If ya say so



Do you deny it is an erroneous example of what evolution theory really says?  It is not 'given enough time, anything can happen' that is a totally false reading of it.  

A much better way to put the theory is that those best adapted to survive environmental pressures are the ones that reach breeding age and do so, and pass on their genes to their offspring.  And that slowly (over hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years) species change to become better suited to their environment.  

That timeframe can be excellerated by severe environmental pressures though.

I repeat it is not about 'given enough time, anything can happen', that is a bogus erroneous interpetation of what the theory says and is.

If you are going to use an example of something in order to debunk that somethign then use a CORRECT example, not a fabricated and erroneous one.



Erm, I guess that is a compliment. [;)]

Let's think outside the box here.....

If Bling-Bling is considered a word now...

why not CREVOLUTION?  ...as a word, theory, possibility.

Im not interpreting that genesis story literally.  We (Humans)aren't a bunch of inbred Jews....

Ditto.  You can believe that evolution works and God created it all.  

OK, let's read a little further...  



Hmmm. Sounds [i]reeeeal[/i]  close to "given enough time...."

But you say it isn't the same thing. If you say so, friend.



Heheheheh. Ohhhhkay.



Ja-ja. [;)]



In a round-about way, it was.

It doesn't matter what I believe.  Reality is what it is, regardless of my opinions or desire of what it should be.  Therefore, I try to [b]objectively[/b] (as best I can) evaluate the available evidence.  Most people approach the opposing view with an intent to discredit it rather than honestly see if there might be some validity.  That's why evolutionists often automatically resort using terms like "fundamentalist" and superstition."  One of the science fiction writers (I think it may have been Asimov, although I'm not certain) was honest enough to say he believes in evolution because he refuses to consider the alternative.  I submit for consideration the following random thoughts...

Variation within a species does not conflict with creationism.  A moth changing color is still a moth.  I've read a couple posts where people claim evolution to be a fact and we can see it going on today.  Where are your transitional forms, where a new species is developing from a pre-existing one?

Which takes more faith: To say "God created the universe" or "The universe created itself from nothing"?

Evolution is dependent upon mutation.  The vast majority of mutations are negative/detrimental.  Thus, for each beneficial mutation there would have to be thousands, if not millions, of "failed attempts."

Evolutionists point at similarities and say, "Look- a common ancestor."  A creationist looks at similarities and says, "Look- a common designer."  

As a Christian, I personally don't like that bumper sticker that says, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it."  He gave us a brain to think with and blind faith has caused so much harm in all religions.  God never says, "Shut up and believe."  Rather, in Isaiah 1:18 He says, "Come, let us reason together..."  My heart and brain were designed to work in harmony.  When they are in agreement I have peace within.

We all pretty well know what evolutionists believe.  It's been preached in the government schools for decades.  How about some of you objective scientific types giving the following sites a perusal to learn why some creationists believe what they do.  

[url]http://www.icr.org/[/url]  (Check out the articles at the Back To Genesis button).

[url]http://www.creationism.org/[/url]

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp[/url]

nope, not even close.

There are WORLDS of difference.

Islam is closer to Christianity than your 'given enough time' strawman is to the actual real theory of evolution.

Hell buddism is closer to Christainity than you bogus and (intentionally?) false strawman.

You do know that resorting to strawman arguments is a classic tactic of those that cannot refute the facts at hand.

From Josh McDowell's "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity":

[b]Is There Evidence Of Instantaneous Creation?[/b]

Over the last 10 to 15 years, evidence has been gathered which seems to indicate that the earth was created in an instant. The evidence comes from the study of a feature of many igneous rocks. The radiohalo, found throughout various minerals, is a discoloration of the rock caused by the radioactive decay of a small speck of a radioactive element contained in the rock.

When a small speck or inclusion of a radioactive substance, such as uranium-238, is trapped in the rock, the uranium emits alpha particles which destroy the crystal structure of the mineral. Since the alpha particles are emitted from the uranium with a particular speed, the alpha particles can travel only a certain distance through the rock before they stop. When the alpha particles stop, they discolor the rock.

Since the alpha particles are emitted in all directions, a spherical shell of discoloration is produced.

While uranium is decaying to lead, it passes through fifteen steps. When an atom of uranium emits an alpha particle, the atom no longer is uranium but becomes thorium which in turn gives off a particle and turns into another element.

During this process, alpha particles with five distinct velocities are given off. Because of this, when uranium is trapped in a rock a set of fine concentric discolorations of the rock will occur. The size of each halo is determined by the speed of the alpha particle, for each element in the decay chain has emitted particles with a specified velocity. Thus if one finds a halo of a certain radius, he often can determine what element formed the halo from the radius alone.

Polonium-218, polonium-214 and polonium-210 are the radioactive substances which are responsible for three halos in the characteristic five-ringed uranium halo. These three isotopes of polonium are found today only mixed up with uranium-238. This is because polonium decays so rapidly that it cannot be stored for more than a few minutes. The only reason it even exists is that it is constantly being formed by the decay of uranium.

Two factors are required before a halo can form.

1. A small speck of a radioactive substance must be included in the molten rock before it cools.

2. The rock must solidify and form a crystal before all of the radioactivity is ended.

Because of these considerations, it was surprising when two and three-ring halos were discovered in a size which indicated they had been formed by the three isotopes of polonium. Since polonium- 218 has a half-life of only three minutes, most polonium is almost entirely gone within 30 minutes. Therefore, to find a polonium-218 halo without any evidence of a uranium halo seemed to indicate that the molten rock solidified within 30 minutes of the formation of the polonium-218, and since the only known source of polonium-218 is from the decay of uranium, the only apparent source of that polonium would be by creation.

The situation gets more interesting with polonium-214 halos the two-ringed halos mentioned above. The half-life of polonium-214 is .000164 second. This means that the rock would have had to cool in less than I/ 1000th of a second after the polonium-214 was created. No known processes of nature can cool and solidify a rock that rapidly.

Is it possible that this proves God created the earth in an instant?

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES

R.V. Gentry, "Extinct Radioactivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochroic Halo,"
Nature, Vol. 213, p. 487.
R.V. Gentry, "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos,"
Science, June 14, 1968, p. 1228-1230.
R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos: Some Unique Lead Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha
Radioactivity," Science, Vol. 173, p. 727-731.
C. Moazed, R.M. Spector, and R.F. Ward, "Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternative
Interpretation," Science, Vol. 180, p. 1272-1274.
R.V. Gentry, et al, "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Ph Isotope Ratios and Search
for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radioholos," Nature, Vol. 244, p. 282-283.
R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective,"
Science~ Vol. 184, p. 62-66.
J.H. Fremlin, "Spectacle Haloes," Nature, Vol. 258, p. 269.
R.V. Gentry, "Gentry Replies," Nature, Vol. 258, p. 269, 270.

I read "Origin of the Species" by Darwin and do not remember any implication of crossbreeding between 2 existing species to create a new distict species and that process being referreed to as evolution.  I may be mitaken but you are wrong.

Species of the same genus CAN breed usually but the offspring is ALWAYS sterile(evolutionary safeguard) and sometimes has other genetic defects.

No human will ever live long enough to actually see the complete process of evolution in a single species but as for your "fish having eyes" argument, that is actually a good one for evolution because a distiction of predators in the animal kingdom is front set eyes for binoculat vision while prey species have wide set eyes for maximum field of view.    

Evolution does not say "anything can happen given enough time".  It gives the mechanism for the biological diversity seen on the earth and how these organisms adapted to an everchanging and hostile environment.

Yes everything is made of DNA but what other source is there besides the DNA here on earth?  Are ther other cosmic sources?  If only one source of a material is known then it stands to reason that this is the source for all of the known material.

We have been able to track other species of animals' evolutionary process through the fossil record and have uncovered much of our own also.  

Yes we did arise from the waters of the sea.  A "blob of slime" if you will.  How I do not know but I speculate that god made it happen.  The life that lives here now, or most of it, would not have been able to survive the climactic changes of the last million years or even the last billion years!  Just 10K years ago most of north america was covered in ice.  Species lived here that are no longer seen.  But there are animals that adapted and flourished.

Proof of evolution is all around you.  It is inside of your cells and in your DNA.  Look in the mirror at that flat primate face.  Your primate hands and feet.  The four incisors seperating your canines are distinctly primate(cats and dogs, ect. have 6 insisors).  Your frontset eyes and skeletal structure are primate.  You and I eveolved from a common ancestor of the apes.  Further we share mitchondrial DNA with one of the most primitive and ancient, single cell orginsim known.  This form of DNA is only known to be passed by the mother of the offspring.  So how can creationism explain that?  Explain why I share mitochindrial DNA with an ape?  Albeit a minutely small amount but how?  God made an exception to a rule that is a foundation of genetic science?  I think not.  

Believeing in evolution is not the refusal of god or religion but IMO a reconciliation of contradictions in the two beliefs.

The 'where is the transitional forms' isnt a good argument to refut evolution.  Every creature is a 'transitional form'.  Think of the fossil record as taking a series of snapshots, if everything is slowly yet constantly changing then if you miss a few hundred thousand generations you might have a new species and not even know that it was the same as the previous species.

As for mutations, every birth is a mutation.  Your kids are not the same as you or your mate, they are different yet very similiar.  As for a mutation being 'benefical' or 'detrimental' that is more a 50/50 chance than a 1 to a thousand or 1 to a million.  There is less 'evolution' in times of plenty (or low environmental pressure) because things lower on the 'fittest' scale are still able to survive and breed, maintaining thier 'inferior' genes within the species, in times of severe pressure the 'fitness bar' is raised, resulting in a much 'faster' evolution rate.

Think of it this way:

Take a buncha cats all colors and patterns.  Only allow the 'white' (those with more white fur on their body than the others) ones to breed.  Pretty soon you will have a bunch solid white cats (which only have white kittens).  Which would mean that you 'extincted' (that a word?) the 'colored' cats.

The bad thing with evolution is that if you specialize too much you doom you species to an eventual extinction.

Like in our example of the cats, if after you get the 'white' to be breeding true (every cat only has white kittens, or very few nonwhite kittens) and suddenly change to only colored cats being able to breed you may have no cats around to breed in a short while.  Which is an extinction of a species.

Now granted these examples are VERY simplified, but they are an example of evolution in action.

Still variation within a species.  I'm homo sapiens, my kids are homo sapiens, as will be their.  

Ok

What defines 'species'?

At what point does the 'variation within a species' turn into a different species?

At what point did 'wolf' become 'dog' for example?

Josh McDowell is a lawyer.  I try to get my science from scientists, not attorneys. YMMV.

How about this one? I realized asv a kid that I believed in both and depending on the subject would give you a different answere. I now believe that it's a combination of the two. Life started somewhere, by something. (Matter didn't just appear) and it has evolved into what we are today. (Evolution)

A lawyer is trained in rules of evidence, logic, and so forth (I'll bet you've never read "Darwin On Trial" either, then).  He had scientific references for the points he was making.  I think this is an example of a principle I mentioned in an above post.  When presented with evidence you attack the messenger because you don't have a response to the message.

Are you a scientist?  I'm not.  Applying your reasoning, none of us, except bona fide "scientists", should be discussing this.

Edited to add: So are you open-minded folks interested in seeing what the other side has to say or looking for ways to shut us up?

Main Entry: law·yer  
Pronunciation: 'lo-y&r, 'loi-&r
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
From archaic Dutch[i]lao[/i], "lying" + awyer, a now extinct form of a small, stinking weasel.

The rules of evidence for a court trial are NOT the same as the rules of evidence for science.  Things get ruled on in court that would never pass the test in science.  For instance, the OJ trial.  Science would say "His DNA was at the crime scene, therefore he did it."  In court, the lawyers can spin some yarn about cops planting the evidence and voila! OJ is acquitted.  Being a lawyer in no way qualifies one to have the definitive view of any scientific question.




You can think whatever you want, as long as you don't mind being wrong.



No, that would be your illogical conclusion based on your own bias and not the facts.  What I am saying is that I don't consider McDowell to be an authority on the subject.



Ah, so pointing out that you're getting your scientific "evidence" from a lawyer is "trying to shut you up?"  How utterly Democratic of you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
A lawyer is trained in rules of evidence, logic, and so forth
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Come on guys, if you make my points for me I won't have anything to write about.

Rikwriter: Um, I really don't mean to be nitpicky, but you haven't addressed any of the evidence cited above.  Your response has just been attempts to undermine the people who mention it.

Brohawk: Um, I really don't mean to be pedantic, but this thread is seven pages long and several months old.  I posted on it loooong ago.  I've also posted on other threads like it over and over for something like six years now.  I've answered your points, I've answered other peoples' points, I've answered points you haven't even thought of or heard about yet.
I am commenting now on the fact that you are uncritically accepting the scientific analysis of a lawyer with an agenda.  Nothing else.  If you want answers to your points, do a google search and you can find them.  I've said my piece too many times before (and had it ignored by Creationists with no answers) to go through all that again.
Edit to add: Here, if you want a refutation of Gentry's slight-of-hand, here's one that took all of ten seconds to find:  [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html [/url]

Joining this party a bit late.

I agree with Balzac. "Both" is the answer, and is not contradictory in any way.

I believe that God created the heavans, the earth, and all that is seen and unseen.

If He chose to create us via the evolutionary process, then who am I to argue?

Remember, folks, that science doesn't "create" anything. It simply describes what it sees, and tries to write theories that will predict what will happen under a given set of circumstances. We define gravity on earth as -9.8M/Sec/Sec. The inhabitants of a planet clear across the galaxy may use an entirely different method to measure the same phenomenon, despite the fac that it's REALITY is unchanged by how it's described.

So, science has developed a theory that all life evolved from earlier species, and has collected evidence that strongly supports it. However, they have never given an adequate description of where the FIRST life came from.

...and before anyone thinks that something as complex as the human brain "just happened" after a pool of sludge got hit by lightening or something, I'll remind you of the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all systems will drift toward disorganization (Entropy). The newer theories state that "obstructions" allow life to exist despite the Second Law, but then comes the question "How do obstructions to a law exist in a system where the law is a law"?

So, after that light disertation, I re-emphasize my answer: BOTH.

"creationism" is christian cult mythology used to perpetuate "human superiority" over other animals. "faith" is used to oppress "creationism" on the weak and uneducated.

Any time someone comes up with "evidence" to support a biblical style creation event, it means only one thing:  Bad scientific methodology was used to collect the evidence.    Also known as "massaging the data".

I find the entire creation concept (in its biblical form) to be nothing less than the worst form of empirical reasoning that has ever been put to paper.    If you're standing on a piece of apparently flat ground, you assume the world is flat.  If you can't see the stars move or change in your short lifetime, you presume that they're unchanging, immovable, and eternal.   If you can't remember what your ancestors looked like, you presume they all looked just like you.

It's unrealistic to presume that the things written long ago in the bible (and other religious texts) could possibly be accurate representations of the truth when the people who wrote of the events were almost totally ignorant of most of the basic physical truths of our earth and universe that we now learn in grade school.

Tell something complex and technical to an idiot and have him try to relay it to someone else intact.    Think of the professor telling Gilligan how to make a radio out of a few coconuts and some monkey shit, and see if Gilligan can pass on the directions to the skipper in a manner that allows the skipper to actually make said radio.

It just isn't going to happen.

CJ

[b]so, do think it's creation or evolution?[/b]

It's both and that's why I have no problem with either.

Amongst all the other babble here I read someone say that a creationist was ignorant of the definition of the word "theory".

That's a bit OTT. The facts are that the evolutionary theory has not and probably cannot be proven by scientific methodology, ie. theory+experiment+ratio of repeatability etc.
Therefore it will always be a theory or hypothesis until scientific method can be followed.

My bet is it will never be more than a theory.

It's also a somewhat irrelevant question which sidetracks from the issue it supposedly addresses............is there a God/Creator/Initiator?

The scientific truth as we know it is that matter does not come into existence from nothingness, therefore matter must come from something. In other words, where did the singularity which physicists claim is responsible for all matter in the universe "come from"?

It seems quite anti-logical for humans to see an ordered construct in their own world, ie a bridge, car, jet aircraft, computer, house etc. and conclude that these things have a creator, and then when it comes to constructs beyond their skills to devise, ie a flower, planet, star, human body, eco-systems etc. claim that each example, by itself and in unison happened, through some seemingly infinite series of miraculous accidents.

As with other theories of man, I lend little credence to this evolutionary one and find it's used as an expedient excuse for those who don't want to feel as if they might have to answer for their actions, as well as a tremendously arrogant "conclusion" based on an unscientific proposition which is only +/- 100 years old..... a drop in the bucket of cosmic time!!

I for one happen to believe in one miraculous accident instead of billions.

And for you "All American", gun toteing, freedom loving crowd out there......you would be wise to be careful as to how you publically side on this issue. If there is no God or Creator, then you have NO inalienable rights. It's really that simple.

All IMHO

I take it you are not familiar with the concept of natural rights.  Although one can argue that the concept is has an inherent fallacy because it is often defined in a circular manner (natural rights are self-evident), in my view the way for an atheist or agnostic to look at it is to take any definition of the origin of fundamental rights that relies on God as a source and replace "God" with "nature", e.g.:

[b]Each of us has a natural right—from [i]nature[/i] — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all."[/b]

[size=4]Apologies to Frederic Bastiat[/size=4]

No, that does not follow at all.  You too are showing an ignorance of the word "Theory" wrt scientific evidence.  Go back and reread my post without getting all pissy about it and you will see what that definition is.  Also, you can have PREDICTION even when experimentation isn't possible.  If evolutionary theory makes a prediction which is later discovered to be accurate then it is as good as an experiment.



Of course it won't, just as General Relativity will never be anything but a theory, even though we know it's accurate.  



Totally wrong.  The issue of whether there is a creator is TOTALLY separate from whether life evolved or was created pretty much as is.  There may be a Creator or there may not be but either way, no matter how life came about it evolved from its past forms to its present ones.



No, it really isn't.  Rights come from a willingness to fight for them, nowhere else.  The supposed "inalienability" of our rights didn't stop one dictator after another from abridging them for most of known history.

Explain DNA with the big bang!

I don't have to.  One has nothing to do with the other, just as evolution has nothing to do with cosmology.  In fact, your post is pretty much a non sequitur.

What is there to explain about DNA?  If planets can form within the universe why can’t DNA form within the planet?  What I think is a lot of people have a hard time dealing with the complexity of many things within our universe.

Why does everyone keep talking about complexity?  Do you not recognize that complexity if merely a function of perspective?

Ok, I know life and DNA seem infinitely complex; however, life only seems to be complex when put into the normal perspective of a human.  

The definition of complexity from www.dictionary.com reads:

[b]complexity[/b]
\Com*plex"i*ty\, n.; pl. Complexities. [Cf. F. complexit['e].] 1. The state of being complex; intricacy; entanglement


From this definition, one could say the complexity of a system could be defined as the sum total of the interactions of all the individual particles which make up the system.  For example, take a large section of the universe with all its planets, comets, stars, asteroids, galaxies, black holes, etc., which are constantly interacting with each other.  From this given system, the number of “particles” interacting with each other could easily number in the billions.  

However, say you take a block of steel as a system.  That’s a simple non-complex system right?  Wrong.  There are BILLIONS of atoms within that block of steel.  All of these individual atoms are constantly interacting with each other sharing electrons, moving electrons, changing quantum state, etc.  

Which system is more complex?  Is the universe more complex because all of its “particles” contain innumerable more particles?  How complex would that block of steel look if you could view it at the singular atomic level?  It would like a lot like a universe complete with orbiting particles spaced apart by comparatively HUGE distances.  The crazy part is that both the block of steel system and the universal system operate under the same set of rules.  What are these rules?  I can’t quite tell you yet, but physicists think the uniform field theory isn’t too far off. . .

My point is that complexity is a moot argument.  One can only have complexity by comparing one system to another.  

About evolution specifically, it’s my belief that the reason most people have a hard time excepting the facts is due to a lack of understanding of time.  Our planet has been here for ~4.5 billion years.  That’s a long time . . . much longer than anyone will ever be able to fathom.

Given enough time the probability for anything to occur goes to one.

- Matt

It can be done.  But to explain it properly would take considerable time and a number of steps, most of which can be proven experimentally under basic laboratory conditions.

The only thing we can't do in this chain of proof is to replicate the conditions in the Big Bang or the time period immediately before and after it.

Here's the nutshell version:

Big Bang creates all matter in the universe.

Said matter becomes all elements we know, and perhaps some we don't.

The innate, predictable characteristics of some of these elements dictate that they will readily interact to form stable molecules with predictable properties.   Such chemicals that are based on carbon are called ORGANIC molecules.

Organic chemistry by itself is a HUGE subject.  It can be rightfully said that a person could dedicate his entire life to the study of organic chemistry and not amass all accumulated knowledge of the subject.

Organic chemistry is based on the carbon chain.  The beauty of this simple beginning is that carbon has a valence of four, so it'll combine in more ways with more other elements than any other element.   It is this unlimited versatility that is the key to the development of large, stable molecules that are the precursors to, and building blocks of, life.

DNA is composed of a relative handful of organic chemicals, most significant of which are Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine, and Thymine, four amino acids.  They are commonly denoted by their first letters, C, T, A, and G.  

These amino acids join together across opposite strands of the DNA helix, which is composed of peptides  C always joins with T, and A always joins with G.    These base pairs therefore hold four basic values, as any pair can be arranged in either of two orders.

The part that's hardest to understand is that once certain organic chemicals first interact and begin to self-replicate (by a fairly well understood process) then evolutionary development occurs with time,  as random perturbations in the chemistry of the life form can affect its survivability, some for the better, and some for the worse.   Changes that enhance the life form's survivability will of course be retained, and changes for the negative side of survival won't survive another generation.    As such, life is unique in that it is self-organizing and anti-entropic in large measure.


The only part that's just a little mysterious about the basic process is the jump from a soup of amino acids and other organic chemicals to a self-sustaining, self-replicating elementary organism.    That alone has not yet been
duplicated under laboratory conditions, but I presume that it will be, and soon.

We've synthesized every biochemical building block of life.  Some are remarkably easy to create and can be made by pouring various organci chemicals into a strong container, sealing it up, and throwing it around the room a few times.  The shock waves generated within the chemicals by the impacts provide enough energy for some organic chemicals to combine into other organics of higher complexity, such as amino acids.

God doesn't have to make life,  he just had to make the Big Bang.  Life took care of itself.

CJ

Somebody here called animals dumber than humans

Animals don't waste their time here debating the unprovable. This applies to both sides.Damn I just called myself dumb[;)].


We only have 80 years (if you are lucky) here. Doesn't matter if you are athieist, agnostic, jewish, christian, islam, hindu, or animist. So your opinion stinks just as bad as mine(translation you are no better for your beliefs then me).

If there is no God then you have no INALIENABLE RIGHTS. All you have is Survival of the fittest.
  I am fine with that.

Therfore we have no hope for the Second amendment (what this board is supposed to be about) , because the politicains are smarter than us as evidenced by their Power, Money , Security. Individual rights do not matter in the evolutionary scheme of things. The needs of the many are greater then the needs of the few.

Why do those of you here who are athieist have morals?  That is very contrary to Evolutionary teaching. Do you think a monkey would hesitate to eat its young? Do you think a Bear would think twice, feel remorse, or remember the other Bear it killed for being in its way?

OTOH Why do children make the best soldiers or need to be taught the difference between right and wrong?

What the hell am I talking about? If you can't follow you are not intelligent or educated enough to want to have a converstion with. I will not talk about simple math in a calculas class. If you can follow and disagree I DON'T F^@&ING Care. Ill be dead in less then 50 years.
Unless you know how to live to be 1,000 y.o. then I will believe whatever you do [;D]
Am I an athiest or beliver in supreme being? Let me know if you do.. I love to argue both sides
P.S. Why do the big three (Judaism, Islam, Christianity kill each other if they all believe in the same GOD)


damn should have read all of it before posting

Just as it pisses me off when Creationists dispel evolution out-of-hand, it pisses me off when Evolutionists like yourself slam anothers religious beliefs out of hand.

Both reactions are those of the weak-minded and insecure in their positions.

So, to your response above, do you think a human is on the same level as, say, a cockroach? Are you going to stand with the dolts in PETA?


Edited to add: for the record, I voted Creationism. Not because I don't believe in Evolution, but rather because I believe tha God CREATED the mechanism of Evolution.

Also, one should remember that a theory is a THEORY because of two [b]facts[/b]: 1) not enough evidence exists to prove it beyond doubt (and thus make it a law), and 2) no evidence has been found that definitavely DISproves it either, in which case the theory would be discarded (i.e. - the flat earth theory).

Remember what I said above: a theory is simply our means of describing what we see. It does not DEFINE what we see. Theories are interpretations, assumptions, and predictions made based on observed or derived data, and since ALL the data is RARELY available, a theory can have great supporting evidence and still be a theory. Whether the theory is, in fact, CORRECT is something that is RARELY known in certainty.

Ok, I'll just quote an earlier post of mine (which quotes someone else, but anyway)...

This criticism conflates the colloquial use of the word "theory" with the scientist's use. In colloquial usage, the word "theory" is used to designate a mere guess or conjecture. But scientists do not call guesses and conjectures "theories" -- scientists call them "hypotheses." In scientific circles, the word "theory" designates something far strong that a hypothesis. As zoologist Tim Berra explains,

a theory in the special scientific sense is not "just a theory," as creationists are fond of saying. A scientific theory is the endpoint of the scientific method, often the foundation of an entire field of knowledge, and is not to be confused with the sort of "theory" we so easily propose in everyday conversation. (Berra 1990:4)

To say that evolution is "just a theory" is at best to make a mistake comparable to saying that Copernican theory, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, the theory of relativity, and round-earth theory, are just guesses. Evolution is a theory only in the same robust scientific sense as all of these other theories.

The fact of the matter is..no one will really know until the lights go out.....oh and by the way...I agree with those who say there is too much info missing in Creationism...not that there is no God....but there are definately some things that the ancient people did not understand and they created stories to help explain them....most of these stories did not keep up and 'evolve' with technology and time....the holy roller extremest types rant about how everything not explained in the the Bible is Satan's work...but they must also be reminded that God gave us a mind with superior intelligence to all other life forms on earth and the Bible tells us not to be fools in our ways and beliefs...if this were not the case...then medicine etc.. would not have evolved to do the good it has done...sometimes we need to open our eyes and hearts and accept a change in what we are traditionally taught because of what we have learned.

In the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth.

Rikwriter: After taking a day to chew on it, I concede the radiohalo point.  I don't have a background that would enable me to refute the refutation, so I will stop referring to Gentry in subsequent debates.

Trying to stay honest in this...

Nope, I'm the top of the food chain. Sure, there are other animals that would consider humans prey, but they are also human prey.

I don't understand the "PETA" references? It seams to come out anytime the creationists feel threatened. FWIW, I'm anti-PETA, pro-carnivore. But, I'm also not handicapped by christian fallacies. I do "know" that I am not an ant in some "ulterior entity" 's ant farm, but its okay with me if you are.[;)]

I very much respect that Brohawk.
Let me be clear about something here, just to set the record straight.  I am NOT supporting evolution to justify my lack of belief in religions.  I could very easily be a Christian and still accept that evolution happened.  For a while I was.
There is certainly a great deal of room for traditional Christianity to exist side by side with modern science with neither opposing the other.

I view the radiohalo point to be a weak point at best.   Radiohalos develop as a result of a number of complex variables, and it's possible that some minerals are simply immune to the discoloration effects of certain decay products.

I would accept a very thorough, in-depth study of the subject if it addressed all addressable factors including the physical and chemical nature of the discolorations and the conditions under which they may occur, and whether or not they correlate to radioactive decay products in question.

CJ

This argument is getting old.  I have my beliefs, that is that.  I wish that religion would just get out of the way to be honest.  The whole stem cell debate is drowning in religious dribble.  It is one of the policies that I do not agree with that Bush has imposed.  Imagine the possiblities that our children will be given with this research and such.  Spinal injuries healing, organ transplants without anti-rejection drugs, limb replacement, stroke recovery, heart attack recovery, longer life spans, immunity of disease before birth, cure for cancer, diabetes, MS, a plethora of neurological disorders, hell there is even speculation we could become "engineered" to resist tooth decay and actually regrow adult teeth,  the possibilities are endless.   I know I'm off topic but this debate is a reflection of the fierce resistance to change and ideas the the religious sect represents.  

JMHO

If your reason for "accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour" is only because you want to get to heaven, then you are only accepting your own faith out of a percieved extortion of your soul.  Are you, therefore, a truly moral being?  Far from it.

Try accepting moral behavior out of the intrinsic benefits of the moral behavior in of itself rather than some supernatural threat.

I agree.  

There are a lot of people out there who are religious because they want to get into the next act, purely out of self interest.    I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing,   but some of them strike me as being religious out of fear, which is the wrong reason in my book.

Still others seem to be dedicating their entire lives to a voluntary form of slavery to their religion and are not getting on with enjoying their own lives outside their religion, which I think is critical to getting "promoted", so to speak.     Becoming a slave to your religion does not free your mind or expand your horizons, or materially contribute to your personal growth, and if I were The Big Boss I wouldn't award you any points for falling into that situation and you'd get thrown back into the pot to try again, starting over again in a new infant body.


I know for sure that my version of heaven would NOT have me surrounded by a bunch of freaking bible thumper sheeple with permanently flat foreheads from all that forehead-to-ground thumping and praying.    


In my book, creation and evolution are compatible with each other as I mentioned before.  Creation was the creation of the Big Bang, and it was all evolution from there, and it unfolded according to the formula the Big Bang worked by.    Therefore, there is no need for God to meddle with the laws of physics after that creation event.  

CJ

Not reading all of 8 pages but, a few quick comments:

1) Creationists, though they claim to know the scientific definition of "theory" immediately make it clear that they are confused.

2) Mules (crosses between two species) are not always sterile. They are usually sterile, but not always. There have been a number of fertile mules recorded, as reported recently on a couple of the major news sites in an article on mules.

3) While there is some variation in what Creationists claim to believe, the premier source on the subject is the Center for Creation Science in San Diego (IIRC). Penn and Teller featured the head of that organization on their show "Bullshit." It was pretty obvious from the guy's own words that he either didn't understand much of basic science, or was deliberately distorting. Everything he said was contradicted by a wide range of biologists, geologists, paleonotologists, professors, etc. See the show for more details. Juxtaposed against actual scientists, the Creation routine was so absurd it was just plain funny (which is why they did it).

4) Rent the tape of "Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracy and Gene Kelly. It is the story of the Scopes trial in the 1920s where this issue was tried as a matter of law. In short, the defense (the people supporting evolution) were barred from presenting any scientific evidence at all. Nothing. In response, the defense attorney (Clarence Darrow, played by Spencer Tracy) called the prosecuting attorney (William Jennings Brian) to the stand as an expert on the only book allowed to be entered as evidence, the Holy Bible. With nothing more than the Bible as evidence and a firm believer explaining the Creation story, Clarence Darrow destroyed the argument for Creationism in short order. End of story, except that they convicted the guy anyway, which pretty well shows you that the Creationists really aren't interested in the truth. Their motto is like the bumper sticker I see so often: God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Real open-minded good learners, they are.

"Inherit The Wind" is not a historically accurate portrayal of the events surrounding the Scopes trial.  It was written with an agenda.  Let's try to stay honest in this debate.  Check this article (Too long to copy & post):

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2467.asp[/url]

Interesting stuff, but not one bit of it addresses the arguments that were at the core of the destruction of the Creationist argument which started with Darrow's question of "God created the earth in seven days. Were those 24 hour days?"

I have tried similar lines of questioning with Creationists myself. It quickly becomes apparent that 1) the Bible is incredibly vague about any of the details and some of the details don't make much sense on examination and 2) the Creationists have never really thought about any of the logical questions that might arise from the Genesis account -- simply because as good faithful Christians they aren't supposed to question anything. (And that is a fundamental problem with "Creation science" right there. Any "science" which doesn't allow full questioning and examination of the details isn't a "science" at all.)

But, of course, the Creation point of view is not at all universal, even among people who describe themselves as Christians. In truth, the Bible is so vague and limited in what it says about many things that it is really the world's biggest Rohrschach test. That is, people see in it what they want to see and firmly deny any other possible interpretation -- even those offered by their fellow believers.

I would guess it is more due to the fact that the Creationist position is a bit silly upon examination. Also, the Creationists tend to want to force their particular religious beliefs on others. Think how they would react, for example, if the Genesis story of creation was taught equally with all the other religious stories of creation.



Based on the arguments provided by Creationists, I will take my chances, thanks.



Perhaps not, but that is exactly the same thing that I have seen pursued with even more vigor by lots and lots of Creationists. Intolerance of other ideas is a hallmark of American Christian religious belief.

No, it's not either or.  You could BOTH be wrong---there could be a god but it might not be the one you believe in and you might not be doing what that being wants you to do in order to avoid damnation.  

Wouldn't that be a bitch? He gets up to the Pearly Gates and God says "Sorry, you picked the wrong cult." And then, of course, it would turn out that version of God is just as intolerant as their version and condemns everyone to Hell simply because they don't believe in Him. Actions don't matter, only whether you believe in Him.