Evolution VS Creation

[MarcusGronholm]

^ man like he have an axe to grind yes
fight for what yuh believe in bro - never give up!

but it lookin as if the Evo poser axe bigger than the Atheist axe.

heh heh

What he said.

Go strong fadda. You go really convert meh tonight . heh heh heh

[nadzz]

Evolution

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

Is evolution really scientific?

The “scientific methodâ€

[RASC]

Evoloution is like putting a bunch of bolts and metal scrap in a barrel and shaking it for 10 million years, anybody here think yuh will get a Car??

Impossible.

question: Why is it that the only creature on earth that worships God is man?? How come animals dont worship God.

How come no matter where you go on earth, in the remotest Jungle, or the most deserted Island, you will find people worshipping God, in some form or the other, who teach them to do that???

Because we have all been hood winked...kinda like how two of the largest religions (Christianity and Islam) in the world FORCED MILLIONS across the to convert-OR FACE DEATH...the more you study history the more you realise the wrongs in religion

Science is falsifiable(spl), relgion is not...Creation it is!

[wagonrunner]

pios,
we are pets, on an orb, danngling in an intergallactic station's locker.............MIBII

[lizzy]

It is agreed on all sides that there are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. A third option, the world is eternal and without origin, contradicts Natural Laws such as Thermodynamics and has been disproved with mathematical certainty in the 20th century. As the universe is obviously complex and seemingly well-designed, a Designer should be the scientific default. In everything we observe today, concept and design are the result of a Mind. Furthermore, Natural Laws such as Gravity, Inverse Squares, Cause and Effect, and Thermodynamics imply a Law-giver.

Unless a natural mechanism constrained by Natural Law, by which the entire universe could come into existence and further develop through random process, is found, a Creator must be the theoretical default. It doesn't matter whether an individual scientist has difficulty accepting it or not.

The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle so eloquently stated in his Sherlock Holmes series, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

[lizzy]

unless you are cremated right?

[lizzy]

Creationists says there is, and Evolutionists don't have a clue.

[Dessalines]

Ting is...when you die, you rott n smell stink, that's it.

I changed my mind...I now believe in creation.

[lizzy]

lmao

[Smokey]

Evolution can be proven false and give way to another scientific theory. So far there are mountains of evidence, one can actually see different species evolve based on the fossil record. You creationists need to realize that its a theory that has the general support of 99% of scientists out there. Of course, there are those who oppose it, and most not because of creation, but because they may have an alternate theory. Just because we don't understand something, it doesn't mean God created it, of 'God make it so'.

IMO Creationism is pure BS. It simply propaganda spread by idiot blind fundamentalist to protect their religion from looking like it was created by dumb two year old.

I can't believe that people actually believe Adam and Eve. How dumb can you be? Well you could believe in Noah's Ark.
Do you even realize that there are literally thousands of creation stories from different religions and tribes. Just because the war like religions of Christianity and Islam spread this BS does not make true.

Also, look carefully at religion. There are two reasons religions are very common and successful.
1. It gives some people power and control over others. A king can use it to persuade his citizens to go to war, to not show dissent, to obey his royalty and respect his decisions.
2. Religion allows us to be lazy and uninquisitive. Every wonder can be attributed to God. How are mountains formed, beaches, rain, clouds, the moon, stars, where did we come from?........well the easy answer that religion teachs is 'God make it so'. Sounds simple and easy to digest.

As a result it is easy to see why religion would develope in almost any civilized society. It is borg natural and man made.

[RASC]

Evolution can be proven false and give way to another scientific theory. So far there are mountains of evidence, one can actually see different species evolve based on the fossil record. You creationists need to realize that its a theory that has the general support of 99% of scientists out there. Of course, there are those who oppose it, and most not because of creation, but because they may have an alternate theory. Just because we don't understand something, it doesn't mean God created it, of 'God make it so'.

IMO Creationism is pure BS. It simply propaganda spread by idiot blind fundamentalist to protect their religion from looking like it was created by dumb two year old.

I can't believe that people actually believe Adam and Eve. How dumb can you be? Well you could believe in Noah's Ark.
Do you even realize that there are literally thousands of creation stories from different religions and tribes. Just because the war like religions of Christianity and Islam spread this BS does not make true.

Also, look carefully at religion. There are two reasons religions are very common and successful.
1. It gives some people power and control over others. A king can use it to persuade his citizens to go to war, to not show dissent, to obey his royalty and respect his decisions.
2. Religion allows us to be lazy and uninquisitive. Every wonder can be attributed to God. How are mountains formed, beaches, rain, clouds, the moon, stars, where did we come from?........well the easy answer that religion teachs is 'God make it so'. Sounds simple and easy to digest.

As a result it is easy to see why religion would develope in almost any civilized society. It is borg natural and man made.

hit right on the head of the nail...

[djaggs]

Also, look carefully at religion. There are two reasons religions are very common and successful.
1. It gives some people power and control over others. A king can use it to persuade his citizens to go to war, to not show dissent, to obey his royalty and respect his decisions.
2. Religion allows us to be lazy and uninquisitive. Every wonder can be attributed to God. How are mountains formed, beaches, rain, clouds, the moon, stars, where did we come from?........well the easy answer that religion teachs is 'God make it so'. Sounds simple and easy to digest.

err well explain how come the most famous scientists in the world believed in God??

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497

Sir Fancis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)


Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!


Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy.His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.


Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible.

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry.
As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century.Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.
He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian.

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."


If you guys going to make statements to support your arguments, please make them based on truth.

[djaggs]

If God exists then why he allows his creation to suffer so much ?

God gave us the gift of freedom of choice. He did not create robots, he made us living sentient beings with a will of our own. Men chose to do evil and this has created enmity between man and God. Each man has to travel his journey until he comes to that knowledge of God, it is not forced on him. It just happens that many people choose evil instead of God, but God has ordained it so that man will realise that he is incapable of charting his own destiny without God and that He has a redemption plan for all of mankind, whether you choose to believe it or not.

If I force you to obey me with threat of violence I will not have your heart, but if you choose to obey me of your own will, then I know I have your heart.

[djaggs]

Because we have all been hood winked...kinda like how two of the largest religions (Christianity and Islam) in the world FORCED MILLIONS across the to convert-OR FACE DEATH...the more you study history the more you realise the wrongs in religion

Science is falsifiable(spl), relgion is not...Creation it is!

Friend, if you actually read history you would not make that statement. Where did Christianity come from. It was started by a simple man from a non descript place called Galilee. He was a nobody. The place he came from was a backwater kinda neighbourhood. He preached for only 3 years and less than one hundred years after his death almost the whole civilized world became his followers. 12 men took Christianity around the world with no army, no swords, just the clothes on their backs. Poor simple men who were persecuted wherever they went. Millions of Christians were persecuted and killed by the Romans and none ever picked up a weapon to defend themselves.

The first time anyone ever coerced conversion was Constantine in around 350AD. And in doing so he allowed paganism to come into the Church, and what we call unregenerate believers. I can write much more about this but need to sleep. Dont confuse the crusades with Christianity, that was an economic war, not religious.The crusaders went to war because they were promised land and wealth and was actually the Europeans response to the Moslem Moors who had invaded Europe.

No where in the early Church you will find Christians picking up weapons to kill anybody, they were the ones killed.

[djaggs]

The Scientific Case Against Evolution
A Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis & Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box
by Robert Locke

I AM NOT A CREATIONIST, and must confess that until recently, I treated people who questioned evolution with polite dismissal. But there has recently emerged a major trend in biology that has been suppressed in the mainstream media: evolution is in trouble. More importantly, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion but is due to the fact that the ongoing growth of biological knowledge keeps producing facts that contradict rather than confirm evolution. These two books – Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis and Michael J. Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box – describe this phenomenon.

The first surprising thing Denton points out is that there has always been a dissident faction of highly distinguished scientists, of impeccable credentials and no religious motivations, who have declined to concede that evolution has been proved. This is inconvenient for evolutionists who would like to dismiss their opponents as Bible-thumping hicks and claim that questioning evolution is tantamount to questioning the value or validity of science. He also points out biologists like Richard Owen, who were prepared to allow that evolution had taken place but thought that other causes were involved in bringing about the origin of species.

The first big problem with evolution is that the fossil record increasingly does not, honestly viewed, support it, a fact that famous Prof. Steven Jay Gould of Harvard has described as "the trade secret of paleontology." Evolutionary theory claims that there once existed a whole series of successive forms of the various organisms alive today. These supposedly changed by infinitesimal amounts with each generation as they evolved into the present varieties, so the fossil record should show these gradual changes. But it doesn’t. Instead, it shows the sudden emergence of new species out of nowhere, fully complete with all their characteristics and not changing over time. It is almost entirely devoid of forms that can plausibly be identified as intermediates between older and newer ones. This is popularly known as the "missing link" problem, and it is massively systematic across different species and time periods. Worse, this problem is getting worse, not better, as more fossils are discovered, as the new fossils just resemble those already found and don’t fill in the gaps. In Darwin's day, it was easy to claim that the fossils were there but had not been discovered. Problem is, we now have hundreds of thousands of well-catalogued fossils, from all continents and geologic eras, and we still haven't found these intermediate forms. As Denton puts it,

"Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin."
..........continued.....

[djaggs]

The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny.

The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould’s great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is too complex to go into in detail here, is that while it explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and even these aren't in the record. Furthermore, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a very precise set of conditions have to have obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely.

Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind’s tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it’s just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.

Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.

[djaggs]

The quantity, quality, and range of the recovered fossils is impeccable. But the more we dig, the more we keep finding the same forms over and over again, never the intermediates. Various ad hoc explanations for the gaps in the fossil record, like a temporary dearth in the environment of the chemicals needed for organisms to produce the hard body parts that fossilize well, do not stand scrutiny.

The usual response of evolutionists at this stage in the argument is a theory they call punctuated equilibrium, Gould’s great contribution, which basically says that evolution occurs not gradually but in spurts. This would explain why there are gaps and not continuity in the fossil record. The problem with this theory, which is too complex to go into in detail here, is that while it explains away the non-existence of small gradations, it still requires there to be large ones (the individual spurts) and even these aren't in the record. Furthermore, for punctuated equilibrium to have occurred, a very precise set of conditions have to have obtained throughout the entire past period represented in the fossils, and this is unlikely.

Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind’s tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it’s just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles.

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will.

Furthermore, Denton argues, the classic cases printed in biology textbooks to show the evolution of present-day organisms from their supposed ancestors are in fact highly conjectural if not downright false. We read the same examples coming up again and again in textbook after textbook because there are only a few species for which an even remotely plausible fossil genealogy can be propounded out of the 100,000 fossil species known to paleontology. He takes the horse as an example and points out that several of the standard claims about the pattern of equine evolution, such as the gradual reduction of the side toes, are extremely questionable and that the morphological distance covered from the earliest horse to the present horses is so small, compared with the vast changes that evolution must encompass, that it is questionable whether the series, even if true, proves much at all. And even the emergence of one species from another has never been directly observed by science.

[djaggs]

Another problem with evolution that continues to worsen is that it remains incapable of explaining how anything could evolve that doesn't make biological sense when incomplete. The wings of birds are the classic example: what good is half of one? Other examples abound. This is a problem that evolutionary theory has promised a solution to for a long time and not delivered. Worse even than visible examples like wings are the complex chemical reactions and molecular structures that living things are made of. This is the principal point of Darwin's Black Box (these micro-processes are the black boxes), a book too technical to be satisfying reading for the layman but that convincingly argues that many of these micro-processes make sense either complete or not at all. There are no plausible accounts of how they could have evolved from other simpler processes because as one hypothesizes back down the hypothetical chain of complexity, one comes to a point at which the process simply won’t work if it gets any simpler. At this stage, the process couldn’t have evolved from anything else because there is nothing simpler for it to have evolved from. And at this stage, the process is still far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. At one time, knowledge of the complex processes of living things was limited enough, and hopes for the discovery of intermediate processes that they could have evolved from wide-open enough, that evolutionists could ignore this problem. But as biological research has progressed, this gap too has been filled with more and more inconvenient facts. As in the case of the other problems challenging evolution, the key thing here is the intellectual direction: research is consistently making the problem worse, not better.

Another similar example: one of the things that has happened since evolution was first proposed is that biology has achieved a precise cataloging of the thousands of different proteins that make up organisms. It was hoped that a thorough cross-species comparison of these would reveal the kinds of relationships of graded similarity that evolution implies. But it hasn’t. Instead, it has given the same picture of distinct species that examination of gross anatomy does. It’s the same old story of a tree with all twigs and no branches! Worse, analysis of the closeness and distance between different species reveals bizarre results. For example, according to the sequence difference matrix of vertebrate hemoglobins in the standard Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function, man is as close to a lamprey as are fish! This problem repeats itself with other characteristics of organisms that have been brought within the scope of evolutionary comparison since Darwin’s day.

Another problem with evolution that has only gotten worse with increasing biological knowledge is the question of how life initially emerged from dead matter. As recently as the early 50's, it was still possible to hypothesize that discoveries would reveal the existence of entities intermediate between single-celled organisms and complex lifeless molecules. The existence of these intermediates (certain kinds of viruses were candidates for the role) would imply the possibility of an evolutionary transition from dead chemicals to intermediates to life. Unfortunately, the discovery of DNA in 1953 killed this hypothesis in its simplest form, and subsequent discoveries have only made the matter worse. Vast numbers of microorganisms are now known, as are vast numbers of complex molecules, but nothing in between. Furthermore, even the simplest possible cell imaginable within the limits of biology, let alone the simplest actually existing cell, is far too complex to have been thrown together by any known non-living chemical event. So even if evolution has an explanation of how species evolve from one to another, it has no way to "get the ball rolling" by producing the first species from something that is not a species.

There are even distinguished philosophers of science, like Sir Karl Popper, a man of impeccable credentials and no religious ax to grind, who have openly questioned whether evolution is a science at all, in principle and not just in practice, because its assertions are not potentially falsifiable. A true science, like physics, makes claims that can be tested and thus potentially falsified; this vulnerability is what makes it worthy of belief when despite this, the falsification does not happen. But evolution does not make claims of this kind. Furthermore, it is one of the touchstones of science that it is based on repeatable experiments. The data used to support evolution are neither experiments nor repeatable, nor can they be, since the origin of species on earth was a unique event. This doesn’t necessarily make evolution nonsense, but it strongly suggests it doesn’t have the right to demand the kind of acquiescence that physics demands on the strength of its being straightforwardly a science. What exactly evolution is, if Popper is right and it is not quite a science in the conventional sense, is an open question. It is probably not without significance that what is now called biology used to be called natural history, an older and perhaps more appropriate concept.

Anyone who doubts that the bulk of the scientific community could be wrong about a fundamental question like this should consider the case of Newtonian physics, which was thought to be unshakable until Einstein disproved it. (Lest anybody quibble about the approximate validity of Newtonian physics at non-relativistic speeds, may I point out that Newtonian physics was formerly thought to be valid at all speeds, throughout the universe, and this Einstein refuted.) Evolution is not a fraud being perpetrated upon the public, but it is a theory that has far too many problems to be treated as something that everyone is obliged to believe in on pain of being classified as a fool, as if it were the claim that the earth goes around the sun. Its credibility will continue to wane (or wax) with additional developments in biology over the coming years, but the absolute prerequisite for solving this intellectual puzzle is for free debate on the issue to be permitted again. I am quite happy to change my position if new facts come out, and I urge my readers that this is the only rational view.

Copyright © 2001 by Robert Locke.

[noobie]

Right. And the Alternative to evolution is that God Make It So.
ok.

[ronsin1]

As a result it is easy to see why religion would develope in almost any civilized society. It is borg natural and [/b]man made.[[b]

I am in total agreement with this religion is man made

the theory of Evolution that man had evoled from monkeys which may be true but the question still lies where did monkeys come from what did they evolve from???

The question of the big bang theory, how did that happen if there was a big bang it was created by something wonder what it was?

while we sit here arguing abt creation and evolution no one really knows for sure how we exist.

But I will say one thing and this is my opinon GOD does exist and it does not matter what religon you are.

There is also the saying that God created man which I believe is true but the question is where did God come from

Again I say we all argue abt this but each of us are confused as the other!

That is why I said earlier in the Thread that I believe in creation but the topic is debatable!!!

We have elvolved no doubt about that but where did we come from?????

[Strauss]

In many cultures around the world -even those living away from 'civilization'- the stories of how men came to be are strikingly similar... man and woman created from the earth. It gets a bit varied after that from culture to culture but the fundamentals are the same.

That alone should tell you something. How can all these people, untouched by 'modern thinking', have the same views? Most times the simplest answers are right in front of you. But a few men choose to look for something different. It doesn't matter really in the end... it comes back full circle.

[ronsin1]

In many cultures around the world -even those living away from 'civilization'- the stories of how men came to be are strikingly similar... man and woman created from the earth. It gets a bit varied after that from culture to culture but the fundamentals are the same.

That alone should tell you something. How can all these people, untouched by 'modern thinking', have the same views? Most times the simplest answers are right in front of you. But a few men choose to look for something different. It doesn't matter really in the end... it comes back full circle.

agreed

[djaggs]

You know, many people stumble at our religious dogma such as God created the world in seven days, who is to say he meant a literal seven days. If there was no earth on the first day, then how was that day measured??

IM just saying, its good to have an open mind sometimes about intrpretation of the Bible. The Bible says it was seven days, but the Bible also says that a thousand years is like a day with God.

I believe we were created by God, but exactly how I dont know for sure. It would be really hard for a primitive man writing in genesis to understand concepts like microbiology, and organic and inorganic compounds. It says He made man from the earth and in fact, our bodies do contain all the elements found in the earth. But one thing I know for sure, it wasnt no accident.

[ronsin1]

IM just saying, its good to have an open mind sometimes about intrpretation of the Bible. The Bible says it was seven days, but the Bible also says that a thousand years is like a day with God.

What you have to also remember that time is a man made thing to tell day from night, morning from evening and it based on the sun position....

[noobie]

In many cultures around the world -even those living away from 'civilization'- the stories of how men came to be are strikingly similar... man and woman created from the earth. It gets a bit varied after that from culture to culture but the fundamentals are the same.

That alone should tell you something. How can all these people, untouched by 'modern thinking', have the same views? Most times the simplest answers are right in front of you. But a few men choose to look for something different. It doesn't matter really in the end... it comes back full circle.

How could they all have the same views...that's your question. And your answer is Magic: God Make It So!

How ignorant. It's so much easier to fall back on "God make it So" rather than actually STUDY anthropology isn't it!?

When you wake up in the morning and you bounce starter why does the car start?
WHO CARES! GOD MAKE IT SO!
How does the combustion engine work....*steups*, doh study that! God Make It So!
How the Honda does run? The God of VTECH MAKE IT SO!

We should all still be worshiping the Sun eh?
And the Earth is the center of the Universe. And the world is Flat.
Why?
Because God Make It So.

The apple falls from the tree..why? Because God Make It So.

[ronsin1]

^^^ hoss who get you so worked up

[Dessalines]

Well look ting...before it had religious wars...now it have people fighting over no religion....

[djaggs]

Well look ting...before it had religious wars...now it have people fighting over no religion....

LOL

[RASC]

Education is really the key yes

[Strauss]

In many cultures around the world -even those living away from 'civilization'- the stories of how men came to be are strikingly similar... man and woman created from the earth. It gets a bit varied after that from culture to culture but the fundamentals are the same.

That alone should tell you something. How can all these people, untouched by 'modern thinking', have the same views? Most times the simplest answers are right in front of you. But a few men choose to look for something different. It doesn't matter really in the end... it comes back full circle.

How could they all have the same views...that's your question. And your answer is Magic: God Make It So!

How ignorant. It's so much easier to fall back on "God make it So" rather than actually STUDY anthropology isn't it!?

When you wake up in the morning and you bounce starter why does the car start?
WHO CARES! GOD MAKE IT SO!
How does the combustion engine work....*steups*, doh study that! God Make It So!
How the Honda does run? The God of VTECH MAKE IT SO!

We should all still be worshiping the Sun eh?
And the Earth is the center of the Universe. And the world is Flat.
Why?
Because God Make It So.

The apple falls from the tree..why? Because God Make It So.

Tell the lord that you need a drink.