thousand
species per year .... It normally takes tens of thousands of years for a new
terrestrial vertebrate or a new plant species to emerge fully, and even
species with rapid turnover rates, notably insects, usually require centuries,
if not millennia, to generate a new species.9</BLOCKQUOTE>So far as
ever observed, no new species are now being formed. It seems that
evolution, if there is such a thing, is going in the wrong direction!
UNIFORMITARIANISM
Although the
history of the earth and life has long been interpreted by the uniformitarian
maxim, "the present is the key to the past," more and more geologists are
returning to catastrophism.
<BLOCKQUOTE>Our science is too encumbered with uniformitarian concepts that
project the modern Earth/Life system as the primary model for interpretation
of evolution and extinction patterns in ancient ecosystems. Detailed
paleoenvironmental data tell us that the past is the key to the present, not
vice versa.10</BLOCKQUOTE>
One of the key
evidences for great age is the uniformitarian interpretation of "evaporites,"
but this very term is misleading.
<BLOCKQUOTE>In referring to "evaporite" … the term begs the question as it
implies desiccation. For clarity, geology needs a new term; namely
"precipitate," rock created by precipitation. Hence rocks of the evaporitic
facies could be … precipitites, deposited by precipitation from a
supersaturated solution.11</BLOCKQUOTE>
Precipitation is,
of course, a much more rapid process than evaporation.
SOCIAL HARMFULNESS OF EVOLUTION
Evolutionists
strongly complain when creationists point out the historically evil influence of
evolutionism. Many evolutionists, however, do recognize this fact.
<BLOCKQUOTE>... we were victims of a cruel social ideology that assumes that
competition among individuals, classes, nations or races is the natural
condition of life, and that it is also natural for the superior to dispossess
the inferior. For the last century and more this ideology has been thought to
be a natural law of science, the mechanism of evolution which was formulated
most powerfully by Charles Darwin in 1859.... 12</BLOCKQUOTE>
(Robert Proctor)
shows how the major German societies of physical anthropologists collaborated
with the SS program of race hygiene, helping to make racial policy .... Eugene
Fischer, the most distinguished of German physical anthropologists, regarded by
many as the founder of human genetics, was particularly helpful in these efforts
.... But surely American physical anthropologists spoke out clearly against the
Nazi perversion of their science? They did not.13
SCIENTIFIC BIGOTRY
Creationists are
not the only ones who find it difficult to get a hearing from the scientific
establishment. Even evolutionists who do not conform to the majority viewpoint
in evolutionary dogma at a given time encounter this same bigotry, through the
so-called "peer review" process. One of the most distinguished modern
astronomers is Nobel prizewinner Hannes Alfven, who espouses an alternative
cosmology to the Big Bang. Here is his testimony (even Nobel laureates must
defer to the scientific establishment!).
<BLOCKQUOTE>... it has given me a serious disadvantage. When I describe the
phenomena according to this formalism, most referees do not understand what I
say and turn down my papers. 14</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>But the argument "all knowledgeable people agree that…." (with the
tacit addition that by not agreeing you demonstrate that you are a crank) is
not a valid argument in science. If scientific issues always were decided by
Gallup polls and not by scientific arguments, science will very soon be
petrified forever.15</BLOCKQUOTE>
For reasons of
space, these quotes have been somewhat abbreviated, but they do represent quite
fairly (if incompletely) the opinions of the respective authors. It is obvious
that evolutionists argue vigorously among themselves, even though they present a
solid front when arguing against creationists. Just possibly, the combination of
outside attack by creationists with the in-fighting among evolutionists will
eventually cause the collapse of the straw house of evolution itself. After all,
no one has ever seen real evolution in action, and no one knows how it works, so
its foundation is very weak. One day it will be said: " … the winds blew, and
beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it" (Matthew
7:27).
REFERENCES
<BLOCKQUOTE>



  1. R.L Oldershaw, "The continuing Case for a Hierarchial Cosmology," Astrophysics
and Space (v. 92, 1983), p. 354.   2. E.J. Lerner, "The Big
Bang Never Happened," Discover (v. 9, June 1988), p. 78. Swedish
astronomer Alfven, who has a Nobel Prize in Physics, maintains the universe
has always been essentially the same.   3. John Horgan, "Big-Bang
Bashers," Scientific American (v. 257, September 1987), p.
22.   4. Dose, Prof. Dr. Klaus, "The Origin of Life; More
Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews (v. 13, no.
4, 1988), p. 348. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Gutenberg
University, West Germany.   5. Kenneth J. Hsu, "Is Darwinism
Science?" Earthwatch (March 1989), p. 17. Hsu is Earth Science Head at
the Swiss Institute of Earth Sciences.   6. Bruce Bower, "A Walk
Back through Evolution," Science News (v. 135, April 22, 1989),
p. 251.   7. J.W. Valentine and D.H. Erwin, "The Fossil Record,"
in Development as an Evolutionary Process (Uas, 1987), p.
84.   8. Ibid, p. 96. Valentine is a geologist at U.C.
Santa Barbara, Erwin at Michigan State.   9. Norman Myers,
"Extinction Rates Past and Present," Bioscience (v. 39, January 1989),
p. 39. 10. Eric Kauffman, "The Uniformitarian Albatross," Palaios
(v. 2, no. 6, 1987), p. 531. 11. Robert S. Dietz and Mitchell Woodhouse,
"Mediterranean Theory May Be All Wet," Geotimes (v. 33, May 1988), p.
4. 12. Kenneth J. Hsu, op cit, p. 15. 13. Matt Cartmill,
"Misdeeds in Anthropology," Review of Bones, Bodies, Behavior: Essays
on Physical Anthropology (Wisconsin University Press, 1988). Science
(v. 244, May 19, 1989), P. 858. 14. Hannes Alfven, "Memoirs of a Dissident
Scientist," American Scientist (v. 76, May-June 1988), P.
250. 15. Ibid, p. 251. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>

* Dr. Morris is President
of the Institute for Creation Research. </BLOCKQUOTE>
<HR width=600 noShade SIZE=1>

Tiassa · Jul 3, 2001

Credibility, methods, and prerequisites

I'll certainly do it this way, too. It's easier, isn't it, to cite entire articles. Starting with your first article:

EVOLUTION: THE CHANGING SCENE

By Duane T. Gish, Ph.D.

1) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/spin-doctor.html

2) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html

3) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers/gish-response.html

Gish is not credible. I think the above links show much of Dr Gish's approach. And that's just off one site; Gish-related web-sites fall under two categories: criticisms of Gish's scientific and rhetorical methods (evolutionists), and reaffirmations of how bad Gish kicked some evolutionist's butt in a debate (creationists, namely ICR).

Hey, Caleb, weren't you talking about evil subcultures, swaying of students' minds, and other hostilities committed by evolutionists in the classroom?

Books published throughout the 1920's ignored evolutionary biology. New editions of older volumes deleted the word "evolution" and "Darwin". The overall teaching of evolution declined after 1925. Between 1922 and 1929, forty-six pieces of legislation were aimed at not teaching evolution. Three of those passed, the others were considered unconstitutional (Nelkin 1982: 33).

Oh, yeah ... a source. That's helpful: http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

And from that same source, some compelling insight:

Creationists believe that all basic types of living beings, including man, were made by the acts of God during the creation week as explained in the Book of Genesis of the Bible. They argue that the Bible is literal and is an alternative scientific hypothesis. These groups who believe this and who fight for fairness and academic freedom are known as "scientific creationists".

The emergence of this group of individuals are concerned with the morals and values of American society. They feel that belief in evolution results in evil, immoral values, especially in children. Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses say the evolution theory is the reason for worsening of crime, delinquency, immorality, and war. They say that evolution paved the way for increase in agnostic and atheism and was an open door for communism (Nelkin 1982:32).

For many Creationists, then, we see that the discrediting of evolution and advancement of Divine Creation Theory carries a greater, more subjective stake. That stake is even better defined a couple of paragraphs later:

The American Scientific Affiliation(ASA), formed in 1941, is an evangelical organization of men and women of science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and to Christian faith. It was formed by five scientists who investigate problems regarding the relation between Christian faith and science. There are over 3,000 members and they believe the evolutionary concepts are misleading and have serious moral and social implications (Nelkin 1987:77).

Problems between faith and science: the traditional Christian approach to these problems largely involves reaffirmation of existing faith. Since God cannot be wrong, the scientific theory must be. This sounds like an exaggeration, but it isn't. We're talking about one's faith in God, and the fear of an afterlife.

The Creation Research Society, formed in Michigan in 1963 has an objective of publishing research evidence supporting the thesis that the material universe, including plants, animals, and men are the result of direct creative acts by a personal God. To be a voting member, one must have a postgraduate degree in science and believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Applicants for membership must sign a statement of this belief.

The sum problem, then, that we seem to be encountering is that Creationists seek not a valid scientific hypothesis, but rather a supportable hypothesis of immediate concern to numb the frustrations of being unable to justify their larger assumption. By signing the declaration mentioned, a scientist revokes his adherence to the scientific method, assuming certain conclusions that cannot be demonstrated before beginning a field experiment. This is bad science tantamount to marketing research.

And here we find your citation source: Institute for Creation Research--

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR), is a research division of Christian Heritage College founded in 1970 and sponsored by the Scott Memorial Baptist Church. In 1972, the church purchased a monastery on 30 acres of land east of San Diego in order to build a parochial high school and college (Nelkin 1982:80).

The college has over 400 undergraduate and graduate students. Most of the courses pertain to the study of Christian evidence and scientific creation. The faculty openly campaigns against evolutionary theory. At appointment of every teacher, they must agree that all things in the universe were created by God in the six days of creation described in the Book of Genesis. Many of the faculty and staff members who work at the schools or the center are related.

The ICR have written over fifty books, produce a monthly magazine, and organize conferences and radio programs. Some of their projects include expeditions in finding geological evidence that supports the theory that the earth is young. The science faculty are all members of the ICR.

The ICR claims to be a nonpolitical, non religious scientific organization. However, the Institute requires a statement of faith from all members on the fixity of created species, the universality of the Flood, and the historical reality of the Genesis creation (Nelkin 1982:80-81).

Wow ... they really are that bad of scientists.

Seriously ... ICR, the authors of the material you provide, research selectively and focus only on the evidence they consider helpful to their cause--in other words, don't consider all the evidence at hand. Furthermore, to be part of ICR, one must take an oath declaring faith to Genesis Creationism. This is not a scientific approach to science.

I thought it would be tougher, more tedious. After all, I figured on having to go line-by-line, repeating the litany of what is wrong with the ICR's sense of assumption, but it looks like someone beat me to it.

One last quote, though, from the Hokaj link:

No laws ever passed saying that evolution had to be taught in biology courses. The prestige of evolutionary theory has been built by its impact on the thousands of biologists who learned its power and usefulness in the study of living things (Ruse 1982:109).

And also this, from the same link, for comparison:

In 1981, Arkansas and Louisiana passed legislation requiring that creationist account of the origin of life be taught as a viable scientific alternative to the theory of evolution.

Even with the force of law behind Creationism, it cannot muster the scientific validity to present itself as a viable scientific theory.

And I'll give y'all a hint: Demonstrate the Creator!

Proper science has no subjective, undemonstrable prerequisites. This is why Creationism is not a science, and why the quest of Creationists to demonstrate scientific credibility--much less equality to evolution--will continue to fail.

--Tiassa

xvenomousx · Jul 4, 2001

I would like to present some evidence against creationism and some food for thought.

Correct me if I'm wrong but earth was surposedly created 6000-8000 years ago, and global floods raged 4000 years ago, according to creationist theory.

If this is correct, there should be no trees on earth older than 4000 years. Or to be specific, have no more than 4000 growth rings.

In the White-Inyo mountain range of California there are many trees that are older than 4500 years, one living bristlecone pine tree dates back to 2726 BC, centuries before the date that Christians assign to the global flood.
The patterns in tree rings have been matched with those of dead trees, showing the dead trees to have germinated about 6000 BC, which predates the year 4004 BC by 2 millennia!!!

But there is an even better example, and it sits in the dining room of my family's home. I counted the growth rings on my familiys Kauri dining table, which was cut from a solid slab. No I didn't really count each one but I estimated, it was roughly 5000 rings across. The original tree trunk had well over 7000 growth rings. This tree was NOT living when it was found. This is swamp kauri - in the 1960s the log was found preserved in a swamp where it had lain for over 8000 years!

That tree germinated 15000 years ago, or 13000 BC.

This is not the only example of 15,000+ year old swamp Kauri wood around, there is quite a market for it.

Even if the length of time it was in a swamp is inaccurate the tree itself still predates creation and the great flood.

Thought for the day:
If the universe was created around the times assigned by christians to the creation event, then the tree would have been created dead, and at the bottom of a bog. Why would god create a dead tree?

xvenomousx · Jul 4, 2001

Some thoughts on the great flood too....
40 days and 40 nights of rain:
If the earth was covered in water deep enough to cover mount arrat (5000 metres or 15,000 feet), rain would have fallen at a rate of 5 metres per hour. That rain would be so heavy that within minutes, a massive
torent of water would be raging off the continents into the oceans more like tsunami than a flood. Stripping all the soil from the land right down to bedrock.
That is such dense rainfall that it would not have fallen steadily but whip up massive vortexes and currents (rather like how a waterfall makes a breeze) this is really the heat and kinetic energy released from the gravitation potential energy of falling rain. This would drive massive storms world wide that could possibly have supersonic wind speeds. The oceans salinity would be diluted such that all salt water marine animal and plant life would die.
After all that where did 1.44x10^9 cubic kilometres of water go?
(note that is the size of a small moon!)

Caleb · Jul 4, 2001

Some thoughts on the great flood too....

I think you're beginning to get a picture of the scale of this thing! But allow me correct you on a few issues.

If the earth was covered in water deep enough to cover mount arrat (5000 metres or 15,000 feet)...

I'll start by saying a word about the pre-Flood world. It is believed that before the Flood, mountains were substantially lower, and possibly seas were more shallow. It is also believed that rapid continental drift occured during and/or relatively soon after the flood, meaning that before the Flood, the Earth may have been more like "Pangea" or "Gondwanaland." Also, a little known fact is that rain wasn't the only source of water during those 40 days and nights. Underground aquifers (there are believed to have been more of them back then) were bust open, releasing huge amounts of water.

"the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
"

These factors (less topography to cover and less of the total water being due to rain) will significantly affect your measurements of rainfall and water volume.

within minutes, a massive torent of water would be raging off the continents into the oceans more like tsunami than a flood.

Maybe not within minutes (or maybe), but that's exactly why this viewpoint is called "Catastrophism"

Stripping all the soil from the land right down to bedrock.

Bingo! And then, as the floodwaters receeded, all these sediments would have been deposited and erroded and lithified. And all while plate tectonics and increased volcano activity was forcing mountains to rise and sea basins to collapse.

this is really the heat and kinetic energy released from the gravitation potential energy of falling rain.

Yes, there was alot of heat and energy left over in the oceans after the flood, increasing evaporation rates. The still-unstable wind patterns carried the majority of the precipitation to the poles, were they created expanding polar caps, leading to an "ice age."

After all that where did 1.44x10^9 cubic kilometres of water go?

Well, I as I said earlier, this number is probably to large. The majority of what was left over either drained of the rising continents into the newly-enlarged ocean basins, or became trapped in the polar ice caps.

===========================================================

Correct me if I'm wrong but... global floods raged 4000 years ago, according to creationist theory.

Well, technically, at least around 4500, possibly more, which makes your 2726 tree not seem that badly out of date.

Let me put up some quotes from creationists articles regarding sequoia's and bristlecones. The entire articles can be found (and should be read) at:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-134.htm
(1984)
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-252.htm
(1994)

When we examine the writings of eminent dendrochronologists, we find that the life span of the giant sequoia is over 3200 years ... with many authorities estimating its age much greater. Richard J. Hartesveldt says, "At this writing," (1975) "3200 years of age is the oldest count on record. The stump count was made by A.E. Douglass, the well known dendrochronologist, before 1920. Some hold to much older figures for the greatest age, and a recent author claims one specimen to be 6000 years old."1 In a previous paragraph he had said, "Schmeckbier (1912) states that sequoias never fail to add an annual ring, a statement later refuted by Gillette (1930) who found missing rings in a large specimen.

Bristlecones grow in other similar areas and were already the focus of much speculation when Schulman arrived on the scene in 1953. A reported 4900-year-old tree in the Snake Ridge region of Nevada was actually discovered to be only 3000 years old. [1] Schulman quickly found a tree in the White Mountains dating back about 4300 years and named it Pine Alpha, the first found anywhere with an absolute date older than 4000 years. [2] During his last season of research the summer of 1957 he discovered "Methuselah," a tree dating back 4600 years. [5] No older tree has been discovered since then, and the Methuselah tree is not marked so as to protect it from souvenir hunters.[4]

~Caleb

Cris · Jul 4, 2001

Plate tectonics and human origins

Caleb, tiassa, and co,

Here is an interesting link. It will load a JAVA applet. Drag your mouse across the map and see how tectonic plates drifted across the planet surface over the past 200 million years.

Click here to view the animation.

The site has a number of other animated maps that cover earlier periods, and others that project into the future.

The research that went into the studies of plate tectonics are far reaching and include independent work from universities across the world. The results shown at the above web site represent just a drop in the ocean. Other research covering the history of the planet is incredibly extensive leaving very little doubt as to the true age of the planet, its features and their development, the creatures that existed millions of years ago and the rise of mankind some several million years ago.

Click here for a family tree of human origins. Click on elements in the chart for more details. Our ancestors date back some 5 million years and the earliest fossil records of homo sapiens are dated at around 130,000 years ago.

In terms of volume of current scientific knowledge covering the history of the world, creation stories are a minute fraction in comparison, and can only realistically represent a joke. This really leaves any discussion on “Creation Theory?” as irrelevant and largely a waste of time. However, I know tiassa just loves any debate, and it is a pleasure to read his rebuttals. But I really can’t take the subject seriously, and it seems incredulous that apparent intelligent people might even consider that the stories have any truth to them – but then that is the nature of religious thinking – irrationality.

Cris

Tiassa · Jul 4, 2001

Beautiful links

Cris:

Awesome links. I want to cover an expected response from Creationism, which is to point out the big red question marks. Anyone who considers those missing-link question marks to be evidence of a priori in science must necessarily remember that those question marks become the next research goal, whereas the key a priori of Creationism--that is, a Creator--cannot ever elevate itself beyond the status of primary assumption because that Creator cannot be measured, tested, or observed.

* http://www.gly.fsu.edu/~kish/dynamic/review3.htm appear to be notes for Professor Kish's geology class at Florida State University; please note the section on Plate Tectonics:

Plate Tectonics

Alfred Wegener, Pangaea,Gondwanaland, geologic evidence for continental drift, paleomagnetism, Curie point, geomagnetic reversals, magnetic "striping" of the ocean crust, mid-oceanic ridges, oceanic trenches, island arcs, rift zones, hot spots, astenosphere, sea-floor spreading, lithospheric plates, divergent plate boundaries, convergent plate boundaries, transform plate
boundaries, Benioff zones, subduction zones, [be sure to know examples of these features e.g. hot spot -- Hawaiian Islands]; the "driving force" of plate tectonics -- mantle convection

So I wanted to throw in this link: http://www.sfu.ca/earth-sciences/courses/317/Chap3/3-PastPlateMotions.htm which has a good deal regarding planetary magnetism, magnetic stripes and how those lend evidence toward an older Earth than Creationism allows. This is a remarkable page, especially if you're a beginning physics student at University, but also here for our present debate. This page will be a pain in the ass, though, for a 56k modem.

How important is Pangaea? The following excellent lecture notes are from a 400-level Zoology class, and provide us better insight into the nature of Pangaea (Univ. of British Columbia, I believe.) http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~etaylor/413www/contin_drift.html

The basaltic rocks of the ocean floor contain large amounts of the magnetic mineral, magnetite. Through the use of "magnetometers", geologists are able to measure the magnetic polarity of rock bearing magnetic material (including continental rock formations). "Normal" polarity means that the polarity of the magnetite is the same as the current day earth’s magnetic field (i.e. the magnetite crystals act like tiny magnets that whole poles line up in a North-South orientation). "Reversed" polarity means the poles of the magnetite are opposite to that of the earth today (i.e. South lines up with the earth’s magnetic North). Reversals in the polarity of the earth’s magnetic field are a natural, if not completely understood, phenomenon, that take place (on average every million years or so). These polar reversals are revealed because as molten rock (magma) cools, the orientation of the magnetite is "locked in" as the rock solidifies. Mapping of the ocean floor demonstrated that: (a) there were regular patterns of alternating polarity in the rock as one moved out from the oceanic ridges, (b) the alternating patterns were symmetrical on either side of the ridges, and (c) that the age of different strips increased as one moved away from the ridge crests

Bottom line: I think magnetic striping is an excellent bit of evidence pertaining to the age of the earth. Pangaea's clocked at 280 ma. It would seem that to accelerate seafloor spreading to any rate acceptable to Creationist time-frames would destroy most theories of physics with such widespread implications. Since physics describes something so fundamental in the Universe, we could expect different performance results from observational experimentation, and it wouldn't have taken World Wars to wipe out carrier pigeons: they would have starved trying to find their way. This page, too, will be a pain in the ass for a dial-up connection.

This really leaves any discussion on “Creation Theory?” as irrelevant and largely a waste of time. However, I know tiassa just loves any debate, and it is a pleasure to read his rebuttals. But I really can’t take the subject seriously, and it seems incredulous that apparent intelligent people might even consider that the stories have any truth to them – but then that is the nature of religious thinking – irrationality.

An excellent insight. In fact, one I can offer a little perspective on, if'n y'all don't mind.

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

*http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/conclusion.html

I've posted this link before. But this is essentially the key to it. On the surface, I could care less what people believe. In the end, whatever helps you be a positive factor in life. However, Creationism fits in with a religious paradigm that, as I have countlessly asserted here, poses in its historical and modern forms a detriment to humanity. I still maintain that the potential for a positive mass impact exists, but there is no evidence that it is coming to be anytime soon. So the problem becomes this:

* That if we should treat Creationism as science and award it the respect a science deserves in a science classroom, we shall be educating children with undemonstrable facts, lending credibility to the decision-making processes based on affinity and paradigm instead of one based on observable considerations and factors. It leads to a mentality whereby people feel compelled to demand political accommodation for their personal affinities, and suddenly the educating of the young--that is, the preparation of the future of humanity--becomes subject to superstitious politics. Creationism must either provide scientific merit for its Creator, or else back off and let society progress for once. It may be a Creationist's right to believe in the Divine Creation, but it is not any person's right to impose superstition as science and thus drag the world back into the intellectual flatline that seems to foster warfare for lack of anything better. Creationism undemonstrated poses a long-term threat to the survival capabilities of humanity on Earth. And here I want to note that Christianity--the driving force of Creationism--has no dedication to the survival of humanity on Earth: they are waiting for God to come down and put an end to all of this living silliness. Hello? Why don't we educate students to rush headlong toward the abyss of mortal death? That's what you're asking when you demand equity of superstition to science.

To be honest, though, I've found that as long as you let Creationists run off at the mouth, they injure their own position. Take Caleb and I: on the one hand, we're talking about the notion of "Creation Science", yet repeated links to back that alleged science decry, deny, or belie the scientific aspirations of Creationism. The NAS document (cited yet again, in this posting) is not a political declaration against Creationism. That conclusion page merely restates the nature of science and why Creationism is of a different nature. Yet even when presented with this, the simplest of explanations regarding why an idea is or isn't science, Creationists continue to assert their, uh, creative science ... whereby a priori declarations need no sustaining evidence or further investigation. I love reading those PhD's decrying the actual scientific process, but that's the problem with basing your theory on archaic, fixed assumptions. No amount of data can reshape the working hypothesis. And that's why the experiment fails.

Thanx much for the links, though, Cris. I hope those I've provided can be of some value, as well. Sorry to ramble on; originally I was just after magnetic striping. Have yourself a kind, sunny day. Happy Boom-Boom Day, God save the Flag (don't Americans sing "God Save the Queen" for something? I can't remember what; shows you the state of my patriotism, I suppose ...) and all the wonderful jazz that comes with a hot summer day on which you're supposed to blow things up.

thanx,
Tiassa

Cris · Jul 4, 2001

Parasites

Hi tiassa,

Thanks for your comments. Actually I was looking for references to the plants and animals that had appeared to be indigenous to both Brazil and western Africa and which could only be explained if both the continents were at one time connected. I believe it was those discoveries that sparked off much of the early investigations into plate tectonics. Instead I found the animations site – oh well, good enough I think.

I didn’t see the missing link issue as a problem. The links between Homo ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis and Homo sapiens are accepted. This shows that Homo sapiens evolved from lower and earlier forms, and that is sufficient to debunk the creationist view that we were created as an individual and special species. And that whole link series goes back 1.9 million years, and Homo sapiens fossils goes back 130,000 years, all of which destroys the 4000-6000 years of creationist nonsense for a creation event. But even the missing links should not present a problem for the theory, it is much like a jigsaw puzzle where we can see most of the picture and have all the borders, but some of the pieces have been dropped on the floor, so we have a short delay while we find them. But we know what the pieces must look like.

I also tried to see if there are any creationist groups in Europe and the UK, but my search engines didn’t find anything. And with all my years living in the UK I have never come across such a pressure group. It looks like this idiosyncrasy of religious obstinacy is a purely USA aberration. I read your link that described much of the creationist’s background and their attempts to pervert the teaching of science in schools – holy cow what a mess. It is again another evil perpetrated by Christianity that so many children have left the US school system without a strong basic understanding of one of the most important and fundamental scientific theories in the history of mankind. The teachings appear to have been omitted altogether or have been severely diluted. Unforgivable. When oh when will we be rid of this parasitic regime?

I’ve included a couple of quotes below that I encountered during my searches. They are not entirely relevant to the subject but I thought you might enjoy them anyway.

A possible definition of Christianity-

An idea is able to gain and retain the aura of essential truth through telling and retelling. This process endows a cherished notion with more veracity than a library of facts. Documentation plays only a small role in contrast to the act of re-conformation by each generation of scholars. In addition, the further removed one gets from the period in question, the greater is the strength of the conviction. Initial incredulousness is soon converted into belief in a probability and eventually smug assurance.
- W. Arens, The Man-Eating Myth[/b]

And a way to escape the shackles of religious indoctrination –

...when we had finished [our bedtime prayers] I climbed on father's chair to kiss him good night. He asked quizzically, "What was that you were saying about bread?"
"Why, that was in the Lord's Prayer, 'Give us this day our daily bread'"
"Who were you talking to?"
"To God."
"Is God a baker?"
I was shocked. Nevertheless, I rallied to the attack and replied as best I could... "No, of course not. It means the rain, the sunshine, and all the things to make the wheat, which makes the bread."
"Well, well," he replied, "so that's the idea. Then why don't you say so? Always say what you mean, my daughter, it is much better."
Thereafter I began to question what I had previously taken for granted and to reason for myself. It was not pleasant, but father had taught me to think...
- Margaret Sanger
Click here to read a story of one very courageous free thinking woman

And I wish you a happy noisy evening as well.
Cris

Cris · Jul 4, 2001

Thanks

tiassa,

Awright - just finished reading your zoology link - that was what I was looking for earlier. Thanks.

Cris

Sir. Loone · Jul 6, 2001

E vs C

No contest! Evolution is only a 'theory', Creation is a fact that has to be caught up on by scientist that are feed up with the googolplex peacing together of life origins!

GOD WORD is triumphant!
You shell soon see!

Tiassa · Jul 6, 2001

Loone ...

Didn't think so.

H-kon · Jul 6, 2001

This question simply cannot be answered until we can define what or who God is.

I have a theory though, but it is kinda wild although simple.

Cris · Jul 6, 2001

Re: E vs C

Loone,

No contest! Evolution is only a 'theory'

A formal scientific theory has significant evidence for its support. For example the existence of the atom is also only a theory, but based on that theory an atomic bomb managed to kill many thousands of people. That is real. Scientists call this a credible theory. Evolution theory is viewed in the same light.

In comparison, your God does not qualify even as a theory, since the concept of his existence resides purely in the imaginations of people like yourself. For him to obtain even a tiny fraction of any credible support compared to evolution then you must be able to show at least that fraction as believable evidence.

No one in the entire history of mankind has managed to provide any scrap of credible evidence to show that a god exists. Since the whole of creation ‘theory’ (a misuse of the word) rests on the existence of a god and since even this basic requirement has no supporting evidence then the entire creation concept has similarly zero credibility.

Cris

Sir. Loone · Jul 8, 2001

Re: Loone ...

Originally posted by tiassa
Didn't think so.

Don't think so Tiassa? Well Evolution is only theory and has many flaws and will through out your life time and the kid's kids, have had will have seen many many changes! It's still a theory!

The Word of GOD is true! And Science has a long way to catch upon many of it's truths! Many already have been found to be true!

Sir. Loone · Jul 8, 2001

Re: Re: E vs C 'Cris'

Originally posted by Cris
Loone,

A formal scientific theory has significant evidence for its support. For example the existence of the atom is also only a theory, but based on that theory an atomic bomb managed to kill many thousands of people. That is real. Scientists call this a credible theory. Evolution theory is viewed in the same light.

In comparison, your God does not qualify even as a theory, since the concept of his existence resides purely in the imaginations of people like yourself. For him to obtain even a tiny fraction of any credible support compared to evolution then you must be able to show at least that fraction as believable evidence.

No one in the entire history of mankind has managed to provide any scrap of credible evidence to show that a god exists. Since the whole of creation ‘theory’ (a misuse of the word) rests on the existence of a god and since even this basic requirement has no supporting evidence then the entire creation concept has similarly zero credibility.

Cris

Cris; The atom bomb is fact not theory, and the atom theory was then fact when it was split and used in as a weapon, and many died fact but there is a difference from solid facts from theory!
Evolution is only theory and has a long long way to go to be fact!

God exist! He's far above time and space and mere science can not even touch Him! But His creation, [the whole universe] Man can ponder at! And see the fingerprints of God [so to say]!

Porfiry · Jul 9, 2001

The atom bomb is fact not theory, and the atom theory was then fact when it was split and used in as a weapon, and many died fact but there is a difference from solid facts from theory!
Evolution is only theory and has a long long way to go to be fact!

The rise of new strains of bacteria (eg. antibiotic resitant strains and species) has been well studied, documented, and analyzed over the past 100 years. The emergence of previously nonexistant organisms has been confirmed on the genetic level.

This shows that the biological (genetic) composition of the world is not the same as it was 100 years ago. This is a fact among many that makes evolution a credible theory, just as the atom bomb makes the atomic physics a credible theory. Indeed, the measurable impact of ever-changing organisms (in the arbitrary and rather silly quantity of human lives) is likely greater than that of the atomic bomb.

Cris · Jul 9, 2001

Atomic theory

Loone,

The atom bomb is fact not theory, and the atom theory was then fact when it was split and used in as a weapon, and many died fact but there is a difference from solid facts from theory!

When an event occurs and is clearly observable then there can be little doubt that it is fact – i.e. there is considerable proof. It is such proofs that establish a fact.

Atomic theory is still very current and represents the leading edge of physics research. The discovery of more subatomic particles and their behavior forms the basis for most of this work, together with behavior of the atom itself – e.g. wave theory. Much of the structure of the atom has now been established but much more is still under investigation. As the atomic structure is studied more knowledge is gained which enables further theories to be developed. In other words we do not yet have the full story of the nature of the atom, i.e. it is not yet fact, it is still at the theoretical stage.

The physicists during WWII did not have full knowledge of the nature of the atom; they worked purely on theory. But the theory was sufficiently well established for them to create a practical use. At that time quarks, and other subatomic particles were unknown, but that didn’t prevent scientists using the available evidence.

In a similar manner Evolution theory is also not yet complete, and is also not officially fully fact. But much of the theory has been well defined and significant research has shown that reality fits the theory in numerous cases. Like atomic theory we know more about the Evolutionary process than we do not. This substantial quantity of evidence is sufficient for us to proceed as if Evolution is fact, as we do with the atom (and as you have done with your understandable erroneous assumption). Those scientists who built the atomic bomb took the same approach – they didn’t know everything but they knew enough.

The evolutionary process is sufficiently well established and defined that it makes little sense to ignore the research and propose radically different and conflicting hypotheses. Rather, we need to accept what has been demonstrated as true and move on with other more important matters. Even the Pope has accepted this obvious scenario.

Evolution is only theory and has a long long way to go to be fact!

We disagree only in the degree of the remaining work to be completed.

God exist!

There is still no evidence for this claim. At best we can only conclude that such an hypothesis has as yet no evidential support.

He's far above time and space and mere science can not even touch Him!

If science cannot touch him then neither you nor anyone else can make any claims to his existence or his nature and abilities.

Everything we know on this planet and throughout the history of mankind has been established by science. The entire purpose of science is to establish knowledge. While we currently use formal processes that have clearly not been available throughout history, nevertheless, scientific processes have been unwittingly used throughout time, although they were certainly not as efficient as they are today. Those that were able to reason were able to detect that some events always occurred after a given cause. This ability to observe and reason formed the early basis for modern scientific principles.

But if your god is undetectable by science, which is clearly the current situation, and which you assert (he is above science) then you do not have any other alternative means to show that he exists or has any particular abilities. Without any such scientific evidence your claims are vacuous, i.e. they have no credible support.

But His creation, [the whole universe] Man can ponder at! And see the fingerprints of God [so to say]!

Just more vacuous unsupportable claims.

However, have fun whenever you can.
Cris

Sir. Loone · Jul 10, 2001

E vs C

Cris:

Well the atom may have some facts of it's nature and existence and others that are still unknown about them is still theory, science at least know that it is real pliable. Evolution is still mostly theory and is in constant change. Some whole theories have been thrown out since the 1800's and 1900's, some even laughable, some was a total shame; something about a pigs tooth was found and they have said that they have, and can reconstruct a 'missing-link' from a single tooth. And other missing -links where found to be just some extinct form of an ape, not of Mankind. The 'Arptioptorics ? or dinosaur bird thought evolved from dinosaurs was later found out to be older then the dinosaurs. And there are many more changes that I can't list, and I got to find that web site that shows most of the errors and mistakes made in interpreting the fossil record. Still say they are mostly theories of the fossil record and we will see many changes and revisions through out our lives.

And Cris, I can touch Him in the Spirit of GOD in side of me! Because in Jesus Christ, all things are posible to those who believeth on Him! And you can to if you only believe with your heart and confess with your mouth, and even you or any of you can see the light!

Don't miss out on the latest discussions.

EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM

Lawdog

Digging up old bones

Caleb

Redeemed

Caleb

Redeemed

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

xvenomousx

xvenomousx

Caleb

Redeemed

Cris

In search of Immortality

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

Cris

In search of Immortality

Cris

In search of Immortality

Sir. Loone

Jesus is Lord!

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...

H-kon

Cris

In search of Immortality

Sir. Loone

Jesus is Lord!

Sir. Loone

Jesus is Lord!

Porfiry

Nomad

Cris

In search of Immortality

Sir. Loone

Jesus is Lord!