[Mefustae]

I'm bored so i'll put my previous frustration aside and just point out the most obvious flaws in your reasoning, leaving the rest for the other lads...

*Atheism is a religion*

Just get this through your head; Atheism is not a religion. It's like saying colourless is a colour. It's like saying flavourless is a flavour.

Atheism is not a religion, end of story, and to say it is just makes you look foolish.

And, for the record, I objected to your use of 'evolutionist' because you had imbued it with 'sinister rival religion' connotations. I don't care if you use the word, but when you use it to effectively say evolution is akin to some sort of cult, it's just annoying.

One more thing, can you stop referring to the theory of Evolution as 'evolutionism' as if it is some sort of sinister, rival religion?

Still got problems with my using the term [evolution 4b ism 1] (or 2 ... jk )?

Y'know, screw making a really long answer outlining what I mean. Show me a scientist that has conducted credible, peer-reviewed studies on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism. Then I will conceed that there are indeed scientists out there who not only believe YEC [who cares whether they do or not?], but can be cited as an authority on it.

...peer-reviewed by who?  Who are these mystical peers, and what did they do to become members of the "peer group" without whose approval all research is worthless?  I'm afraid that the Wright brothers ran afoul of the said group, as well as many others.  But anyways, how can you tell if a scientist's work is peer-reviewed?  He gets articles printed about him?  I mean, I'm sure there are different peer groups around.  Which one did you have in mind?  I think you mean that the scientist needs to have his work published in a scientific journal, and critiqued by other scientists in his field.  But if the bliddy journal won't publish it, then what?  (I mean, the scientist is attaching his name to his work and asking for comment... what could be the problem?)  Did you mean this group of peers & their publlications?     Obviously not, or you wouldn't have a problem.  Exactly which group of peers are you talking about here?

Who the **** do you think is meant when you say 'peer review', it means your work is reviewed by your academic/scientific peers to make sure you didn't just fudge the whole thing. Honestly, it's not that hard a premise to grasp.

Now, there is a small thing you have to remember; when you're a Bible scholar, and you write a paper on your research into the Bible and get it published, it is peer-reviewed by your peers, fellow bible scholars. If that same bible scholar was to write a paper on how Evolution got it wrong, then it must be peer reviewed by biologists and soforth, peers versed in evolution, to make sure there are no factual errors. It kind of defeats the purpose of a peer review when you have people completely uneducated in evolution [such as those people from the 'christian research' group] reviewing a paper that challenges evolution. There, is that so hard to understand?

Now, I know what you're thinking, you're probably thinking that scientists versed in Evolution will simply tear apart a paper challenging Evolution because it opposes their ideas. Well, you see, you'd have to be a paranoid moron to think that, end of story.

OK, now calm down.  Take a deep breath.  Slowly count to ten.  Repeat this six times to yourself: YECs are friends, not fiends.    Seriously, don't blow your stack.  As previously stated, the universe is evidence of a creator, unless it formed itself, or perhaps was formed by beings from an alternate universe that formed itself whatever, Mefustae.  Let me rephrase my Challenge (Search for the words "there aren't any":

Challenge: come up with a theory besides A) "it was created" (by whatever means) or B) "it just happened" or "it just happened, and then it was created", which is the combination of A + B.    You can't, because there aren't any.

Wow, you totally have me there. I mean, first you insult me, then you make a completely unfounded and nonsensical assertion, and then you insult me again! You win!

Seriously though, I got annoyed before because of your attitude; someone makes a point, you completely ignore it in favour of you own ideas, flaunting whatever was said with that superior ****ing attitude of yours. You can understand what that may annoy some people.

Now, I really would like to give you what-for regarding those assertions regarding universal creation, but this is a thread on Evolution, and nowhere does Evolution say anything at all about the creation of the universe, so there is no point discussing it.

(in any case, it still wouldn't change the fact that creationism / ID isn't science)

A) It would be impossible for creationism to be science, as creationism is the belief in creation, not the theory itself.  ID, I believe, is the theory 5.  And anyways, I believe you do mean scientific or scientific theory, to be picky.

Creation is not theory. Intelligent Design is not theory. I'll conceed, 'theory' in a colloquial sense may apply, but not scientific theory, which is what counts in this discussion. We have explained to you and people like you time after time after time as to why neither are Scientific Theory, so just drop it.

Science would have no problem with God creating the universe, but it would not be provable, ie, fact 3:

As the sample sentence in fact 3 states, the evidence (1a or 1b) gives proof to the fact.

The problem is, the evidence can be used to fit evolution or creation, depending on how you interpret it.  It just depends on who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

Praytell, what exactly is this evidence that can be used to support creation? What's that? You're full of ****? Oh, very well then. Moving on.

I suppose you'd have us just look at the opposing theories and try to compromise them into the middle then?  Of course the text will support one side or the other.  You were expecting proof for evolution in that article?  You think that there is no proof for creation, and the only proof there is is that which supports evolution?  (And you're not biased?)  You've got to realize that as I've said, there's "proof" on both sides.  The truth depends on who's interpreting it correctly.

Correctamundo, a word i've never used before... and never will again. You're completely correct in that statement, not your statement that the evidence can be proof for both ideas, but that Aldo does in fact think there is no evidence for creation, and he's absolutely correct. Stop talking about this phantom evidence and produce it.

BTW picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion... hmm.  You spend 10+ years of your life learning to become a scientist.  You are taught by evolutionary scientists, as you cannot even be an evolutionary scientist and point out flaws in the evolutionary theory, and expect to keep your job.  So you become an evolutionist.  Then, you are sent into the field to study said "evidence".  Gee, makes me wonder how you're gonna interpret it!  You could say the same for creationist scientists, but the thing is, to be unbiased you have to consider all possible theories that come up.  The creationist scientist already considers evolution, because that's usually his former viewpoint.  If he hasn't considered it already, he will find it in abundance in the scientific field.  The evolutionary scientist, on the other hand, would throw out the creation viewpoint as "discredited" without even considering it, as he thinks that his peers have already done all of the work for him in discrediting creationism.  That is, unless he realizes that of evidence is not even being dealt with, I guess because the evolutionary scientist don't think its worth their time.  ...Also, just when did the evolutionist camp decide they had enough evidence on their side to not consider ideas brought forth by their creationist colleagues?  And what did that evidence consist of?  I do wonder.

Ooooooh, I see. I understand it all now, you're not ignorant, you just paranoid. I'll let you in on a little secret, you're absolutely correct. There is a conspiracy  to keep creationist ideas down, a massive, global conspiracy that has been raging for the past 140 years to overthrow the righteous and take over the world in the name of the dark arts of Science.

I'll put this in terms you can understand. THERE. IS. NO. EVIDENCE. FOR. CREATION.[/i] Just consider that for a second. You want to turn your back on 140 years of scientific progress, fine by me. You want to besmirch the name of every scientist ever to work on the theory of Evolution, you can just get ****ed.

Because you can hardly have the darn things evolving for a million years without having a million remains showing all the various stages in-between, probably in the same place as others like it.  (And, if fossils are so hard to form, then how come the fossils we do find are all fully functioning kinds?  You would expect some in-between forms aka "missing links" to be found.)

You've got to be kidding me. We've been over this again and again and AGAIN! I'm going to assume you're just kidding around now, because nobody could be that goddamn ignorant. I mean, for one, the thread started with *shock* a transitional fossil!

Birds are modified dinosaurs?  How did they manage to evolve hollow bones at the same time as wings at the same time as stronger muscles to power those wings at the same time as larger lungs to give oxygen to said muscles at the same time as a set of legs that could take the landing?  Before you had anything close to a working product, you would have a liability that would be culled.

PROOF!! I HAVE IT! Hard proof that you are in fact only reading the parts of our posts that you can easily rebuff. I mean, I can recall multiple times that multiple people have said that evolution is gradual, and then you go and assume that everything happens at once and thus you've proven evolution is false.

Now, forgive me if i've been insulting... actually, stuff that, you're acting like an insolent, stubborn fool, refusing to even open his mind to anything other than your own beliefs, and you'll get no quarter from me.

[aldo_14]

I'm on a laptop and my fingers hurt from this keyboard, so I'll be brief.  I'll point out, though, that the likes of the Discovery Institute are effectively propagandistic organisations whose key 'scientists' are not involved or active in the correct fields to give an intelligent contribution (if I get round to it, I'll peruse that big link of biogs and point out how x, y, etc don't have applicable knowledge or peer-reviewed research). 

Ok, here goes.

In light of my response to Kosh, do you have a rebuttal?

Why don't you tell me what I believe, first?  I mean, if you're defining my rational opinion as a belief, maybe you should explain that?  I don't believe in monsters under my bed, does that make that a religion (anti-monstertarism)?

A) It would be impossible for creationism to be science, as creationism is the belief in creation, not the theory itself.  ID, I believe, is the theory 5.  And anyways, I believe you do mean scientific or scientific theory, to be picky.

So, it's theology and not science.

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=christian%20science

Noun

    * S: (n) Christian Science, Church of Christ Scientist (Protestant denomination founded by Mary Baker Eddy in 1866)
    * S: (n) Christian Science (religious system based on teachings of Mary Baker Eddy emphasizing spiritual healing)

The problem is, the evidence can be used to fit evolution or creation, depending on how you interpret it.  It just depends on who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

Um, you do know the scientific method, don't you?

Probably not, given that last statement.......sigh.  We've addressed these things multiple times; shown how ID/creationists misrepresent not just evidence but evolutionary theory to try and make some nebulous point.

...And I was saying it would be better to get to know the maker of the arrow before He shot at you, if you get my drift.  I wasn't trying to use Buddha's analogy, I was making my own.

Except there is no arrow.  You're presuming the existence of the metaphorical arrow and the metaphorical shooter; which goes in the opposite direction of the analogy I was making and back onto the realm of presumption.

Is it just me, or did you just answer your own question ("...except to facilitate flatulence")?  Ever tried living without flatulating?  It gets pretty painful.

Um, you don't really understand.  We don't need the lower intestine.  Atall.  It's facilitation role is providing a region where stuff can sit and decompose to cause methane expulsion (i.e. smelly farts).  There are more than a few people who have had it removed - and not out of necessity but even vanity. 

Even then, if you wanted to look, there are tonnes and tonnes of non-optimal designs in nature to be found.

I suppose you'd have us just look at the opposing theories and try to compromise them into the middle then?  Of course the text will support one side or the other.  You were expecting proof for evolution in that article?  You think that there is no proof for creation, and the only proof there is is that which supports evolution?  (And you're not biased?)  You've got to realize that as I've said, there's "proof" on both sides.  The truth depends on who's interpreting it correctly.

BTW picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion... hmm.  You spend 10+ years of your life learning to become a scientist.  You are taught by evolutionary scientists, as you cannot even be an evolutionary scientist and point out flaws in the evolutionary theory, and expect to keep your job.  So you become an evolutionist.  Then, you are sent into the field to study said "evidence".  Gee, makes me wonder how you're gonna interpret it!  You could say the same for creationist scientists, but the thing is, to be unbiased you have to consider all possible theories that come up.  The creationist scientist already considers evolution, because that's usually his former viewpoint.  If he hasn't considered it already, he will find it in abundance in the scientific field.  The evolutionary scientist, on the other hand, would throw out the creation viewpoint as "discredited" without even considering it, as he thinks that his peers have already done all of the work for him in discrediting creationism.  That is, unless he realizes that of evidence is not even being dealt with, I guess because the evolutionary scientist don't think its worth their time.  ...Also, just when did the evolutionist camp decide they had enough evidence on their side to not consider ideas brought forth by their creationist colleagues?  And what did that evidence consist of?  I do wonder.

No, I was taught science.  Hypothesis, testable theory, evidence, observation.  The creationist view is comprehensively discredited by basic science.  The fact you're falling back on this 'bias' crap is proof of that; you can't address the scientific flaws pointed out in a rational manner, so you resort to insinuating bias.  If the creationist camp was able to provide any sort of new evidence it'd be considered, but all they do is push out flawed science using flawed principles.  So this evidence...well, it's considered, and then proven to be used falsely.

I do believe you should find that the chances of evolution happening aren't just minute, they're so small that the opposite must be true.  Your argument above sounds sort of like, "I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I evolved!".

That is, quite frankly, utter bollocks (as anyone understanding the theory and knowing the research done will tell you).  In fact, I'll ask you to drop the sanctimonious 'you should find' rubbish and cite evidence.

So, mankind sinning before they evolved so that death could come into the world and make natural selection work is perfectly, scientifically, sound?

No.  It is scientifically irrelevant.  It is an unknown and untestable factor.  Science does not make up **** - hence science does not even consider this type of stuff.

Moreso, it's rather a meaningless statement.  what does it mean?   Mankind sinned before mankind existed?  Everything else evolved but mankind was plopped into the universe as immortal?  I have no idea what your point is.

So, an Intelligent being Designing the universe isn't scientific?  No, it's just not scientifically provable.  There's evidence, not proof for, both atheistic evolution and ID, again depending on how you interpret them.

Evolution isn't aetheistic, it's just a scientific conclusion drawn from weight of evidence.  Just ask the Vatican.

Also, answering any question with an unknown assumption is very unscientific.  It's the antithesis of science - to dismiss every question with a preformulated, untestable 'answer' that is so vague and nebulous as to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

abiogenesis=The creation of the first life.  evolution=What that life had better have done in an awful big hurry if it hoped to survive past the first generation.  How many abiogenesis incidents did we need before we got one that evolved the ability to replicate itself?  Your slate is being wiped clean each time the original organism expires.  And, we'd better hope that it evolves the ability to replicate itself correctly!

Please read the abiogenesis link I posted previously.  This clearly explains that replication was a precursor to life as part of a sequence of 'evolutionary' (stages) events leading to reproducing simple life (for example, Cairns-smiths' inorganic replicator theory).  In other words, 'first life' did not have to evolve replication, as replication was 'evolved' prior  (for example, Cairns-smith postulated crystal replication which led to the arising of DNA type replicators as 'tools', etc).

(trying to clearly delinate evolution in this context from the biological theory explaining complexity once life arose)

*sigh*
theory 5:

You forgot about the 'plausible' part, evidently.

The proof that ID is not a scientific theory can be found in the Dover (IIRC) School Trial where the pro-creationist witnesses were forced to concede that for ID to be called a theory required a redefinition of the word 'theory' to be the same as 'hypothesis'.

Perhaps a more appropriate definition for you to select is 6b; "b : an unproved assumption", which of course does not qualify as a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

Not likely, given the fact that evolution is taught in 100% of public high schools and state universities.  Hey, if you're lucky you might hear about ID!

We call that 'religious education'.  Same as how 'the world is flat' comes under history rather than geology.

No, evolution does not "design" us to fit together in harmony; it only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best.  That could favor working together in harmony until you started running out of resources.  And if you did, you'd have to evolve into a predator awfully fast, before you starved.

You do know what natural selection involves, don't you?  Natural selection results in the evolution of organisms that exist within an equilibrium within their environment; it's pretty obvious that anything exceeding an equilibrium causes domination and eventually extinction of the food source (for example) and thus extinction of the animal. 

Noting that evolution - selection - never stops, of course,so animals are continuously trying to outcompete each other to stay alive; sometimes called the 'Red Queen' effect where animals (well, not just animals - plants also) are evolving in order to preserve their position in light of other (predator or prey) evolution.

I suspect you're not grasping the concept of 'harmony' in this context.  Let me rephrase it as simply as I can; evolution favours a stable equilibrium between environment (including competitors) and the evolving organism - i.e. 'harmony'.  We may choose to interpret this as the environment being designed for the animals, but in actuality it's the converse.  It just so happens that the converse requires a lot more complex thinking to properly understand......

Diverging, as in separating out from a common source, vs converging, or merging to a common destination.  Ok, I must have missed it.  Who said that we were evolving to a common destination?

The implication of lizards becoming birds is convergence; what birds evolved from were not modern lizards, which is an important distinction.  When you get people saying 'evolution means order x must be able to turn into order y' or soforth, it's a massive error.

Anyways... I was kind of hoping to get back to some of the stuff I hadn't answered previously.  Oh, well, maybe next time.

Meanwhile, have a look at these:
Evolutionism: The New Intolerance
Scientific Intolerance
I have articles that have more to do with the thread topic, but I have to go through them.  Meanwhile, have a look.
PS The address given in those articles is outdated.  The e-mail still works, though.

Science is supposed to be intolerant of falsehood.  (We don't teach x=5 for x-1=2 in maths, why do the same for biology?)

[Edward Bradshaw]

Since atheism is a religion

Since when?

Since it requires faith 2b

{snipped dictionary definition}

Atheism does not require faith, because atheism is non-belief a God or Gods. Since there is no evidence of God/Gods the belief that there are such things must be taken on faith. Therefore to simply disbelieve a deity cannot be based on faith.

Your dictionary defintions for these words are misleading. Dictionaries will typically give all possible definitions and usages of the word. So faith also comes under "trust" or "confidence". And as seen by  the defintion you give for religion below, can be defined on some level as "a personal set...of religious attitudes, beliefs".

The problem with these definitions is that while they are "correct", in that the words can be used and understood in this context, they ultimately render the words meaningless if you try and use these defintions the way you are doing here. According to you everything is a religion, and everyone has faith in every single belief they hold. For the word faith and religion to have any meaning you have to be more specific, and dictionaries do make the distinction when taken as a whole.

Example:
"The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to "belief", "trust" or "confidence", but unlike these terms, "faith" tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship – with God or a higher power. The object of faith can be a person (or even an inanimate object or state of affairs) or a proposition (or body of propositions, such as a religious credo). In each case, however, faith is in an aspect of the object and cannot be logically proven or objectively known. Faith can mean believing unconditionally. It can also be defined as accepting as true something that one has been told by someone who is believed to be trustworthy" -Wikipedia - "faith"

Faith "in each case" is meaningfully defined as belief in something or someone when it "cannot be logically proven or objectively known"

If you do not make these distinctions then there is no difference between a belief based on evidence or reason to one based on nothing but the person wishing it to be true. So therefore we have to define the words this way or rendering the words meaningless.

Atheism is not a faith, its absence of belief in a deity. It is not a religion as it meets none of the criteria to be considered as one. There are no churches, no creed, no beliefs or affirmations that are required to be called a atheist. It is clearly not materialistic necessarily, because that would not explain Taoist and Buddist atheistic religions. You can have faith if you are an atheist, and you can have a religious belief in an atheistic worldview. But atheism has only one meaning, which is that the person disbelieves in the existence of a God or Gods. That itself does not require faith or religion.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

See this is what I mean about dictionaries giving all possible definitions of words. Atheism certainly isnt wickedness, nor could you ever define that in any meaningfull way, but its in the dictionary as a definition because that has been used as its meaning in the past. 

Note 2a: "a disbelief in the existence of deity" - that is the correct meaningfull definition. "b : the doctrine that there is no deity" could refer to an incomplete description of Taoist beliefs.

You cant and are not meant to mash all definitions up and/or pick whatever one you happen to like and argue that is what the word means. One word can have serveral meanings, but some meanings are so different pretty much only relationship to the other is that they are spelt the same.

One more thing, can you stop referring to the theory of Evolution as 'evolutionism' as if it is some sort of sinister, rival religion?

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

First of all you do NOT get accurate scientific terms from dictionaries.  Secondly, as I have explained above dictionaries gives many definitions of words even, "archaic" definitions.  Darwin didnt invent the word evolution, it  had a meaning before him. But Darwins theory was much more specific that simply "change".

 As you can see only definition 4a is addressing the biological definition on evolution. 1,2 5 and 6 are irrelevant and have NOTHING to do with the biological definition of evolution. Its like I said earlier, some words can mean different things in different contexts practically only thing relating to each other being the spelling. And just to point out, 4a isnt exactly an incorrect definition of Evolution but its also not good either, it certianly isnt in any way complete. Best not to learn about science through dictionaries.

Main Entry: ism
Pronunciation: 'i-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: -ism
1 : a distinctive doctrine, cause, or theory
2 : an oppressive and especially discriminatory attitude or belief <we all have got to come to grips with our isms -- Jocelyn Elders>

What are you claiming here? That because science has "theories" that it relates to definition 1 of "ism"?!  That really is stretching things way past the point of commen sence. Thats beating commen sence to death and building a fire to dance around its body.

Firstly a theory, as you have already been told has a colloquial definition and a scientific definition. These are compeltely different things. Secondly in no way does a scientific theory fit this definition in any other way other than some reference to "theory" which most certianly is NOT refering to a scientific theory nor could you defend that assertion if you tried.

Still got problems with my using the term [evolution 4b ism 1] (or 2 ... jk )?

I wish you would stop with all the "lol"s and "jks" and smiley faces after making some stupid comment like this. Its hard to take you seriously when you act like some arrogant little child.

Y'know, screw making a really long answer outlining what I mean. Show me a scientist that has conducted credible, peer-reviewed studies on the subject of Young-Earth Creationism. Then I will conceed that there are indeed scientists out there who not only believe YEC [who cares whether they do or not?], but can be cited as an authority on it.

...peer-reviewed by who?  Who are these mystical peers, and what did they do to become members of the "peer group" without whose approval all research is worthless?  I'm afraid that the Wright brothers ran afoul of the said group, as well as many others.  But anyways, how can you tell if a scientist's work is peer-reviewed?  He gets articles printed about him?  I mean, I'm sure there are different peer groups around.  Which one did you have in mind?  I think you mean that the scientist needs to have his work published in a scientific journal, and critiqued by other scientists in his field.  But if the bliddy journal won't publish it, then what?  (I mean, the scientist is attaching his name to his work and asking for comment... what could be the problem?) 

You clearly dont know anything about Peer Review. You think after your paper gets reviewed the critique stops? Thats just the start. If you get a paper published anyone can rip apart your research, and if you're wrong or made some massive error thats going to be very embarrassing for you and depending on how bad your mistake can really damage your reputation.

Why dont you take some time to read up on peer review instead of ignorently speculating on something you dont understand?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Creationists dont submit to peer review, and if they did and were unfairly treated all they would to do was post their attempts on some website complete with the reviewers comments. But you never see anything like this but they will still claim theres some massive world wide conspiracy by atheistic-Christian scientists to keep Creationism out of mainstream science and public schools

Did you mean this group of peers & their publlications?     Obviously not, or you wouldn't have a problem.  Exactly which group of peers are you talking about here?

I had a look at that website and that is not real peer review in any way. For a start the society was founded by Henry Morris. Henry Morris also founded ICR, and ICR like most professional Creationist societies (like AIG) have to sign a statement of faith, a doctrinal obligation never to change their minds or accept any evidence that might conflict with their interpretation of Genesis. That is not how real science operates.

As previously stated, the universe is evidence of a creator, unless it formed itself, or perhaps was formed by beings from an alternate universe that formed itself ... 

Challenge: come up with a theory besides A) "it was created" (by whatever means) or B) "it just happened" or "it just happened, and then it was created", which is the combination of A + B.    You can't, because there aren't any.

You say "unless it formed itself", but this different to "it just happened". "It just happened" is wrong, and I dont know anyone that has ever said that and it certianly isnt a scientific observation. And "it just formed itself" is just classic Creationist misdirection, such as when they argue that the eye formed itself by accident and thats how silly evolution is. So your challenge is a false dichotomy, and the reality makes it irrelevant. If we dont know how the universe was formed, thats not the same as saying "it just happened" as that doesnt explain anything. No self respecting scientist would ever say "it just happened" or that i"t just formed itself" and an answer.

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
5 capitalized : CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

[snipped some definitions]
 

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

Science would have no problem with God creating the universe, but it would not be provable, ie, fact 3:

Oh brother, you are seriously abusing the dictionary... 

See earlier where I talk about how words can have different meanings. I already talked about it but in science a theory does not mean speculation or any other colloquial definition of the word. No Creationism is not science, and neither is the belief in God. Science cannot say that God did anything or that there is a God at all, becasue God is not objectively verifiable in any way whatsoever.

The problem is, the evidence can be used to fit evolution or creation, depending on how you interpret it.  It just depends on who is interpreting the evidence correctly.

Does interpreting the evidence corrrectly mean having faith based obligations never to question your preconceived beliefs?

You've got to realize that as I've said, there's "proof" on both sides. 

For the word "proof" to be meaningfull it either means 1. Evidence or 2. Evidence that proves absolutely.  None of these accuratly describe what you are talking about.

BTW picking and choosing sources to support a pre-conclusion... hmm.  You spend 10+ years of your life learning to become a scientist.  You are taught by evolutionary scientists, as you cannot even be an evolutionary scientist and point out flaws in the evolutionary theory, and expect to keep your job.  So you become an evolutionist.  Then, you are sent into the field to study said "evidence".  Gee, makes me wonder how you're gonna interpret it!  You could say the same for creationist scientists, but the thing is, to be unbiased you have to consider all possible theories that come up.  The creationist scientist already considers evolution, because that's usually his former viewpoint.  If he hasn't considered it already, he will find it in abundance in the scientific field.  The evolutionary scientist, on the other hand, would throw out the creation viewpoint as "discredited" without even considering it, as he thinks that his peers have already done all of the work for him in discrediting creationism.  That is, unless he realizes that of evidence is not even being dealt with, I guess because the evolutionary scientist don't think its worth their time. 

Thats right its a big conspiracy.  You make it sound like the evidence is so open to interpretation that you can validly look at it and come to two completely different contradictory scientific view points.

...Also, just when did the evolutionist camp decide they had enough evidence on their side to not consider ideas brought forth by their creationist colleagues?

Creationism doesnt do science so theres nothing to consider, and is full of men that spread outright lies and deliberate frauds and hoaxes. Mainstream science will consider scientific ideas, but Creationists dont even try to publish to scientific journals. 

The Bible doesnt say HOW god created, and it says that a day is a thosuand years.

Exodus 20:11 2 Peter 3:8-9 is talking about a day being a thousand years with the Lord, not in a chronological sense.  ie, one of two explanations (or both): Time doesn't bother God. (Which is likely, given context in verse 9) or If you are with God, time will not bother you. .

The point is that  since "yom" can mean any length of time, it is possible that the days in genesis were meant to be far longer periods of time than YECs claim. If you are going to be in any way intellectually honest you must interprete the Bible based on scientific data, otherwise its just wrong. But literalists dont want ANY of it to be considered myth or legend or metaphor, it must all be literally true or all of its wrong. God forbid they realise fallible humans wrote the Bible not God. But thats what stubbon fundamentalist faith gets you. Somone once said dont expect to reason someone out of a belief they didnt reason themselves into.

Why does your Bible have to be 100% literal and 100% non-myth and non-legend to be true? Humans wrote the Bible, I know its hard for some fundamentalists to accept, but its true Im sorry.

2 Peter 1:20-21
OK, if the Bible is written by fallible man, then yes, none of it really matters, it's the thought that counts, you can pick and choose.

A man can claim anything they want.  You believe it, but for no other reason other than it was written in the Bible. You have no way of knowing god had anything to do with the Bible at all. But if it has any truth to it at all its still going to be flawed, and it was evidently written by men, so whats more the more likely scenario? If the Bible is basically true its still totally unreasonable to assume it is 100% divine and without any error. Its a faith that causes you to thow out any evidence that suggests the Bible contains error, worshipping the Bible not God, which is called bibliolatry. For if god created the rocks, he didnt write the Bible. If God created the natural laws, he didnt write the Bible.

Scientific analysis is the only objective way we can know anything, you want to replace that with unwielding absolute faith *snip*

Nah.  Just don't exclude evidence based on your own prejudice as to how the world began and how we were formed.  Once someone sees the evidence (for both sides), they might decide to learn more and study the Bible or something.  You cannot say that creationism is unscientific just because it's not accepted by evolutionary peers.

Im not. Im saying its unscientific because it fails all the criteria to be considered a science.

I also said scientific analysis is the only objective way we can know anything, you say Im wrong and that actually Creationism is science. So what do you mean? That there is some other method we can use to more accurately and verifiable gain knowledge?

  Can those peers disprove the evidence?  Ignoring is not disproving.

You are actually saying theres no mainstream scientific responce to Creationist claims? 

I wonder how many people would watch a televised debate with credible scientist from both sides.  I think of people would, as long as the debaters didn't fall for hiding their arguments behind scientific lingo.  They would have to either explain what they were saying or have someone do it for them.

Too bad the Dover ID trial wasnt televised. Its a good thing you can still read the court transcripts however and see ID being so wonderfully demolished and the Discovery Institute discredited.

First of all you dont hear of many atheists that go killing raping and pillaging. I dont know why fundamentalists seem to be so oblivious to that fact when they sit down and type such nonsence.

Interesting.  I know that some Christians commit criminal acts, too, but do what do you really think the majority of "killers, rapists and thieves" are?  Nothing against the atheists, but their viewpoint does relieve them from accountability after they die, so if they can get away from the authorities down here, then why not?  Imagine this scenario: It is dusk, and you are taking a shortcut through a back alley in New York City when your car dies.  It won't start, and you forgot your cell phone.  You get out of the car and head towards the nearest busy street you can hear, which is still out of sight.  You hear a door opening, and look behind you to see three large males walking rapidly towards you, talking in undertones amongst themselves.  Would you be more comfortable to learn that[/color] A) They were Atheists.  B) They were Muslims.  C) They were Buddhists.  D)  They were Christians.

Buddists probably, although there are no atheist hate groups that I know about. I dont have a link but I read statistics once which showed most people in American jails were Christian. But we damn sure know there are violent Muslims, and there are many Christian hate groups and violent gangs such as Christian Identity the racist terrorist cult and the Ku Klux Klan, and theres even a similar racist cult for african americans although I forget the name right now (I think its called The New Black Panther Party). So why Buddists and not atheists? Because I am hard pressed to find any Buddist that commits these kinds of crimes, but atheists can have all kinds of beliefs aside from disbelieving in God. Being an atheist does not define your character in any other way, unlike Buddism. So who am I least likely to be scared of? Buddists.

And Im assuming for the sake of this that you are talking about specifically materialist atheists, not just "atheism".

Interestingly, Confucious the Chinese atheist talked about loving your neighbour and treating others as you would like to be treated centuries before Jesus.

Really.  That's interesting.  BTW, what nationality was Jesus? 

  Relevance?

Oh, and I do believe he meant to continue loving your neighbor...Leviticus 19:9-18, emphasis on verse 18.

Oh please, first of all Leviticus is from the Old Testament, dont be so disingenuous. Second of all you cant talk about the Old Testament least of all Leviticus as being some holy moral source of enlightenment. And thirdly, what is your point? I was telling that Confusious, the Chinese ATHEIST was preaching to love your neighbour long before Jesus did. And yet you point me to some obscure reference in Leviticus without explanation. I challenge you to find anything at all resembling the bloodshed and hate that can be found in Leviticus and other OT books in Confucianism .

I do not have the sources to prove it, but I sincerely doubt that there is any religion that doesn't have murderers, rapists, or thieves that claim it as their own.  I'm sure you would agree.

Im sure there are some Buddists in history that have some have done bad things but these examples are few and far between however. But the religion specifically doesnt have any blood on its hands, the same cant be said for any Biblical religion.

Second, animals still manage to live with each other including insects like bees and ants where thousands of them spend their entire lives in service of one or two queens that will eventually mate.

That works equally well with evolution or creation.

Whats your point? I was telling you this to show you that working together and getting along do make sence with evolution, because you kept saying it didnt make sence.

No there are no absolute morals.

No there are no absolute morals...in my opinion"[/color]

Are you just trying to fill out space? Of course thats what I meant. 

What we have is inbuilt desire to get along with our fellow human. If humans didnt get along we would have probably died out long ago because we couldnt get along.

Tell that to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Bashar Al-Assad.   is wrong with them?  How does evolution explain them?  Most of them didn't do what they did out of a need for survival!

Good job moving the goal posts! First you say humans getting along doesnt make sence with evolution, now you are saying that the fact that humans dont get along doesnt make sence with evolution. Good job. Point is, ape societies mimic what we see in human socities on a smaller scale. They have wars with other groups, dominent male leaders, and sometimes these get challenged by other males and take control themselves. Point is human society does make sence with evolution, and your goal post shifting and attempts at distraction isnt going to change that.

You pretty much answered your own question, although I should clarify; It's because they were wicked wicked people, and it's his chosen people's "inheritance". 

Well thats a lofty reason to commit genocide.    I wonder if should have murdered all Germans including women and children after World War 1, destroyed all their livestock and burning their cities to the ground. . .

I think that offering toddlers as live offerings to a god to bring good luck or what the heck ever would qualify you for the "wicked wicked" title.

Firstly the Bible does not give this reason as the definition of "wicked", and secondly even if it had it stretches credulity to suggest that all the groups the Bible-God asks his chosen people to whipe out did this.  There is no outside evidence to suggest this. Secondly, not only did they kill every man they also killed all the women, children, unborn children and all the animals but in one story it says that gods chosen people are to kill all the male children, but are allowed to keep the little girls for themselves. And the only reason you give for this is that "they were wicked". And you think this is convincing to people? We dont even treat people that way in our wars today no matter what they did. Its even fround upon to kill prisoners of war. Yet apologists still claim the Bible is the ultimate source if morality, and that god is just. Nonsence; God is a vengeful, jealous God that cant think of any other way to deal with his broken creation but to kill, rape and pillage and destroy.

That's a relational, not original (origin, or source) sense.  God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - the Son is Son in relation to the Father, and the Trinity is Three persons in One.  The Son "took on flesh" (put on a physical body) and came down to Terra to save us from our sins.

Im aware you believe that that, which is why in the very next sentence I said "but Christians tell us it was just him [God] in in human form". And you knew I said that because you even quoted me.

You fail to realize the full import of sin.  "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ."  We are eternal beings, we have a soul.  When we die, we do not cease to exist.  God is holy and must punish sin.  Therefore, if He carried out His law in regards to us, we would be doomed for all of eternity.  God provided a way out of this through His Son (second person of Trinity) Jesus, who He raised from the dead the third day after He was killed.

You do not explain why bloodshed, pain and torture is the only way God can forgive sin.  Isnt it accurate to describe your god as bloodthirsty?

Everyone is a sinner, by birth

Glad you posted this. It illustrates how ridiculous the whole idea is. If you are sinfull at birth, then sin is meaningless. If it means even when you have no concept of right and wrong yet, or any mental capactity for reason or anything but the most basic functions (sleep, food, etc) then you are still a sinner worthy of death. See if thats what sin means, then to not sin is impossible and therefore to punish us for not being perfect is immoral. Its like punishing someone beucase they cannot breath under water, or not being able to fly. Such things would be ludicrous, becuase the human body is not capable of such things. Same thing with sin. You cant punish someone for something if they never had the capacity to be anything else. All humans need to urinate and produce feces and and all the dirtyness that comes with that, but you cannot punish someone for doing that and the fact that they were born that way.

Anyways, all of these points are moot and void if we're talking about a book made by man, based on a false story of how Terra came into being.  As I've said before, some attempts have been made to rationalize that God used evolution, but I don't see how that could reconcile with Romans 5:12.

Only if you presume the Bible has to be 100% without error, inerrant.

Nonsence. Either put up or shut up about the 2nd Law of thermodynamics being some kind of problem for evolution, its been addressed countless times on this thread but you keep using it as an argument.

I do believe that law basically means that energy naturally cascades from more available to less available forms, correct?

Why dont you just get to the point and set out your claim for why Evolution violates the 2nd law, even AIG say its a bad argument. But go ahead if you want to, and then while you're at it you can explain why a air conditioning system doesnt violate the 2nd law in the same way. Why do we see anything gong from simple to more complex if it is impossible? Maybe this is an argument Ive never heard of, but I doubt it.

You're using Pascals Wager? Seriously?

No.  You think I went through all of this just to explain something as simple as Pascal's Wager?!?   : 

Yes I do, but if it wasnt why dont you go back and explain what your point was? Looked and sounded exactly like Pascal's Wager to me.

But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator. 

No, some religions do not have a god at all.

*smacks self*
That's right, I forgot about atheism!! 

Not atheism as I explained above. I was refering to beliefs like Taoism.

I just messed up and made a new paragraph where I shouldn't have.  I was talking the three big monotheistic religions (Christian, Jewish, Muslim).  As a broader statement, I don't think there's any religion except atheism that doesn't have a Higher Being involved (essentially, ID).

Whats really amusing is at the start of this post you give a really broad definition of religion and faith so you could include atheism in it. But now you are saying that Zen, Confucianism and Taoism and Buddism arent religions.

Assuming there is one, it cant be tested by science and faith isnt going to allow you to "know" anything at all.

Faith is believing in something when you have no evidence for, or when there is evidence to the contrary. Its unverifiable gut feelings that unfortunatly for you people from all religions feel and feel strongly about for their particular beliefs, so this is no way to be able to test if your beliefs are accurate. 

Wrong.  I believe you're talking Fideism, not faith. 

No Im talking about faith. All definitions of faith Ive seen define faith as complete confidence in a belief when there is no objective or logical evidence. If we look at your definition below we can see it says exactly that, including "complete trust" and "on faith: without question". Wikipedia says faith "in each case"  is belief in something that "cannot be logically proven or objectively known".

So what happens when you have complete trust in your belief without question even though it cannot be logically proven or objectively known? Thats faith. And thats why we have professional Creationist organisations having sworn "statements of faith", doctrinal obligations to never let any of the evidence change their minds. They know what faith is, and it has nothing to do with evidence.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

I did, apparently you didnt.

I do believe you should find that the chances of evolution happening aren't just minute, they're so small that the opposite must be true.  Your argument above sounds sort of like, "I think, therefore I am, I am, therefore I evolved!".

1. This is nothing but your personal incredulity. 2. Abiogenesis isnt evolution. 3. Creationists wild and massive figures of probabilities on abiogenesis occuring are based in part on their false impression that life just spontaneously sprung out of nothing.

Sure, but science cant comment on such religious ideas.

So, mankind sinning before they evolved so that death could come into the world and make natural selection work is perfectly, scientifically, sound?

What part of "science cant comment on such religious ideas" dont you understand?

Of course they will, so long as its science. Intelligent Design isnt science.

You'd say that theology isn't, either, but look at science 2a.  It's a scientific theory.

Nonsence. Does Theology follow the scientific method? No. Theology is not science. Does ID meet any criteria to be a scientific  theory? No.  Behe in the Dover trial said his definiton of science was so broad it it would also include astrology.

Science cant test the supernatural, but science will gladly give ID a chance if it ever came up with something that was testable and objective.

...Such as the fact that coding doesn't happen?  Of course, you couldn't test that, as it'd take a few million years.

What are you talking about? You dont base a scientific theory on evidence you think might exist in a million years.

So, an Intelligent being Designing the universe isn't scientific?  No, it's just not scientifically provable.  There's evidence, not proof for, both atheistic evolution and ID, again depending on how you interpret them.

An Intelligent being Designing the universe isnt even hypothetically verifiable, this makes it not science. Its a religious concept that science has no way to test for. And no scientific theory is "proved", not even Gravity.

You mention "atheistic evolution", but is god not involved in gravity? Is god not involved with bacteria and microbes which the germ theory addresses? Adding atheistic to "evolution" is meaningless. Everything in science is "atheistic" becuase theres no way to tell if a supernatural entity is involved in the process' at all. When hydrogen and oxygen combine to make water is this an atheistic theory too? How about when science proposes naturalistic mechanisms for the formation of snowflakes and ice crystals, is that an atheistic theory? I suppose its just the atheistic bias of the anti-god scientific establishment that keep from including God in these theories.


Ed

[Edward Bradshaw]

Diverging, as in separating out from a common source, vs converging, or merging to a common destination.  Ok, I must have missed it.  Who said that we were evolving to a common destination?

The implication of lizards becoming birds is convergence; what birds evolved from were not modern lizards, which is an important distinction.

Sorry for being nitpicky, but birds didnt evolve from lizards at all.

[Shade]

Nope. They evolved from terrible lizards

[Edward Bradshaw]

Nope. They evolved from terrible lizards

Not even terrible ones. 

[Shade]

If I mention that the greek words for terrible and lizard are deinos and saura, perhaps you would agree?

[Black Wolf]

Right. All these qutes are getting annoying. So let's just lay it out.

You say atheism is a religion because it requires faith. It doesn't. Faith, by your own definition, requires beleif in something that has no proof. But that's fundamentally what Atheism isn't. It's defined by the absence of belief. That is what creationism is, unless you intend to produce this so called "proof" of yours.

Use of the word "Evolutionism". You've played some word games which kind of justify it in a roundabout way, but defies modern convention. Convention says that there's no such thing as a modern "evolutionist" - you use evolutionism and evolutionists to define people back in the nenteenth century, when there was still controversy, but these days there are only "biologists", "geologists", "physicists", "geneticists", "biochemists", "immunologists", "anatomists" and "taxonomists" and the other group - "people who live in fantasy land" (i.e. creationists, saltationists, lamarckists, flat earthists etc. etc.)


Peer Review - Mefustae got it in one.

The Anti-Creationist attitude of Evolutionists and the Scientific Community - You're absolutely right. There's a massive bias among educated people towards evolution. It's called the weight of evidence. That does not mean to say, however, that people ignore criticisms of it. I don't think anyone would have any problems with the assertion that Albert Einstein is the most famous scientist of the twentieth century, maybe in history. Why? Because he took Newtonian Mechanics and provided an alternative theory that could be proven. In essence, he disproved it. Any modern day scientist who disproved neo-Darwinian evolution would become just as famous, probably moreso. He'd get multimillion dollar book deals and lecture tours. He'd get as much grant money as he could ever need to pursue any avenue he wanted to. He'd be able to write his own admission onto the academic staff of any institute in the world. Look at what happened to the Punctuated Equillibrium people when they advocated their position (which was really nothing more than a mere adjustment of darwinism)Scientists are always looking into evolution, trying to disprove it, or even find situations it might not apply because it would mean that all their professional dreams would come true. And despite ther incentives, and the decades of attempts, nobody can disprove it. Tell you anything?

Your "Challenge", which I will quote for clarity:

come up with a theory besides A) "it was created" (by whatever means) or B) "it just happened" or "it just happened, and then it was created", which is the combination of A + B.    You can't, because there aren't any.

That's because you're playing wordgames. If you want to simplify all the modern theories of the creation of the universe, planets and life into "it just happened", be my guest, but that's not what this thread is about and you damn well know it.

Next point, that creaionism constitutes a scientific theory. Bogus by your own definitions:

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

Which creationists clearly don't have, as evidenced by this entire thread where we've been correcting you and your bretheren about practically every scientific principle you've tried to use to support creationism.

Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Which creationists don't follow, since you're swtaring with the preconception that everything was created. And don't say that "evolutionists" start with the assumption that everything evolved, because that's simply not true. Evolution is tested every time a cladistic tree is drawn up.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

Which creationism is not, since it's not scientifically acceptable, since it requires a supernatural being, which violates the precepts of science. And yes, some of the other definitions of "theory" fit, but again, convention states that when you have a scientific discussion, theory's are things that are well tested and supported by a vast body of evidence. Creationism is an untested hypothesis.

Next we have the idea that the evidence provided by the Earth can be attributed to either Creation or Evolution. This is not true, unless you simply look at all the evidence that points to common descent and gradual evolution and say "God did it that way". And the evidence for the age of the Earth can not be attributed to creationism at all, particularly not young earth creationism, unless, that is, you don't believe in the Andromeda galaxy (at 2.5 million light years away, the light from that galaxy should reach a 6000 year old earth in around... 2.5million years). So, I'll reissue the challenge that's been given over and over again. Provide some evidence for creationism. Don't just say "There's evidence on both sides and expect us to waste our time wading through the mountains of creationist websites which crap on about the second law of thermodynamics and the decay rate of Helium. Do what we've been courteous enough to do for you and find us some good evidence.

Next, the idea that we should all convert to Christianity "just in case". **** that. Next.

OK, what's next. Hmm... a general rant about "evolutionists" ignoring the evidence for creationism. Nope. Nobody does that. No scientist worth his salt would ignore any relevant evidence in his experiments. Creationism is never considered by real scientists because there's absolutely zero evidence for it.

I like this part of the post though:

You could have given me a link.  I like being lazy.

I could make a comment here about creationism being the absolute laziest way to look at the world since you never have to think about how everything got to be so well adapted, and how it's much easier to just say "God did it". But I wont, because then you'll say that my refusal to trawl through the masses of creationist pseudoscience I mentioned above represents laziuness on my part.

Next, an unsupported statement that the majority of anti-social, dangerous people in the world are Atheists. I call bull****. Get some stats, and then maybe I'll beleive you.

Next, we have some bible quotes that are utterly irrelevant to any discussion on evolution. I'm ignoring them.

Next, oh what a surprise, another example of a creationist who doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics

I do believe that law basically means that energy naturally cascades from more available to less available forms, correct?

The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

For what I wish could be the last time, the Earth is not an isolated system. It is constantly receiveing both matter (in the form of micrometeorites and space dust perpetually raining down) and energy (in the form of the huge amounts of consmic and solar radiation we're being bombarded with). So please, just stop bringing up the second law. Please.

Next the same old crap about the probability of evolution. These figures are made based on the assumption that evolution is a single step process - that things randomly pop into existence fully formed. The whole thrust of evolutionary theory is that cumulaticve selection decreases this probability into events that can, and indeed have happened. Admittedly, abiogenesis requires some leaps of probability, but they're nowhere near as immense as your creationist textbooks would have you believe, and keep in mind that even if it happened only once among the billions of stars in the millions of galaxies in the universe, then inevitably, it happened to us, otherwise we'd not be here wondering about it.

I really wish I could convince you to go down to your library and borrow a copy of The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins has a whole chapter devoted to explaining the proibability of evolution. But of course, you're not going to do that, despite your own rants about "evolutionists" refusing to look at evidence for the other side.

Next, some copied promo bull**** aboput the Discovery Institute which is just as irrelevant as the bible stuff. Ignoring.

Now we have a misunderstanding of abiogenesis. The origin of the first replicating molecule defines abiogenesis, so its pointless to consider the molecules that didn't evolve replication right, because that's not abiogenesis at all. That's.... well, I dunno. Organic chem I suppose.

Poor maths doesn't prove anything.

Neither does poor spelling x2.

This annoys the hell out of me. If you've got nothing better to do than pick away at his spelling, then concede the debate and **** off. And take your American arrogance with you - Maths is spelt correctly in the majority of the English speaking world you little twat.

Now, you start criticizing the incompleteness of the fossil record and claim that there are no trransitional fossils. If you honestly beleive this, you're an idiot. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The reson everything we find is fully formed is because any animal that suddenly sprouted a part from another organism would almost certainly die and not leave enough descendants to fossilize. Every animal we find is a transitional form, with the possible exception of things like sharks and crocodiles which haven't evolved much. Look at the very first post in this thread, or the list of transitional forms I already posted. ****ing hell, how many times do we have to tell you these things?

Next, you whinge about creationism not getting taught in schools. Well, that's because there's no evidence for it and thus no point to teaching it.

Now, you make a statement that's curious even by creationist standards:

No, evolution does not "design" us to fit together in harmony; it only favors those that reproduce the most efficiently and manage to survive the best.  That could favor working together in harmony until you started running out of resources.  And if you did, you'd have to evolve into a predator awfully fast, before you starved.

I hope, for the sake of humanity's overall intelligence, that you're deliberately ignoring the simple logic here that makes that wrong and you're not truly that stupid. Every animal in nature is constantly running out of resources. That's why they evolve in competition. Consider the trees in the rainforest. Why do you think they're so tall? Because as soon as one tree get's slightly taller, it shades out the trees around it and they reproduce less often and less efficiently. So all the trees in the forest have to get taller. Evolution forces things to live in harmony together by keeping everything competing with everything else as fast as they can. If you want an example that doesn't ivolve evolution, think about a marathon. It'd be far more efficient for all the runners to collectively talk amongst themselves and agree to walk the first 42 kms and then just sprint the last 200m, but as soon as one person decides to break the deal and run the whole way, they all have to run the whole way or they're guaranteed to lose.

Nature is harsh and brutal and nasty. What cooperation there is exists solely because it provides reproductive benefit to each and every individual organism participating in the cooperation. Provide me with one example of natural cooperation that can't be explained through evolution and I will give up support for evolution.

Now you're having a whinge about the problems for evolving birds from dinosaurs. Your problems stem, once again, from a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. Unfortunately, you seem to have forgotten (or more likely, ignored) the concept of exaptation I tried to teach you about when we were discussing lungs. Dromaeosaurs evolved hollow bones to decrese weight and increase running speed. They evolved feathers probably as thermoregulatory devices which may have been used in courtship (and thus sexual selection would have promoted their growth). They evolved large, efficient lungs and almost certainly ectothermy to once again assist in fast running. They already had primitive furculas. They already had powerful legs adapted to jumping and taking the shocks of landing from these jumps. In fact, The only things that would need to evolve together are large flight feathers and elongated arms, which would naturally tend to evolve together as soon as having long legs and large enough feathers began allowing the animal to prolong leaps into the air i.e. as soon as they became advantageous.

Once again, I feel I should reiterate my suggestion that yoiu read The Blind Watchmaker[. If you want something shorter and more introductory, try River out of Eden. I know you'll read neither of these books, but I'd feel wrong not to suggest it. And seriously, stop dicking about and correcting peoples spelling. It makes you look like an even bigger idiot than arguing for creationism does.

[Black Wolf]

If I mention that the greek words for terrible and lizard are deinos and saura, perhaps you would agree?

Still no. Lots of fundamental reasons why Dinos aren't lizards - posture, hip structure, skull structure etc. etc.

[Edward Bradshaw]

If I mention that the greek words for terrible and lizard are deinos and saura, perhaps you would agree?

I would agree thats what Richard Owen, the scientist, named them. He did so because he didn't know the difference yet.

[NGTM-1R]

You say atheism is a religion because it requires faith. It doesn't. Faith, by your own definition, requires beleif in something that has no proof. But that's fundamentally what Atheism isn't. It's defined by the absence of belief. That is what creationism is, unless you intend to produce this so called "proof" of yours.

I feel the need to be an arse here and point out this is not true. Atheism does in some measure require faith, for deities are the ultimate unproveables. To believe there is no God has as little proof as to believe there is a God; there is no proof either way. An atheist takes the fact there is no god(s) on faith, and must.

Atheism is not the denial of belief or faith; to say an atheist is faithless is a base canard. Lots of atheists have faith. But not faith in a religion. Atheism still cannot be a religion for many reasons. It is not organized. It has no commonality of teachings, no doctrine, no authorities. Most of all, it has no followers. You do not follow atheism, you cannot. It is as impossible as anything can be. There is nothing there to follow, as already itirated.

However, since I'm here on the logical front, I must also point out that, while not only is your argument deeply flawed, jr2, it is in and of itself an informal fallacy. Red herring.

[Bobboau]

it takes faith to beleive in something you cannot see, it takes skeptisism to deny it.
would you say that you had faith that there was no flying spagetti monster, that you had faith in the non-exsistance of atlantis. if there is no evidence for something it isn't faith not to beleive in it, weather or not there is evidence against it.

[NGTM-1R]

Skepticism is faith too. Faith that lack of proof is proof of lack. Faith, then, that logic is wrong, that the distilled essence of two millenia and more of human philosophy is in fact sophistry. So you see, skepticism is faith, a faith fully the equal of belief in creationism. Less likely to be totally wrong, perhaps, but equally deluded, equally unwilling to admit lack of knowledge and instead seeking comfort in denial.

You are after all believing in something you cannot see, a logical chain from your mind, and a flawed one.

[Bobboau]

yeas, thats all nice epistemological BS, but realy not beleiveing insomething you have no reason to beleive in is not faith. there are infinate posibilities of reality, but that doesn't change the fact that I have to get up in three and a half hours to go to work. you have faith that you are sitting in front of a computer right now? you have faith that you are not in fact the leader of a glorius resistance movement and the room you are sitting in now and the memories of your life is mearly the side effects of a brain scanning machine that is slowly extracting the secret location of your reble base for lord Xenu?
sure I supose on some foolish and unnessisary phylisophical level you have what could be described as 'faith' in every aspect of your mind. but I don't think that matters to the socal context of religion vs atheism, I simply do not have faith in certan beleifes, it is not that I have faith that they are wrong, but more that I have not seen any reason inparticular to agree with them at this time, I mostly ignore them, if I am not active in a beleife I don't see how you can say that I have anything in them, especaly something as involved as faith.

like I said this line of reasoning is nothing more than an epistemological smoke screen, quit it.

[Kamikaze]

I feel the need to be an arse here and point out this is not true. Atheism does in some measure require faith, for deities are the ultimate unproveables.

Some of us are agnostics, so the original point is moot anyway.

[aldo_14]

Gravity can be distilled down to faith, but it doesn't make that distillation true.  Likewise, 'black is not white' is also faith.  Every statement can be defined as faith if we seek to.
.

[Colonol Dekker]

Pastafarianism being a true example of this....

[NGTM-1R]

yeas, thats all nice epistemological BS, but realy not beleiveing insomething you have no reason to beleive in is not faith.

Nice, insult in the first line. We're not getting started on the right foot here. More to the point I don't deal in epistimlogical arguments; I didn't take that class. This is basic Intro to Logic stuff. Now, on to the full reply.

But that's not the point, is it now? You have no reason to believe it, sure, okay. But simply because you don't have any reason to believe it is not adequate reason to deny its existence. It's easy to find someone and tell them something that's absolutely true, and that they have no reason to believe. That does not make it false. Unless you have some kind of positive reason to disbelieve, then that's very much based on faith. When presented with a situation where there is no evidence either way the only correct answer one can give is "I don't know."

Very pretty and wordy Straw Man clipped. Please do not bother adding these to your arguments in the future.

sure I supose on some foolish and unnessisary phylisophical level you have what could be described as 'faith' in every aspect of your mind. but I don't think that matters to the socal context of religion vs atheism, I simply do not have faith in certan beleifes, it is not that I have faith that they are wrong, but more that I have not seen any reason inparticular to agree with them at this time, I mostly ignore them, if I am not active in a beleife I don't see how you can say that I have anything in them, especaly something as involved as faith.

Not hardly. I think your interpretation is off here. Faith is belief in the abscence of proof. Gravity is a proveable (nice straw man there aldo). You presented a binary choice: belief or non-belief. If you're trying to say "don't know" or "don't care" then you didn't give yourself that option to start with. If you want to add it now, fine, I'll let it go this time, and you're right, that's not faith. But it's hardly atheism either, since it leaves the option of religion open.

like I said this line of reasoning is nothing more than an epistemological smoke screen, quit it.

That's an interesting word choice. If I'm screening something, what is it?

[aldo_14]

Not hardly. I think your interpretation is off here. Faith is belief in the abscence of proof. Gravity is a proveable (nice straw man there aldo). You presented a binary choice: belief or non-belief. If you're trying to say "don't know" or "don't care" then you didn't give yourself that option to start with. If you want to add it now, fine, I'll let it go this time, and you're right, that's not faith. But it's hardly atheism either, since it leaves the option of religion open.

Actually, gravity is proveable only if we believe that our senses provide an accurate representation of reality; in that sense it can be defined as 'faith'.

I don't believe theism / aetheism is a binary choice, either; there's no obligation or necessity to form any opinion on it.  But the same basic requirements for aetheism being faith aren't too different from defining physics as faith.  Faith is generally defined as 'belief without evidence'; aetheism though can be cited as belief with evidence or - alternatively phrased - the lack of evidence for the universe to require a God or Gods to exist.  Aetheism - real, considered aetheism - differs from theism because it does not accept the concept of belief without evidence; whereas theism seeks to insert supernatural explanations for the inexplicable (i.e. disregards the issue of evidence), actual 'proper' aetheism IMO seeks evidence to explain these things. 

Gravity being an example to go back to; faith would be simply regarding falling as 'natural', or by the hand of gods will or somesuch, but the aetheistic approach would/should be to understand why falling happens; essentially determining the value of x and y in an equation.  Or back onto this topic; one/the religious approach to the diversity of life and the history of extinction and alteration of the natural world is generally to chalk it down to some nebulous concept of 'God', usually trying to warp contradiction (as we've seen here, previously) - essentially belief in the face of evidence.  But the aetheistic approach would be to examine and seek evidence for an explanation; it just so happens that there is a non-divine explanation with a big wodge of evidence, which is why evolution (as you know, of course) seems to really piss off the more fundamentalist people in the world, when in reality evolution isn't aetheistic but just a chain of reasoning based on evidence (agnostic, if anything, I guess).  Which is going on a bit of a tangent, granted.

Anyways, for aetheism to be faith, there'd need to be evidence of God / Gods, which there isn't (and for such evidence to exist, it would rather negate organized religions' purpose.....)

[Bobboau]

your grasping at the "we can't realy know anything for absolute certan" argument to tell me that to not beleive in something is faith, that's sort of streaching it, just a hair.

and starw man? maybe I just totaly misunderstood your point, but didn't you say that in a situation were there is no evidence for or against it takes faith not to beleive? those situations I described have absolutely no evedence for them, yet are set up to be unfalseable, by your logic you have faith in any absurde scenario I can think up being false, in fact you have faith that every of the infinite bizare concepts I can make up is not real. that IS what you are saying.

and you'r screening your lack of a point, or maybe your faulty reasoning.