[Edward Bradshaw]

what? I did...
You call this using quote tags?
yes...
I see! 
Can I join the fun too?
You'll have to ask Bobboau!
The writing is too damn small!!
It teh suxxorz!

[Col. Fishguts]

The thread suddenly got heaps more interesting.

[Bobboau]

lets try to modify the tornado in a junkyard argument so it is a bit more closer to evolution.

evolution is sort of like a tornado going through a junk yard then going over a lake of lava wich destroys all junk or colections there of wich don't travle very far and then some of the rest being deposeted in a giant clone-o-matic machine. this clone-o-matic is unfortunately a little querky, only the simplest objects can be cloned with just one copy of the object, everything else needs at least two copies, fortuneately it is holding the whole colection and it just picks the closest two par of objects to make a few clones from, and there can be a bit of diference between them. then the clones get spit back out into the junk yard were another tornado comes and picks them up and over the lava again back to the clone-o-matic, while in flight some damage is done to them wich causes a bit of diference between them, most of the time this damage causes them to fall out of the sky but rarely it improves there flight, those objects that get to the clone-o-matic first have more of them made than later ones, because it starts to run out of energy. eventualy you get objects wich are extreemly good at flying through tornados and landing in clone-o-matics.

the whole cyclical process is very important to the analogy, as is the fact that only the ones best able to fly are the ones given the ability to have more of them made, and the randomness is a rather small part of the story.

[m]

Okay, you know what?  You asked for it; here it is.

Dr Gary Parker
-B.A.,M.S.,Ed.D.
-Member of Phi Beta Kappa
-Recipient of two nationally competitive fellowship awards
-Received his doctorate in biology with a cognate in geology in 1973 from an Indiana State university
-The Principal author of five programmed biology textbooks by John Wiley and Sons


The following discussion was adapted from radio interviews.

Moderator:  Dr Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college-level biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist.[/i]

    Yes, indeed.  The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me.  It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things.  Evolution was really my religion, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged.
    As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin and salvation.  God was unnecessary, or at least did no more than make
the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed.  ‘Sin’ was only the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering.
    With no God to answer to, no God with a purpose for mankind, I saw our destiny in our own hands.  Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.

Did your faith in evolution affect your classroom teaching?[/i]

    It surely did.  In my early years of teaching at both the high school and university levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true.  I even had students crying in class.  I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution.  In fact, a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class I was assisting included just that goal: encouraging students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!

I thought you weren’t supposed to teach religion in the public school system.[/i]

    Well, maybe you can’t teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all in teaching the evolutionary
religion.  I’ve done it myself, and I’ve watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person’s thought and life.  Of course, I once thought that effect was good, ‘liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion’ and making a person’s own opinions supreme.

Since you found evolution such a satisfying religion and enjoyed teaching it to others, what made you change your mind?[/i]

    I’ve often marveled that God could change anyone as content as I was, especially with so many religious people (including two members of the Bible department where I once taught!) actually supporting evolution over creation.  But through a Bible study group my wife and I joined, at first for purely social reasons, God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths.  It is a blessed experience that gives me an absolute reference point and a truly mind-stretching eternal perspective.

Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?[/i]

    No, at least not at first.  Like so many before and since, I simply combined my new-found Christian religion with the ‘facts’ of science and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist.  I thought the Bible told me who created and that evolution told me how.
But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part, and theological problems with the theistic part.  I still have a good many friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I finally had to give it up.

What theological problems did you find with evolution?[/i]

    Perhaps the key point centered around the Bible’s phrase ‘very good.’ At the end of each creation period (except the second) God said that His creation was good.  At the end of the sixth period He said that all His works of creation were very good.
    Now all the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists I know, including me at one time, try to fit ‘geologic time’ and the fossil record into the creation periods.  But regardless of how old they are, the fossils show the same things that we have on Earth today—famine, disease, disaster, extinction, floods, earthquakes, etc.  So if fossils represent stages in God’s creative activity, why should Christians oppose disease and famine or help preserve an endangered species? If the fossils were formed during the creation week, then all these things would be very good.
    When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as ‘unending progress.’ But in the closing paragraphs of The Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the ‘production of higher animals,’ was caused by ‘the war of nature, from famine and death.’ Does ‘the war of nature, from famine and death,’ sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?
    In Genesis 3, Romans 8 and many other passages, we learn that such negative features were not part of the world that God created, but entered only after Adam’s sin.  By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture: the great themes of creation, the Fall and Redemption—how God made the world perfect and beautiful; how man’s sin brought a curse upon the world; and how Christ came to save us from our sins and to restore all things.

With the Scriptures so plain, are there still many Christians who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation?[/i]

    Yes, there are.  Of course, I can’t speak for all of them, but I can tell you the problems I had to overcome before I could give up theistic evolution myself.  First, I really hate to argue or take sides.  When I was a theistic evolutionist, I didn’t have to argue with anybody.  I just chimed in smiling at the end of an argument with something like, ‘Well, the important thing is to remember that God did it.’
    Then there is the matter of intellectual pride.  Creationists are often looked down upon as ignorant throw-backs to the nineteenth century or worse, and I began to think of all the academic honors I had, and to tell you the truth, I didn’t want to face that academic ridicule.
Finally, I, like many Christians, was honestly confused about the biblical issues.  I first became a creationist while teaching at a Christian college.  Believe it or not, I got into big trouble with the Bible department.  As soon as I started teaching creation instead of evolution, the Bible department people challenged me to a debate.  The Bible department defended evolution, and two other scientists and I defended creation!
    That debate pointed out how religious evolution really is, and the willingness of Christian leaders to speak out in favor of evolution makes it harder for the average Christian to take a strong stand on creation.  To tell you the truth, I don’t think I would have had the courage, especially as a professor of biology, to give up evolution or theistic evolution without finding out that the bulk of scientific data actually argues against evolution.

In that sense, then, it was really the scientific data that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution and progressive creation to biblical, scientific creation.[/i]

    Yes, it was.  At first I was embarrassed to be both a creationist and a science professor, and I wasn’t really sure what to do with the so-called ‘mountains of evidence’ for evolution.  A colleague in biology, Allen Davis, introduced me to Morris and Whitcomb’s famous book, The Genesis Flood.  At first I reacted strongly against the book, using all the evolutionist arguments I knew so well.  But at that crucial time, the Lord provided me with a splendid Science Faculty Fellowship award from the National Science Foundation, so I resolved to pursue doctoral studies in biology, while also adding a cognate in geology to check out some of the creationist arguments first hand.  To my surprise, and eventually to my delight, just about every course I took was full of more and more problems in evolution, and more and more support for the basic points of biblical creation outlined in scientific creationist writings.

Can you give some examples?[/i]

    Yes, indeed.  One of the tensest moments for me came when we started discussing uranium-lead and other radiometric methods
for estimating the age of the earth.  I just knew all the creationists’ arguments would be shot down and crumbled, but just the opposite happened.
In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn’t have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting.  Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating.  Afterwards, the professor said something like this, ‘If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuff, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system.  So, keep the faith.’ That’s what he told us, ‘keep the faith.’ If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I preferred to keep.

Are there other examples like that?[/i]

    Lots of them.  One concerns the word ‘paraconformity.’ In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting.  My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and other uncomformities came up in geology class.  What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb.  He presented paraconformities as a real mystery and something very difficult to explain in evolutionary or uniformitarian terms.  We even had a field trip to study paraconformities that emphasized the point.
    So again, instead of challenging my creationist ideas, all the geology I was learning in graduate school was supporting it.  I even discussed a creationist interpretation of paraconformities with the professor, and I finally found myself discussing further evidence of creation with fellow graduate students and others.

What do you mean by ‘evidence of creation’?[/i]

    All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures or just a Coke bottle.  Because the pattern of relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance and natural physical processes would produce, we know an outside creative agent was involved.  I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest—molecular biology.
    All living things depend on a working relationship between inheritable nucleic acid molecules, like DNA, and proteins, the chief structural and functional molecules.  To make proteins, living creatures use a sequence of DNA bases to line up a sequence of amino acid R-groups.  But the normal reactions between DNA and proteins are the ‘wrong’ ones and act with time and chance to disrupt living systems.  Just as phosphorus, glass and copper will work together in a television set only if properly arranged by human engineers, so DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative agent.
    I presented the biochemical details of this DNA-protein argument to a group of graduate students and professors, including my professor
of molecular biology.  At the end of the talk, my professor offered no criticism of the biology or biochemistry I had presented.  She just said that she didn’t believe it because she didn’t believe there was anything out there to create life.  But if your faith permits belief in a Creator, you can see the evidence of creation in the things that have been made (as the Apostle Paul implies in Romans 1:18-20).

Has creation influenced your work as a scientist and as a teacher?[/i]

    Yes, in many positive ways.  Science is based on the assumption of an understandable orderliness in the operation of nature, and the Scriptures guarantee both that order and man’s ability to understand it, infusing science with enthusiastic hope and richer meaning.  Furthermore, creationists are able to recognize both spontaneous and created (i.e. internally and externally determined) patterns of order, and this opened my eyes to a far greater range of theories and models to deal with the data from such diverse fields as physiology, systematics and ecology.
    Creation has certainly made the classroom a much more exciting place, both for me and my students.  So much of biology touches on key ethical issues, such as genetic engineering, the ecological crisis, reproduction and development, and now I have so much more to offer than just my own opinions and the severely limited perspectives of other human authorities.  And, of course, on the basic matter of origins, my students and I have the freedom to discuss both evolution and creation, a freedom tragically denied to most young people in our schools today.
    Creationists have to pay the price of academic ridicule and occasional personal attacks, but these are nothing compared to the riches of knowledge and wisdom that are ours through Christ! I only wish that more scientists, science teachers and science students could share the joy and challenge of looking at God’s world through God’s eyes.

So there you have it.  A biologist who went to a secular university, saw the "mountains of evidence" for evolution (even used it!), yet still became a young earth creationist in the end.  Call him a "propagandist for AIG/ICR" if you will, but he used to do the same thing you are doing now.

And of course the "scientific community" rejects creation.  It's made up of people like... like... well, gee, I seem to have forgotten who they remind me of.

 

Obviously you've forgotten, given that you clearly have no understanding of basic scientific principles such as evidence-based conclusions and investigation.

I'm referring to you guys.

And your arguments against the Bible's prophecies are just as I predicted.  Nostradamus made vague prophecies; the Bible's prophecies are more precise, like "Tyre will have its debris scraped into the sea and after it's conquered fishermen will spread their nets on it." (paraphrased)  Accurate to the letter.

Oh, lovely convincing argument Bobboau:  "No it doesn't"  :

BTW once again: How long to make a fossil?

And once again, you guys jumped all over what was practically a typo:  saying viruses mutate into hardier bacteria was a mistake.  Just like when I said that you guys used snowflakes as evidence of evolution.  I like jr2's method better: "I think he means this" not "You flaming willful idiot!  You don't understand evolution!  Prove creation!  Spam!  More Spam!  SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSP AMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM!!!!!

GRRR... SPAM!!!!!

 

There - how'd you like my spamfest? 

BTW thanks for the more accurate (I think; most of you guys really need to take grammar/punctuation lessons) tornado analogy 

Anyway, one last thing to throw at you:

Why the @!!#!! did the skunk evolve its smell?    I would think that that would result in negative mate attraction. 

later,
m

P.S.

i wonder if he'll read it.

His response will be something on the order of:
"Durka durka durka mohammadalijihad!" 

Mohammed Ali!?!

The BOXER!!??!!



(Ace was killed by a haymaker from Mohammed Ali.)

BTW using dialup this time and it SUCKS!!!                  

I Would rather use the same high-speed connection as jr2 does; that may be why Mr. Fury thought I was jr2.    (It's a volunteer organization's line that we both use sometimes; I use the library more because it's on the way home from work [curse them; they changed their hours so they're closed when I get off.]  )

[Mefustae]

So there you have it.  A biologist who went to a secular university, saw the "mountains of evidence" for evolution (even used it!), yet still became a young earth creationist in the end.  Call him a "propagandist for AIG/ICR" if you will, but he used to do the same thing you are doing now.

You used a young-earth Creationist to support your point of view. No further counter-arguement needed.

[Kamikaze]

Prove creation!

That's a valid complaint. We (i.e. the scientifically minded on this forum) can find plenty of research and evidence for evolution. Can you provide any empirical evidence for creationism? If not, then your arguments against evolution (all of which are of the old, stale, and canned variety) are rather pointless; you don't even have a reasonable alternative!

[Ace]

Just from reading the first paragraph of this supposed individual he made one fatal flaw:
Positivism.

The same flaw that led to ideas of eugenics and Social Spencerism (poor Darwin getting the blame for it) about 'bettering the species.'

It's not hard to see how someone into the concept of evolution and technology leading to a goal of perfection being tempted by the idea of an already existing 'perfect being.' Regardless it's a fallacy which is bad science, the selective processes simply occur there is no 'progress.'

Of course, the article here makes the same flaws of claiming scientific observations as 'faith.'

[Bobboau]

a quick look on the internet says the youngest fossil is 10,000 years old.
honestly that seems way too young, but I observed it sevral times, but I could see it as the record holder, generaly I beleive it takes somewere on the order of one million years.

oh, yay random person with leters after his name! woot!
I don't care if a handful of people convert to cristianity after reciveing a doctorate, they are still wrong, the thousand times as many people-with-leters-behind-there-name people agree with me. we have more doctors, so why don't you try to, in your own words, exaplain his argument for creation? if it still relies on twisting facts and lieing then it's still wrong, even if he has a PhD.

[Bobboau]

I have to get up at 5am, it is now 1 am (sorta)... as incoherint as I am, sorry, I just have to pick this appart.

Moderator:  Dr Parker, I understand that when you started teaching college-level biology you were an enthusiastic evolutionist.[/i]

    Yes, indeed.  The idea of evolution was very satisfying to me.  It gave me a feeling of being one with the huge, evolving universe continually progressing toward grander things. why would you think that? evolution has no 'goal'  Evolution was really my religion oh, so you are not a scientist, k, a faith commitment and a complete world-and-life view that organized everything else for me well, thats nice, but it clearly shows you aren't a scientist, your someone who likes to have all your thinking done for you, and I got quite emotional when evolution was challenged.
    As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin and salvation.  God was unnecessary, or at least did no more than make
the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed.  ‘Sin’ was only the result of animal instincts that had outlived their usefulness, and salvation involved only personal adjustment, enlightened self-interest and perhaps one day the benefits of genetic engineering.
    With no God to answer to, no God with a purpose for mankind, I saw our destiny in our own hands.  Tied in with the idea of inevitable evolutionary progress or extinction, this was a truly thrilling idea and the part of evolution I liked best.

Did your faith in evolution affect your classroom teaching?[/i]

    It surely did.  In my early years of teaching at both the high school and university levels, I worked hard to convince my students that evolution was true.  I even had students crying in class. well, your an ass. nice to see you've learnd from your mistakes BTW  I thought I was teaching objective science, not religion, but I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution.  In fact, a discussion with high school teachers in a graduate class I was assisting included just that goal: encouraging students to adapt their religious beliefs to the concept of evolution!

I thought you weren’t supposed to teach religion in the public school system.[/i]

    Well, maybe you can’t teach the Christian religion, but there is no trouble at all in teaching the evolutionary
religion. science isn't religion I’ve done it myself, and I’ve watched the effects that accepting evolution has on a person’s thought and life.  Of course, I once thought that effect was good, ‘liberating the mind from the shackles of revealed religion’ and making a person’s own opinions supreme.

Since you found evolution such a satisfying religion and enjoyed teaching it to others, what made you change your mind?[/i]

    I’ve often marveled that God could change anyone as content as I was, especially with so many religious people (including two members of the Bible department where I once taught!) actually supporting evolution over creation.  But through a Bible study group my wife and I joined, at first for purely social reasons, God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths. so you got BSed by a bunch of fundies It is a blessed experience that gives me an absolute reference point and a truly mind-stretching eternal perspective.

Did your conversion to Christianity then make you a creationist?[/i]

    No, at least not at first.  Like so many before and since, I simply combined my new-found Christian religion with the ‘facts’ of science and became a theistic evolutionist and then a progressive creationist.  I thought the Bible told me who created and that evolution told me how.
But then I began to find scientific problems with the evolutionary part ah, this aught to be good, been waiting for this, though no were near as much as I've been waiting for any evidence of creationism, and theological problems with the theistic part.  I still have a good many friends who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation, but I finally had to give it up.

What theological problems did you find with evolution?[/i]
don't care about theology, skipping
    Perhaps the key point centered around the Bible’s phrase ‘very good.’ At the end of each creation period (except the second) God said that His creation was good.  At the end of the sixth period He said that all His works of creation were very good.
    Now all the theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists I know, including me at one time, try to fit ‘geologic time’ and the fossil record into the creation periods.  But regardless of how old they are, the fossils show the same things that we have on Earth today—famine, disease, disaster, extinction, floods, earthquakes, etc.  So if fossils represent stages in God’s creative activity, why should Christians oppose disease and famine or help preserve an endangered species? If the fossils were formed during the creation week, then all these things would be very good.
    When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as ‘unending progress.’ But in the closing paragraphs of The Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the ‘production of higher animals,’ was caused by ‘the war of nature, from famine and death.’ Does ‘the war of nature, from famine and death,’ sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?
    In Genesis 3, Romans 8 and many other passages, we learn that such negative features were not part of the world that God created, but entered only after Adam’s sin.  By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture: the great themes of creation, the Fall and Redemption—how God made the world perfect and beautiful; how man’s sin brought a curse upon the world; and how Christ came to save us from our sins and to restore all things.

With the Scriptures so plain, are there still many Christians who believe in theistic evolution or progressive creation?[/i]
ookkk... trying to manipulate christians sitting on the fence with guilt, classy
    Yes, there are.  Of course, I can’t speak for all of them, but I can tell you the problems I had to overcome before I could give up theistic evolution myself.  First, I really hate to argue or take sides. yeah, that's why you are a promonent creationist, writeing books and **** When I was a theistic evolutionist, I didn’t have to argue with anybody.  I just chimed in smiling at the end of an argument with something like, ‘Well, the important thing is to remember that God did it.’
    Then there is the matter of intellectual pride.  Creationists are often looked down upon as ignorant throw-backs to the nineteenth century or worse, and I began to think of all the academic honors I had, and to tell you the truth, I didn’t want to face that academic ridicule.
Finally, I, like many Christians, was honestly confused about the biblical issues.  I first became a creationist while teaching at a Christian college. no way! Believe it or not, I got into big trouble with the Bible department.  As soon as I started teaching creation instead of evolution, the Bible department people challenged me to a debate.  The Bible department defended evolution, and two other scientists and I defended creation!
    That debate pointed out how religious evolution really is, and the willingness of Christian leaders to speak out in favor of evolution makes it harder for the average Christian to take a strong stand on creation.  To tell you the truth, I don’t think I would have had the courage, especially as a professor of biology, to give up evolution or theistic evolution without finding out that the bulk of scientific data actually argues against evolution.
ah, ok, good, the evidence against evolution and for creation are one in the same, joy, well, lets have it

In that sense, then, it was really the scientific data that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution and progressive creation to biblical, scientific creation.[/i]

    Yes, it was.  At first I was embarrassed to be both a creationist and a science professor, and I wasn’t really sure what to do with the so-called ‘mountains of evidence’ for evolution.  A colleague in biology, Allen Davis, introduced me to Morris and Whitcomb’s famous book, The Genesis Flood.  At first I reacted strongly against the book, using all the evolutionist arguments I knew so well. well, you, as a suposed scientist should have looked at the hypoothosis criticaly, rather than reflex argument, but do go on But at that crucial time, the Lord provided me with a splendid Science Faculty Fellowship award from the National Science Foundation, so I resolved to pursue doctoral studies in biology, while also adding a cognate in geology to check out some of the creationist arguments first hand.  To my surprise, and eventually to my delight ah, you were delighted, but, yeah, I'm sure you were totaly objective, comeing from a christian school, doubting evolution already because you got talked at by some fundies, I'm sure you weren't just trying to prove creationism right because you had a malformed understanding of evolution that you didn't care to corect, just about every course I took was full of more and more problems in evolution such as...?, and more and more support for the basic points of biblical creation outlined in scientific creationist writings. oohhh.. especaly, such as...?

Can you give some examples?[/i]
yes!
    Yes, indeed.  One of the tensest moments for me came when we started discussing uranium-lead and other radiometric methods
for estimating the age of the earth.  I just knew all the creationists’ arguments would be shot down and crumbled, but just the opposite happened.
In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn’t have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far too uncertain and conflicting umm... no. Then in geophysics we went over all of the assumptions that go into radiometric dating. SUCH AS......?  Afterwards, the professor said something like this, ‘If a fundamentalist ever got hold of this stuffwell, you aparently didn't get ahold of it, he would make havoc out of the radiometric dating system.  So, keep the faith.’ yeah... That’s what he told us, ‘keep the faith.’ If it was a matter of keeping faith, I now had another faith I preferred to keep.
ok, so, what were the problems, all you've said so far was, creationsits are right and evolutionazis are wrong, oh, and there like a cult.

Are there other examples like that?[/i]

    Lots of them.  One concerns the word ‘paraconformity.’paraconformity: a break in sedimentary layers due to lack of deposition In The Genesis Flood, I had heard that paraconformity was a word used by evolutionary geologists for fossil systems out of order, but with no evidence of erosion or overthrusting.  My heart really started pounding when paraconformities and other uncomformities came up in geology class.  What did the professor say? Essentially the same thing as Morris and Whitcomb.  He presented paraconformities as a real mystery and something very difficult to explain in evolutionary or uniformitarian terms is it realy that ****ing hard to wrap ones mind about the idea that a regon might no loner colect sediments for an extended period of time, maybe a drought, maybe a river changed direction, or intinsity (causeing it to scour sediments rather than deposit them), or maybe techtonic forces simply pushed that area up and it is not the side of a cliff for a while. oh look, I have solved the great mystery of geology oohhhh.....  We even had a field trip to study paraconformities that emphasized the point.
    So again, instead of challenging my creationist ideas, all the geology I was learning in graduate school was supporting it.  I even discussed a creationist interpretation of paraconformities with the professor, and I finally found myself discussing further evidence of creation with fellow graduate students and others.

What do you mean by ‘evidence of creation’?[/i]
indeed, thia I want to hear
    All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures or just a Coke bottle.  Because the pattern of relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance and natural physical processes would produce, we know an outside creative agent was involved.  I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest—molecular biology.ok, you have a gut feeling, fine
    All living things depend on a working relationship between inheritable nucleic acid I sence irreducible complexity molecules, like DNA, and proteins, the chief structural and functional molecules.  To make proteins, living creatures use a sequence of DNA bases to line up a sequence of amino acid R-groups.  But the normal reactions between DNA and proteins are the ‘wrong’ ones and act with time and chance to disrupt living systems.  Just as phosphorus, glass and copper will work together in a television set only if properly arranged by human engineers, so DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative agent. acording to you, yes, the 'it works so well and if you take something away it wont work at all' irreducible complexity argument, just because the current state can't be reduced doesn't mean intermediate steps couldn't be. and besides this particular variation of IC is about abiogenisis, not evolution proper
    I presented the biochemical details of this DNA-protein argument to a group of graduate students and professors, including my professor
of molecular biology.  At the end of the talk, my professor offered no criticism of the biology or biochemistry I had presented.  She just said that she didn’t believe it because she didn’t believe there was anything out there to create life.  But if your faith permits belief in a Creator, you can see the evidence of creation in the things that have been made (as the Apostle Paul implies in Romans 1:18-20).
there are people who beleive the earth was made by aliens and they see evidince for this all over in there gut feelings. irreducible complexity has been so soundly debunced it's laughable, but at least we got something presented here
*irreducible complexity*

Has creation influenced your work as a scientist and as a teacher?[/i]

    Yes, in many positive ways.  Science is based on the assumption of an understandable orderliness in the operation of nature no, science is based on deriveing rules from observation, makeing assumptions is bad, and the Scriptures guarantee both that order and man’s ability to understand it yeah, no need to bother with any of that science stuff, everything you need to know is in the old good book, infusing science with enthusiastic hope and richer meaning.  Furthermore, creationists are able to recognize both spontaneous and created (i.e. internally and externally determined) patterns of order, and this opened my eyes to a far greater range of theories and models to deal with the data from such diverse fields as physiology, systematics and ecology. such as 'God did it!'
    Creation has certainly made the classroom a much more exciting place, both for me and my students.  So much of biology touches on key ethical issues, such as genetic engineering, the ecological crisis, reproduction and development, and now I have so much more to offer than just my own opinions and the severely limited perspectives of other human authorities. yeah, now you can use your science class to prostolatise! And, of course, on the basic matter of origins, my students and I have the freedom to discuss both evolution and creation, a freedom tragically denied to most young people in our schools today. bull****
    Creationists have to pay the price of academic ridicule and occasional personal attacks, but these are nothing compared to the riches of knowledge and wisdom that are ours through Christ! I only wish that more scientists, science teachers and science students could share the joy and challenge of looking at God’s world through God’s eyes.
and knowing is half the battle!

so, basicly that whole thing boils down to irreducible complexity, wich is BS, someone else explain to him why, I'm sleepy.

oh, and, no, it does not. prove me wrong. you are the one makeing incredable claims, the burden of proof is upon you.

and yes, my spelling and gramer sucs, I'm very sleepy, and my wireless keybord's bateries are running low so it misses a few strokes, so just deal with it.

[jr2]

Okay, stretching back; there are so many points I want to make but I'd best just grabe a few, I know I'm ignoring some, but I'll get to them sooner or later.  (Probably later : )

This thread is still going...hot damn...

25 pages and I still haven't seen any "Creationism is right because X". Although the mudslinging is making it seem like a political discussion.

Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.  Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along.  Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe.  So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift.  Oh, right.  You probably don't.  *sigh*  The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!".  Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened."  Cue the mudslinging, please.

Ok, I'm getting sick of the way this is going...

Pro-Evolution persons:  I understand why you want to try and make creationists see things differently, but you must realize that you can't do anything if the person isn't willing to think logically about your comments.  And instead of saying "Prove that creationism is correct" and going on to claim that you're going to debunk their comments within a few seconds, try bringing up one aspect of the debate that is, well, debatable.  Get them involved by talking specifically about what makes one side right or wrong.

Pro-Creation persons:  Please understand why some of us get so infuriated when someone comes out saying "evolution is wrong, etc etc".  If you want to get into a serious discussion about creation vs. evolution, then you are more than welcome to do so.  But don't just sit there going "you're wrong, so there!"  It's like a childs' argument.

Go ahead and flame me to death if you must.  I just had to try to get this "debate" going on a good direction again.

It would help if m didn't get stuck at the library (30 min sessions) and also would help if he could type faster than 25 wpm   ... although, at least he can type accurately and spell correctly.
*looks sourly at some forum members*
*dodges a few horribly mangled, half-English looking phrases thrown in his general direction by said forum members*

BTW, 25 pages If you do a print preview, you'll see it's probably well over 220 now.  Although with tighter formatting, you could maybe squeeze it down to 150 or so.

Is this really the best you can do m? I've challenged you twice to prove why creationism is right yet you do nothing but take potshots at evolution. Potshots so easily deflected that you're simply wasting your time and proving that you are completely ignorant about what evolution actually is.

But even if you succeed who says you're right? The Hindus or Buddhists could be the ones who are correct even if you somehow manage to come across a real flaw in the evolutionary theory amongst your flailing about.

Yet again I'm asking you to prove why you are right not why I am wrong.

Heaven, err, I mean Darwin help you if he ever disproves it.  As I've said, you don't need to prove Creation, if there is no Evolution.  creation proves Creation unless explained otherwise (evolution).

There is a mountain of supporting evidence for creation and no credible evidence for evolutionism.

Prove it. So far you haven't provided a single piece of evidence for creationism dispite the fact that I've asked you to. All you've done so far is attack evolution.

This is because there is no evidence for creationism that can't be discredited within minutes.

Umm, that's pretty presumptuous.  If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away...  All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney.  People have hours-long debates on this topic.  Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe.  But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes.  I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.

About attacking evolution: see argument above.

Just to be an arse, I'll point out the Bible's been pretty heavily peer-edited too. Several large councils were convened to do just that.

And, of course, if you think the Bible's scary, you should see some of the rejected bits.

That's a pretty loaded statement, ngtm1r.  Got any proof for that one?  You'd best cough some up if you're going to make broad statements like that.  (D'uh, quotes will do just fine... I'm not asking you to go out and prove it all by yourself.)  Actually, you might want to start a new thread on it and post a link to it here, just to keep the waters (sort of) clear.

they stoped responding I'm bored

Oh ye of little patience.  [rant]BTW, does this mean you actually enjoy the arguments, or whatever, taking place here?  Then what's with some people's 'tudes around here?  Seriously.  Try taking all of the nasty attitudes out of all arguments.  It'd be much nicer, wouldn't it?  You don't think that it makes a YEC's blood boil when he's called an idiot?  Hello-o, to be an idiot, in my opinion, you have to do something more simply hold a belief.  Maybe 'illogical' would be a better choice.[/rant]

Notice that Black Wolf actually bothered to post plenty of evidence for evolution. Evidence that you have pretty much chosen to ignore. You have yet to give any evidence of intelligent design, as opposed to trying to discredit evolution with BS arguments.

Again, could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given?  Come on.  It's not that hard to figure out.

watsisname, we had been debating some arguments of m but he seems unwilling to actually discuss them anymore, not that he was doing a good job of that previously. How many times must one disprove the tornado in a junkyard analogy?

The whole TIJ argument has been misunderstood, perhaps.  Let me re-phrase, whilst trying not to sound condescending:
The argument that TIJ doesn't apply goes sort of like this:
"The argument isn't valid because it assumes that what emerges from the junkyard has to be a 747."
No.
The argument is misunderstood, maybe mis-stated, probably both.
The argument should be:
"Evolution could be likened to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and producing any kind of flying contraption that gets off the ground."
That would be a little bit better, and easier for certain people who can't seem to read between the lines on certain things.  No offense, but really, what were you guys thinking?  You actually seem to think that ID folks are just plain morons.  Disagreement with oneself about an issue, even if the other person is dead wrong, does not make them an automatic idiot.  Just the fact that they listen to you, plus the fact that (excuse the references to French) they aren't calling you an effing Darwin-dammed idiot means they have an little respect for you.  And then, you squander (waste) it by calling them names.

Lesson 1: If you are in a debate of some sort, it can be likened to playing chess.  Using a knife on the opponent only hurts them, and makes them want to hurt you back.  It does nothing for your chess game, although drawing one's finger across one's throat before making a hopefully crushing move doesn't really do much harm.  People who are attacked by a knife whilst playing chess tend to forget the game and defend themselves, quite possibly, they will attack back *shock!*.  Okay.  Guess I'd better explain.  (I learned my lesson earlier.)  The chess game is, obviously, the debate, with moves and countermoves being arguments.  The knife is a verbal (written) assault using name-calling or demeaning (putting-down) implications, although, thankfully, with much less damage done to the players, but, unfortunately, with much the same result to the said chess game.  Drawing one's finger across one's throat before (hopefully) crushing your opponent could be gloating, mild versions of name-calling in a humor, etc.  Some might consider it in bad taste, depending on the circumstances and statements used.  Okay.  Everyone understand my analogy?  Got any of your own?  (Don't forget to take mine into your thought whilst giving them.)  Oh, good.  whatsisname gets it:

Fair enough.  It just sometimes seems like y'all are just coaxing them out and stomping on their beliefs.  I was just hoping that we could do this in a little more... understanding sort of fashion.

Ah well, carry on then.

I've been reading this thread for awhile, and have posted once or twice wondering where an arguement FOR creationism was. I was being serious, and not trying to start a flamewar. Honest to God I just want to know what (other than Biblical) evidence there is that keeps being stated as "we have loads of evidence".

Um.

Well, there's the bible.

And

er....

the

um

thing

Tornado in a Junkyard!

*runs*

Fair enough.  It just sometimes seems like y'all are just coaxing them out and stomping on their beliefs.  I was just hoping that we could do this in a little more... understanding sort of fashion.

Ah well, carry on then.

Ach, come on.  It's (creationism) no different than flat-earthism.

And your point was?  You'd get no further with a flat-earther if you treated hime this way.  Although the attitude on that particular post seemed friendly enough.    BTW,

Isaiah 40:21-23 (New International Version):
       Do you not know?
       Have you not heard?
       Has it not been told you from the beginning?
       Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
       He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
       and its people are like grasshoppers.
       He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
       and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
       He brings princes to naught
       and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

The Hebrew word there for "circle" means:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1152251618-5397.html
Interesting eh?  *looks at ngtm1r*

Reposted For Jr2, in case he is still reading.

Uhm, I think he meant that to be a response to someone saying that Creationists are presumptive in assuming that we're the only type of being that could have evolved, vs other types (ie, we could have evolved differently).  I believe he's saying that, even given that, you still need to be able to fly, so to speak; ie, you must be a viable, surviving lifeform, obviously.  And m is saying that the chances are very bad for evolution.  In other words, don't fixate on the tornado producing a 747 in the junkyard, the analogy could better be stated as "Tornado rips through a junkyard and produces a flying machine.

Jr2. You seem as confused as m is. See the part I bolded in you reply, now tell me what youve really changed here? You realy have changed nothing at all.

I'm just trying to explain his point of view, since so many of you guys seem too smart to understand it.  It's really not that hard to try to understand correctly and (at least somewhat) accurately where another person is coming from and what he's trying to say.  .

I did understand it, for some reason you really really think its a big difference. The change in the meaning is so small its laughable.

I'm trying to say that there are more than a few people, yes, even scientists who believe at least that God had to have helped evolution along.

I know, but that doesnt mean its science. I know lots of scientists that have religious beliefs, but they know thats what they are.

1. Already answered.  (comments?)

2. No, its not.  Just misunderstood.  (Surprise!)

3. You don't think a scientist would have a reason for it?  Especially if they switched from being a hard-core atheistic evolutionist?  Of course not.  The scientist couldn't be that smart, because, after all, he doesn't tow the party line when it comes to evolution, now, does he?  The reason the scientist probably doesn't bring the topic up at work are simple: a) it's not his job (most likely).  b) he doesn't like to unnecessarily ruffle people's feathers.  If they ask, he *might* share his beliefs.  This is probably because c) some scientist can have positively nasty attitudes towards anyone who doesn't believe the way they do.  (Not just talking creation/evolution here.)

Reposted For Jr2, in case he is still reading.

Tha's laughable.    See?  I laughed.  I don't have to respond to post to keep track of an argument, right?  I just might want to collect my wits and write a semi-intelligable response sometimes.  Of course, that spoils some people's fun, as they cannot instantly shred whatever is said without even thinking about the argument, as not much of a counter-argument has been made when little thought goes into it.

*looks hard at some of m's shorter posts*
*flees from red-glowing m.*

what? I did...
You call this using quote tags?
yes...
I see!  
Can I join the fun too?
You'll have to ask Bobboau!
The writing is too damn small!!
It teh suxxorz!
Anyone got a microscope that I can borrow?  Never mind, I'll use CTRL+C & CTRL+V.

Okay, I'll take a break now.  Respond away, maybe I'll get an answer in before leaving.

Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Mmmm.... Let me think uh, no.  Post away it is.

[Mefustae]

Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.  Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along.  Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe.  So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift.  Oh, right.  You probably don't.  *sigh*  The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!".  Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened."  Cue the mudslinging, please.

Again,  could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given?  Come on.  It's not that hard to figure out.

Excuse me?! "Creation is the only conclusion that makes sense"?!! My God you're a presumptuous little bastard, aren't you. I'm assuming you're referring to all mystical creation myths, as the sheer arrogance of assuming the Christian creation myth is the only possbility would simply defy belief, but still... damn that's messed up. It may be hard to believe, but transdimensional aliens terraforming the planet and seeding life here - however laughable - is a far, far more likely theory for the generation of life on this planet than "God did it", and an option the scientific community would embrace with open arms before even thinking about supernatural origins.

And your point was?

Aldo's point was that creationism is as fraudulent and without evidentiary substance as the notion of a flat earth; demonstrated as false time and time again, to the point of being laughable in scientific circles. But you obviously believe otherwise, and I respect that. How about this, let's see some good, hard evidence that cannot possibily have been tampered with by human hands, and i'll eat my hat. Seriously, i've got a nice cap here, and i'll eat it [metal parts notwithstanding]. I guess it's just how I am, I like to have hard, trustworthy evidence before I believe anything, you don't have a problem with that, do you?

[achtung]

This thread just absolutely refuses to die.

[Mefustae]

I think of it more like a superhero. When it is not needed, it sits as a mild-mannered dead topic amongst the other threads, but when trouble is brewing, it transforms into Super-Thread! Armed with incredibly long posts, scienmotific explanations that even a glass of water could understand, and its perpetual borderline flamewar! Super-thread, keeping the world safe for a better tomorrow... or something.

[NGTM-1R]

Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.  Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along.  Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe.  So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift.  Oh, right.  You probably don't.  *sigh*  The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!".  Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened."  Cue the mudslinging, please.

Circular logic. It exists because God created it, and God created it because it exists. Also there's still intelligent design (which is not the same thing as creationism, dammit!) if you manage to knock out evolution. So that's a pair of formal logical fallacies.

And then of course there's the gigantic overarching problem that NOBODY'S DISPROVED EVOLUTION HERE! Whoops. Kinda a salient point you choose to overlook? This whole thing is an informal logical fallacy: red herring.

And last and definitely not least, okay, it exists because God created it.

Why does God exist?

Nothing can morely clearly prove your efforts futile then the unanswerablity of that question. But meanwhile, science has actually finally answered that greatest of philosophical questions. Something exists instead of nothing because nothing is rather unstable.

Umm, that's pretty presumptuous.  If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away...  All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney.  People have hours-long debates on this topic.  Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe.  But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes.  I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.

Actually, it's not. Allow me to disprove Genesis: fossil record. Allow me to disprove the Flood: fossil record.

So either everyone else is really damn stupid and I'm the only one with an IQ above room temperature, or it is disproveable in minutes. Nay, in seconds.

That's a pretty loaded statement, ngtm1r.  Got any proof for that one?  You'd best cough some up if you're going to make broad statements like that.  (D'uh, quotes will do just fine... I'm not asking you to go out and prove it all by yourself.)  Actually, you might want to start a new thread on it and post a link to it here, just to keep the waters (sort of) clear.

Sure. As anyone who's read The Da Vinci Code knows, there are other Gospels that did not make the cut (because Mr. Brown keeps citing one that didn't, and pretends it did). Large portions of Acts were excised. I don't have my copy of Pagans and Christians handy at the moment to get into gory detail, but off the top of my head I can cite a passage where Paul supposedly claimed it was better to be paralyzed then raped as having gotten the chop.

Isaiah 40:21-23 (New International Version):
       Do you not know?
       Have you not heard?
       Has it not been told you from the beginning?
       Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
       He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
       and its people are like grasshoppers.
       He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
       and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
       He brings princes to naught
       and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

The Hebrew word there for "circle" means:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1152251618-5397.html
Interesting eh?  *looks at ngtm1r*

Perhaps you'd better make yourself more clear. Because it's a pretty and totally irrevelant quote.

[aldo_14]

Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.  Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along.  Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe.  So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift.  Oh, right.  You probably don't.  *sigh*  The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!".  Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened."  Cue the mudslinging, please.

Everyone used to believe the world was flat until people like Plato, Aristotle, etc demonstrated it wasn't (actually, that's a slight lie; the Vedic scrolls from India described a spherical earth orbiting the sun thousands of years before that)

Except it wouldn't be proof of creation any more than a shipwreck was proof the world had edges.  Moreso, creation is the barest form of 'ergo, it just happened'; it doesn't even attempt to explain complexity (something evolution does very well).

Moreso, evolution doesn't even touch on the areas of 'creation' because it deals with the evolution of lifes complexity, not the formation of life or the universe (abiogenesis and the big bang / physics cover this) in any case.

What you're actually saying is, that if A happens, then B must be justified by it, regardless of what B is.


EDIT;
as pointed out, let's say evolution is disproven, even though it never has been and no-one has even come close to it (yay for rational evidence based science!).

Let's say we have 'creation', then.  What created 'God'?  Ok, let's say 'god always existed' to skip that rather important question..... then why not say 'the universe always existed', and who needs God?  Ergo, no God!  For goodness sake, God makes it more complicated than the universe just existing, after all.  So I guess the universes' existence disproves God by your form of bizarre logic.

Heaven, err, I mean Darwin help you if he ever disproves it.  As I've said, you don't need to prove Creation, if there is no Evolution.  creation proves Creation unless explained otherwise (evolution).

Again, you've forgotton what evolution is; technically you need to disprove abiogenesis and physics.  And even then, it's ludicrous that this would 'prove' creation; did the absence of an explanation for gravity for all those years, mean it was Intelligent Falling?

All you'd have is the absence of an explanation; the thing that led to the invention of creation myths, and the thing which science has tackled.

Umm, that's pretty presumptuous.  If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away...  All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney.  People have hours-long debates on this topic.  Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe.  But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes.  I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.

About attacking evolution: see argument above.

It's easily disproven.  Easily.  The problem is not evidence, it's faith.  Churches, ID protagonists propagate the image of evolution as anti-religious, immoral, etc, and attack it using irrational arguements; we've seen it here - you're still doing it, in fact, continuously failing to understand the bounds of evolutionary theory.

In fact, every ID/creationist arguement I've seen in this thread so far has been characterised by a lack of understanding and hence mischaracterisation of how evolutionary theory works.

Oh ye of little patience.  [rant]BTW, does this mean you actually enjoy the arguments, or whatever, taking place here?  Then what's with some people's 'tudes around here?  Seriously.  Try taking all of the nasty attitudes out of all arguments.  It'd be much nicer, wouldn't it?  You don't think that it makes a YEC's blood boil when he's called an idiot?  Hello-o, to be an idiot, in my opinion, you have to do something more simply hold a belief.  Maybe 'illogical' would be a better choice.[/rant]

I enjoy the arguements.  I'm sick of this ****, it's literally seeking to hold back the advancement of humanitys' understanding of the world because some narrow-minded, undereducated preacher believes a theory they don't understand threatens their power...sorry, donation base.

Again,  could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given?  Come on.  It's not that hard to figure out.

(ach!  abiogenesis, abiogenesis, abiogenesis.....)

No.  All it would mean would be another origin is required for complexity. 

That you can't think of one besides evolution demonstrates rather well how it is by far the best evidenced and logical - rational - theory.

The whole TIJ argument has been misunderstood, perhaps.  Let me re-phrase, whilst trying not to sound condescending:
The argument that TIJ doesn't apply goes sort of like this:
"The argument isn't valid because it assumes that what emerges from the junkyard has to be a 747."
No.
The argument is misunderstood, maybe mis-stated, probably both.
The argument should be:
"Evolution could be likened to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and producing any kind of flying contraption that gets off the ground."

Except that's still wrong, because it characterises evolution as a single, random chance event.  And evolution is a multi-staged event with a random differentiation action and deterministic natural selection events.

It also assumes that a flying machine is the only output that 'works', which is again wrong.

That would be a little bit better, and easier for certain people who can't seem to read between the lines on certain things.  No offense, but really, what were you guys thinking?  You actually seem to think that ID folks are just plain morons.  Disagreement with oneself about an issue, even if the other person is dead wrong, does not make them an automatic idiot.  Just the fact that they listen to you, plus the fact that (excuse the references to French) they aren't calling you an effing Darwin-dammed idiot means they have an little respect for you.  And then, you squander (waste) it by calling them names.

Lesson 1: If you are in a debate of some sort, it can be likened to playing chess.  Using a knife on the opponent only hurts them, and makes them want to hurt you back.  It does nothing for your chess game, although drawing one's finger across one's throat before making a hopefully crushing move doesn't really do much harm.  People who are attacked by a knife whilst playing chess tend to forget the game and defend themselves, quite possibly, they will attack back *shock!*.  Okay.  Guess I'd better explain.  (I learned my lesson earlier.)  The chess game is, obviously, the debate, with moves and countermoves being arguments.  The knife is a verbal (written) assault using name-calling or demeaning (putting-down) implications, although, thankfully, with much less damage done to the players, but, unfortunately, with much the same result to the said chess game.  Drawing one's finger across one's throat before (hopefully) crushing your opponent could be gloating, mild versions of name-calling in a humor, etc.  Some might consider it in bad taste, depending on the circumstances and statements used.  Okay.  Everyone understand my analogy?  Got any of your own?  (Don't forget to take mine into your thought whilst giving them.)  Oh, good.  whatsisname gets it:

Oh, bollocks.  This isn't a debate.  A debate implies some sort of issue of truth or uncertainty to be debated.  this is, or should be, teaching.  Because time and time again it's so bloody obvious - you don't understand evolution!  I'm sorry, but it's true; you can see it above this very paragraph.

And your point was?  You'd get no further with a flat-earther if you treated hime this way.  Although the attitude on that particular post seemed friendly enough.    BTW,

That rationality trumps making **** up any day of the week.

NB: hhug does mean both sphere and circle, however a quick analysis of multiple bits of Genesis makes it pretty evidence the reference was to circle or more specifically 'cylinder', which matches with the predominant Egyptian and Hebrew creation myths of the time (namely, 'earth' as a circular landmass, surrounded by water).

for example, passages about the earth being set apart from the water, and the earth (same earth) being fixed on foundations and immobile, etc.  It's pretty evident of the mythological origins, and if you search about, you'll find we've had this little debate before.

[jr2]

Oh my goodness.  Just when I thought it couldn't be misunderstood, I am amazed again.  Some of you folks from a different planet or something?  You're not following my train of thought very well, and I don't know why.

Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.  Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along.  Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe.  So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift.  Oh, right.  You probably don't.  *sigh*  The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!".  Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened."  Cue the mudslinging, please.

Again,  could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given?  Come on.  It's not that hard to figure out.

Excuse me?! "Creation is the only conclusion that makes sense"?!! My God you're a presumptuous little bastard, aren't you. I'm assuming you're referring to all mystical creation myths, as the sheer arrogance of assuming the Christian creation myth is the only possbility would simply defy belief, but still... damn that's messed up. It may be hard to believe, but transdimensional aliens terraforming the planet and seeding life here - however laughable - is a far, far more likely theory for the generation of life on this planet than "God did it", and an option the scientific community would embrace with open arms before even thinking about supernatural origins.  Yes, that would be their main problem.  They are supposed to consider everything in an unbiased, unemotionally affected way.  But they don't.  Your argument about aliens creating life is moot.  'There was once a speaker who gave a lecture in which he stated that the Terra was suspended in space with nothing supporting it.  Afterwards a lady came up to him and said, "You know, you're very wrong about that."  "Okay, lady," says the speaker, "Tell me what the Earth is supported on, then!"  "On the back of a turtle."  she replied.  "Umm, I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question in mind."  the speaker said.  "You see, the turtle would have to be suspended on nothing then."  "Oh, you may think you're clever, young man."  the lady replied, "But it's turtles all the way down!"'  Do you follow my logic?  If aliens created life, you've got the same problem once removed.  If aliens created the aliens, it's second removed, etc, etc.  There must be an ultimate cause, whether it's the Big Bang, or an eternally pre-existing (or existing outside of time, possibly even creating time) creator of some type.  I never said that "Creation is the only conclusion that makes sense" - You're quoting me out of context.  I said, Creation without evolution to explain the universe away is the only conclusion that makes sense.  Of course, I should have appended, "to the question, 'How did we get here?'"  You guys are really, really good at finding small ommisions or errors in someone's statement, but absolutely no good at correctly supposing and suggesting what the person really meant to say or possibly meant to say, or so it seems at least.

And your point was?

Aldo's point was that creationism is as fraudulent and without evidentiary substance as the notion of a flat earth; demonstrated as false time and time again, to the point of being laughable in scientific circles. But you obviously believe otherwise, and I respect that. How about this, let's see some good, hard evidence that cannot possibily have been tampered with by human hands, and i'll eat my hat. Seriously, i've got a nice cap here, and i'll eat it [metal parts notwithstanding]. I guess it's just how I am, I like to have hard, trustworthy evidence before I believe anything, you don't have a problem with that, do you?

Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.  Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along.  Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe.  So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift.  Oh, right.  You probably don't.  *sigh*  The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!".  Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened."  Cue the mudslinging, please.

Circular logic. It exists because God created it, and God created it because it exists. I don't even want to know where you pulled that argument from.    We know it exists because we can observe it all around us, and logically, one would assume that it came from somewhere, or at least I would hope so - if you feel that our surroundings have always been this way, and have never existed in a different state, well, you're entitled to your opinion, I suppose.  You folks don't seem to get the logic behind If it didn't just happen, someone put it there.[/i]  That is why no argument is needed to 'prove' creation; It is self-evident, unless one can logically explain how it came to be without someone to put it there.Also there's still intelligent design (which is not the same thing as creationism, dammit!) No kidding, what exactly 'are you on about'? if you manage to knock out evolution. So that's a pair of formal logical fallacies.

And then of course there's the gigantic overarching problem that NOBODY'S DISPROVED EVOLUTION HERE! I kind of want to lay some groundwork before I would dare to claim I had done that.  Maybe by page 50 or so, I'll end with a succession of quotes and throw in the towel for awhile, but there will always be questions.  I never said I disproved evolution, I was just responding to the ever-repeated rant "We have proof for what you believe, where's yours?"  To which I would respond, "If I destroy your proof, mine's the only one left, and it's self-evident."  (And it was around first    )Whoops. Kinda a salient point you choose to overlook? This whole thing is an informal logical fallacy: red herring.  No it's not, apparently you can't answer more than one topic at a time without people getting all confused  <- portrait of ngtm1r    *runs*

And last and definitely not least, okay, it exists because God created it.

Why does God you exist?  Said the clay to the potter.  "Because I made you."   replied the potter.  :

Nothing can morely clearly prove your efforts futile then the unanswerablity of that question. See above and eat chocolate pie (see, I'm nice ) But meanwhile, science has actually finally answered that greatest of philosophical questions. Something exists instead of nothing because nothing is rather unstable.  Come again?  That sounds a whole lot like an argument that is quite undefensible.  It exists because the Universe is sentient, and doesn't like unstable environments.  So >poof!< we have something from nothing, which then became compressed (somehow) into a dot smaller than a period, smaller than an atom, perhaps even nothing at all (I do believe I actually heard that once) and then exploded.  Okay, whatever.  :

Umm, that's pretty presumptuous.  If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away...  All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney.  People have hours-long debates on this topic.  Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe.  But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes.  I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.

Actually, it's not. Allow me to disprove Genesis: fossil record. Allow me to disprove the Flood: fossil record.  Allow me to prove Genesis: fossil record.  Allow me to prove the Flood: fossil record.  [Arnold]I'll be back.  You've made a big mistake.[/Arnold]  I'll explain that (perhaps quite a while) later (week or two?).

So either everyone else is really damn stupid and I'm the only one with an IQ above room temperature, or it is disproveable in minutes. Nay, in seconds.  Dream on.  You really think that you're smarter than all those people who debate this topic all the time?  The opposing side doesn't take seconds or minutes; it takes hours, and when it's done, they still can't agree on that subject.

That's a pretty loaded statement, ngtm1r.  Got any proof for that one?  You'd best cough some up if you're going to make broad statements like that.  (D'uh, quotes will do just fine... I'm not asking you to go out and prove it all by yourself.)  Actually, you might want to start a new thread on it and post a link to it here, just to keep the waters (sort of) clear.

Sure. As anyone who's read The Da Vinci Code knows, there are other Gospels that did not make the cut (because Mr. Brown keeps citing one that didn't, and pretends it did). Large portions of Acts were excised. I don't have my copy of Pagans and Christians handy at the moment to get into gory detail, but off the top of my head I can cite a passage where Paul supposedly claimed it was better to be paralyzed then raped as having gotten the chop.  I do believe you are refering to quite a few ~1500 year old myths, long disproven.  This is why fundamentalists get worked up over The Da Vinci Code: it's a pack of mis-truths and half-truths and out of context research disproven millenia ago.  I will have to get back on the specifics on this one.  For now, suffice it to say, millions of people have died for their belief in the truths outlined in the Bible (including Paul & all except one of the other apostles).  Wonder what they were on.  Oh, wait.  Maybe they were eyewitnesses and really knew that they were right.

Isaiah 40:21-23 (New International Version):
       Do you not know?
       Have you not heard?
       Has it not been told you from the beginning?
       Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
       He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
       and its people are like grasshoppers.
       He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
       and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
       He brings princes to naught
       and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.

The Hebrew word there for "circle" means:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1152251618-5397.html
Interesting eh?  *looks at ngtm1r*

Perhaps you'd better make yourself more clear. Because it's a pretty and totally irrevelant quote.  I can just feel the  look on your face.  I forgot to quote your text that that was in response to.  You actually think that I made a totally errelevant quote?  Didn't even bother to switch on a few gray cells out of your vast millions (not being sarcastic, it's true, we both know it) to go looking for what it might be that I 'was on about'?  I know you're probably smart.  Use it.    

Ach, come on.  It's (creationism) no different than flat-earthism.

You see?  I simply mistook the author of that argument and forgot to quote it (which would have solved the author problem anyways).  I thought that the flat-earth thing yours, not aldo's.  The thing is, people often ridicule others who literally believe the Bible as 'flat-earthers', thinking that way back in the day, people believed the earth was flat because the Bible said so, until science disproved the idea.  Nope.  the Bible, in Isaiah, states that the Earth is round, thousands of years before they were supposed to have come up with the idea.  Actually, the fact is, people back then weren't as dumb as you'd think.  And the Bible is accurate on this score.  Got any more false notions for me to disprove?  (aldo or ngtm1r  )

Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.  Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along.  Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe.  So, really, creation[/i] would be the proof of Creation[/i], if you catch my drift.  Oh, right.  You probably don't.  *sigh*  The argument is infallible (if evolution is false) and goes like this: "ergo, the universe had to come from somewhere!".  Evolution says: "ergo, it just happened."  Cue the mudslinging, please.

Everyone used to believe the world was flat until people like Plato, Aristotle, etc demonstrated it wasn't (actually, that's a slight lie; the Vedic scrolls from India described a spherical earth orbiting the sun thousands of years before that)  except the Jews and later Christians who actually believed their Bibles, you mean.

Except it wouldn't be proof of creation any more than a shipwreck was proof the world had edges.  Moreso, creation is the barest form of 'ergo, it just happened'; it doesn't even attempt to explain complexity (something evolution does very well).  God made the world complex because he wanted to?  Yeesh.  You'd think that to be God, you have to conform to aldo's notion of him.  Or was that the whole point?

Moreso, evolution doesn't even touch on the areas of 'creation' because it deals with the evolution of lifes complexity, not the formation of life or the universe (abiogenesis and the big bang / physics cover this) in any case.  If you believe the current theory, Evolution had to deal with what the Big Bang and physics handed it, didn't it?  Or did it get a free pass?

What you're actually saying is, that if A happens, then B must be justified by it, regardless of what B is.  No.  I'm afraid you don't seem to realize that if I tried to cover all arguments at once, you'd probably have 10 or so back-to-back posts from me.  Usually it helps to move in a sort of chronological fasion through events in a theory of how the universe formed, right?  I'm just winding up here.  Watch out.


EDIT;
as pointed out, let's say evolution is disproven, even though it never has been and no-one has even come close to it (yay for rational evidence based science!).  misinterpreted evidence based faith, you mean.    Hey!  Put that flamethrower down!  What are you doing?! 
*hops quickly into his Pyro-GX*
*presses 5 before holding down his trigger*
  

Let's say we have 'creation', then.  What created 'God'?  Ok, let's say 'god always existed' to skip that rather important question..... then why not say 'the universe always existed', and who needs God?  Ergo, no God!  For goodness sake, God makes it more complicated than the universe just existing, after all.  So I guess the universes' existence disproves God by your form of bizarre logic.  God always was.  You were actually expecting Him to be formed somehow?  According to the Bible, he spoke and it "was so".  The problem with the universe always existing is that it would have to create itself from nothing.  Let sort of rephrase this:  What created the Universe?  'the universe always existed'  OK, so now that we've established that this period of creation/big bang/evolution/whatever requires faith no matter which side you're on.  You actually think it requires more faith to think that God created the universe than to think that the universe created the universe?  Ok, fine by me.  This is where the evolutionary 'morals' refered to come in:  If there's no point, no purpose, we might as well have the best smashingest party while we can by any means necessary, because eventually, we're gonna croak.  No need to research or develop anything.  Sure, it might make you able to party a few more years, but in the big picture, what's it really matter after you've ceased existing?  Who the heck would care?  Life is purposeless, enjoy it?  Whereas if you believe that there are rules you need to follow in life, and that you will be held accountable for your actions, you tend to behave a bit better.  And if you believe that you and your race really, really screwed things up on their one chance of having it easy, the way things were meant to be (hey, how hard would it be to live with only one rule: don't eat from that tree) and that they were condemned to eventually die because of that choice, made corporately as a race and individually as people, and that God still loved your race enough to sacrifice Himself in the form of His Son so that you'd have a chance to accept his free payment for your breaking of His rules, you would tend to act really, really well behaved, just because you really appreciate what He's done for you.  There.  I think I've summarized the morals from all three views: atheistic evolution, deistic evolution and/or creation, and Biblical Christian Creationism.

Heaven, err, I mean Darwin help you if he ever disproves it.  As I've said, you don't need to prove Creation, if there is no Evolution.  creation proves Creation unless explained otherwise (evolution).

Again, you've forgotton what evolution is; technically you need to disprove abiogenesis and physics.  And even then, it's ludicrous that this would 'prove' creation; did the absence of an explanation for gravity for all those years, mean it was Intelligent Falling?  I'd have to disprove physics?  That field was around before evolution and was invented by Bible-believing scientists, I'm afraid.  But are you admitting there is no rational explanation of the design in nature that excludes God?  (Of course not.  But it sounded like it.)

All you'd have is the absence of an explanation; the thing that led to the invention of creation myths, and the thing which science has tackled.  So the creation theory isn't an explaination?  It's one you can't scientifically prove, being that no one was there (same goes for evolution, I'm afraid... you could be 99.999% sure, but never prove it), but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation.  To prove that God's word is accurate, one might think miracles, fulfilled prophesies, and eyewitnesses willing to die for their testimony and beliefs might come in handy. >gosh!<  I'll have to put a few of those out here for you later.

Umm, that's pretty presumptuous.  If it was that flimsy of an argument, it would have been disproven long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away...  All I'm trying to say is 'within minutes': I think I can safely say that's baloney.  People have hours-long debates on this topic.  Week-long seminars are given, on both sides, I do believe.  But maybe you meant to say no argument has been brought up in this thread so far that can't be disproven in minutes.  I'd still say it's baloney, but it's better than the previous meaning.

About attacking evolution: see argument above.

It's easily disproven.  Easily.  The problem is not evidence, it's faith.  Churches, ID protagonists propagate the image of evolution as anti-religious, immoral, etc, and attack it using irrational arguements; we've seen it here - you're still doing it, in fact, continuously failing to understand the bounds of evolutionary theory.  the bounds of evolutionary theory, summed up in four words: God didn't do it!  EDIT: Summed up in four words plus a contraction.  Sorry.

In fact, every ID/creationist arguement I've seen in this thread so far has been characterised by a lack of understanding and hence mischaracterisation of how evolutionary theory works.  We know how it supposedly works.  And because we have a problem with that, we don't understand it?  "You can't understand it unless you believe it" sort of thing?  I do believe there have been multiple misunderstandings on both sides[/i].

Oh ye of little patience.  [rant]BTW, does this mean you actually enjoy the arguments, or whatever, taking place here?  Then what's with some people's 'tudes around here?  Seriously.  Try taking all of the nasty attitudes out of all arguments.  It'd be much nicer, wouldn't it?  You don't think that it makes a YEC's blood boil when he's called an idiot?  Hello-o, to be an idiot, in my opinion, you have to do something more simply hold a belief.  Maybe 'illogical' would be a better choice.[/rant]

I enjoy the arguements.  I'm sick of this ****, it's literally seeking to hold back the advancement of humanitys' understanding of the world because some narrow-minded, undereducated preacher believes a theory they don't understand threatens their power...sorry, donation base.  Same could be said for profs whose sole job is to prove or research evolution.  Also, the same could be said of other scientific advancements:  'We're being held back because instead of searching out new discoveries that were put into existense by God, we're looking for discoveries that happened by accident".  It just depends on who's really right.  Because, whichever side is true (I'll hold my obvious opinion out) would be the side that could logically search out advancements more easily than the other.

Again,  could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given?  Come on.  It's not that hard to figure out.

(ach!  abiogenesis, abiogenesis, abiogenesis.....)  Here's a clue: the formation of the first life, according to Darwin, et al. was a product of evolutionary process.  Period.  Look it up in one of your textbooks.  Oh, and while you're at it, define life.  Off-hand, I'd say that once something has the potential to reproduce itself, it definitely has life.  Scientifically speaking, mind you.  I'm not talking about humans, and even if I was, an animal or human that for some reason had a wonderful mutation and couldn't reproduce is still made of billions of living cells that reproduce.

No.  All it would mean would be another origin is required for complexity. 

That you can't think of one besides evolution demonstrates rather well how it is by far the best evidenced and logical - rational - theory.   Challenge: come up with a theory besides "it was created" (by whatever means) or "it just happened".  You can't, because there aren't any.

The whole TIJ argument has been misunderstood, perhaps.  Let me re-phrase, whilst trying not to sound condescending:
The argument that TIJ doesn't apply goes sort of like this:
"The argument isn't valid because it assumes that what emerges from the junkyard has to be a 747."
No.
The argument is misunderstood, maybe mis-stated, probably both.
The argument should be:
"Evolution could be likened to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and producing any kind of flying contraption that gets off the ground."

Except that's still wrong, because it characterises evolution as a single, random chance event.  And evolution is a multi-staged event with a random differentiation action and deterministic natural selection events.  This fellow needs a little help.  He thinks tornadoes are single staged and happen instantaniously.  jk, I know what you mean, but you know what I mean by that statement previous too.

It also assumes that a flying machine is the only output that 'works', which is again wrong.  Actually, a flying machine would be a bit less complex than a self-reproducing, self-sufficient machine.  But, then again, Tornadoes don't last as long.

That would be a little bit better, and easier for certain people who can't seem to read between the lines on certain things.  No offense, but really, what were you guys thinking?  You actually seem to think that ID folks are just plain morons.  Disagreement with oneself about an issue, even if the other person is dead wrong, does not make them an automatic idiot.  Just the fact that they listen to you, plus the fact that (excuse the references to French) they aren't calling you an effing Darwin-dammed idiot means they have an little respect for you.  And then, you squander (waste) it by calling them names.

Lesson 1: If you are in a debate of some sort, it can be likened to playing chess.  Using a knife on the opponent only hurts them, and makes them want to hurt you back.  It does nothing for your chess game, although drawing one's finger across one's throat before making a hopefully crushing move doesn't really do much harm.  People who are attacked by a knife whilst playing chess tend to forget the game and defend themselves, quite possibly, they will attack back *shock!*.  Okay.  Guess I'd better explain.  (I learned my lesson earlier.)  The chess game is, obviously, the debate, with moves and countermoves being arguments.  The knife is a verbal (written) assault using name-calling or demeaning (putting-down) implications, although, thankfully, with much less damage done to the players, but, unfortunately, with much the same result to the said chess game.  Drawing one's finger across one's throat before (hopefully) crushing your opponent could be gloating, mild versions of name-calling in a humor, etc.  Some might consider it in bad taste, depending on the circumstances and statements used.  Okay.  Everyone understand my analogy?  Got any of your own?  (Don't forget to take mine into your thought whilst giving them.)  Oh, good.  whatsisname gets it:

Oh, bollocks.  This isn't a debate.  A debate implies some sort of issue of truth or uncertainty to be debated.  this is, or should be, teaching.  Because time and time again it's so bloody obvious - you don't understand evolution!  I'm sorry, but it's true; you can see it above this very paragraph.  I'm afraid that's only your opinion, and in my opinion, you're wrong.    Whatever.  It seems like, 'You don't understand evolution because you don't agree with it."  Because we believe we're not an accident, means that we don't understand the theorizing of people who do.  [joke]Of course we understand!  They need psycological help - oh, you mean their species, not their birth?  Oh, I see.  Ok, never mind.[/joke]

And your point was?  You'd get no further with a flat-earther if you treated hime this way.  Although the attitude on that particular post seemed friendly enough.    BTW,

That rationality trumps making **** up any day of the week.  Explain.  I don't understand you.  [sermon]This is what we do when we don't understand something; we ask for clarification.  We don't take the closest assumption that makes the other person seem absurd and run with it.[/sermon]

NB: hhug does mean both sphere and circle, however a quick analysis of multiple bits of Genesis makes it pretty evidence the reference was to circle or more specifically 'cylinder', which matches with the predominant Egyptian and Hebrew creation myths of the time (namely, 'earth' as a circular landmass, surrounded by water).

for example, passages about the earth being set apart from the water, and the earth (same earth) being fixed on foundations and immobile, etc.  It's pretty evident of the mythological origins, and if you search about, you'll find we've had this little debate before.  I'll look into that.

[aldo_14]

You see?  I simply mistook the author of that argument and forgot to quote it (which would have solved the author problem anyways).  I thought that the flat-earth thing yours, not aldo's.  The thing is, people often ridicule others who literally believe the Bible as 'flat-earthers', thinking that way back in the day, people believed the earth was flat because the Bible said so, until science disproved the idea.  Nope.  the Bible, in Isaiah, states that the Earth is round, thousands of years before they were supposed to have come up with the idea.  Actually, the fact is, people back then weren't as dumb as you'd think.  And the Bible is accurate on this score.  Got any more false notions for me to disprove?  (aldo or ngtm1r   )

Already answered, multiple times.

and, er, the Indians (Vedic scrolls) came up with the idea thousands of years before the bible anyways.

Plus, if it's all so explicit in the bible, why would the likes of Saint John Chrysostom find it (round / spherical) contrary to scripture?

except the Jews and later Christians who actually believed their Bibles, you mean.

See...wait, I've done this.

God made the world complex because he wanted to?  Yeesh.  You'd think that to be God, you have to conform to aldo's notion of him.  Or was that the whole point?

you missed the point, natch.  God doesn't explain anything, especially in an imperfect universe.  Creation ignores the imperfection of universe, the complexity, it just assumes it's meant to be 'like this' and ignores the issue.

If you believe the current theory, Evolution had to deal with what the Big Bang and physics handed it, didn't it?  Or did it get a free pass?

Evolution is the mutation and development of complexity from single celled basic life.  The origin of that life is not actually part of the scope of evolution (only the composition of it); so if you're going on about creation, etc, then that's abiogenesis and physics, not evolution.

I did say you didn;t understand the scope.  This is what I mean.

God always was.  You were actually expecting Him to be formed somehow?  According to the Bible, he spoke and it "was so".  The problem with the universe always existing is that it would have to create itself from nothing.  Let sort of rephrase this:  What created the Universe?  'the universe always existed'  OK, so now that we've established that this period of creation/big bang/evolution/whatever requires faith no matter which side you're on.  You actually think it requires more faith to think that God created the universe than to think that the universe created the universe?  Ok, fine by me.  This is where the evolutionary 'morals' refered to come in:  If there's no point, no purpose, we might as well have the best smashingest party while we can by any means necessary, because eventually, we're gonna croak.  No need to research or develop anything.  Sure, it might make you able to party a few more years, but in the big picture, what's it really matter after you've ceased existing?  Who the heck would care?  Life is puposeless, enjoy it?  Whereas if you believe that there are rules you need to follow in life, and that you will be held accountable for your actions, you tend to behave a bit better.  And if you believe that you and your race really, really screwed things up on their one chance of having it easy, the way things were meant to be (hey, how hard would it be to live with only one rule: don't eat from that tree) and that they were condemned to eventually die because of that choice, made corporately as a race and individually as people, and that God still loved your race enough to sacrifice Himself in the form of His Son so that you'd have a chance to accept his free payment for your breaking of His rules, you would tend to act really, really well behaved, just because you really appreciate what He's done for you.  There.  I think I've summarized the morals from all three views: atheistic evolution, deistic evolution and/or creation, and Biblical Christian Creationism.

Um... the thing is, science requires evidence, logic, and the ability to analyze and reanalyze.  Y'know, an open mind?  Based on observable evidence?  Hypotheses to be supported by evidence?

Not just making stuff up and saying 'because it is'. Looking for answers.

Moreso,you don't understand evolutionary 'morality' (which actually spun off to create religion as a form of enforcement amongst other causes....).  I'd suggest reading up on sexual selection in particular as an explanation for many apparently selfless acts.  The suggestion that aetheism (because evolution itself doesn't run contrary to religion anyways - just ask the Vatican) is in some way immoral is simply insulting and wrong.

And y'know what?  Society creates accountability, anyways.  Group dynamics.

I'd have to disprove physics?  That field was around before evolution and was invented by Bible-believing scientists, I'm afraid.  But are you admitting there is no rational explanation of the design in nature that excludes God?  (Of course not.  But it sounded like it.)

And physics has evolved (hoho!) to include theories for the creation of the universe which don't need God, or the Great Spaghetti Monster, etc.

Hell, biology was probably invented by 'bible-believing scientists'......doesn't mean it's constrained now by the vagarities of centuries old belief.

So the creation theory isn't an explaination?  It's one you can't scientifically prove, being that no one was there (same goes for evolution, I'm afraid... you could be 99.999% sure, but never prove it), but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation.  To prove that God's word is accurate, one might think miracles, fulfilled prophesies, and eyewitnesses willing to die for their testimony and beliefs might come in handy. >gosh!<  I'll have to put a few of those out here for you later.

An explanation with no supporting evidence.  I mean 99.9% evidenced versus 0%?  I know what I'd go with.

Hell, I'd bet someone could put a few Nostradamus 'prophecies' up here that are 'right'.......it's all a case of interpreting.  why do you think people read horoscopes?  Phrase anything vaguely enough, it's a prophecy fulfilled.

the bounds of evolutionary theory, summed up in four words: God didn't do it!

no.

"The complexity of life is explained by mutation and selection over time".

The only way God is involved, is that God isn't needed in the explanation.  God is not even considered, because there is no evidence nor need for a supernatural creator/designer.

Same could be said for profs whose sole job is to prove or research evolution.  Also, the same could be said of other scientific advancements:  'We're being held back because instead of searching out new discoveries that were put into existense by God, we're looking for discoveries that happened by accident".  It just depends on who's really right.  Because, whichever side is true (I'll hold my obvious opinion out) would be the side that could logically search out advancements more easily than the other.

What a strange arguement....i mean, we are talking about something (ID lobby) that works to mischaracterise and denegrate supported, reproducible and evidence science with arguements that are themselves easy to disprove.

Research is part of discovery.  Do you understand the scientific process?  You take the existing evidence and theories, you make a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis.  you don't just metaphorically wander around to look for something God left lying about.

Here's a clue: the formation of the first life, according to Darwin, et al. was a product of evolutionary process.  Period.  Look it up in one of your textbooks.  Oh, and while you're at it, define life.  Off-hand, I'd say that once something has the potential to reproduce itself, it definitely has life.  Scientifically speaking, mind you.  I'm not talking about humans, and even if I was, an animal or human that for some reasone had a wonderful mutation and couldn't reproduce is still made of billions of living cells that reproduce.

Look up abiogenesis.  And, er, consider the meaning of 'Origin of Species'.

"In what manner the mental powers were first developed in the lowest organisms, is as hopeless as how life itself first originated. These are problems for the distant future, if they are ever to be solved by man."

Darwin; Descent of Man

""It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine (sic) compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were found."

Darwin; 1872 letter

Darwin never speculated on the origin of life as a product of evolution; just a starting point.  Let's not get confused, too, with evolutionary theory as relating to the formation of complex life, versus the use of 'evolution' to describe an analogous staged process (such as protein evolution).

Challenge: come up with a theory besides "it was created" (by whatever means) or "it just happened".  You can't, because there aren't any.

Oversimplification.  Evolution, et al, are not 'just happened'.  There are complex sets of physical laws, etc describing and evidencing them.

Plus 'it just happened' isn't any different to 'it was created' anyways.  Because the former answers the latter; 'why was it created?' 'it just was'.  'By who?' 'Er, someone'.  'How did they come about?' 'Dunno, they just were there'.

In any case, the absence of another rational explanation is simply an indicator - proof, really - that the current theories are those best supported, best evidenced.

Actually, a flying machine would be a bit less complex than a self-reproducing, self-sufficient machine.  But, then again, Tornadoes don't last as long.

Um, not exactly. But you shown earlier you don't particular understand the principles of evolutionary mutation and development in 'stepped' physical development, after all....

Put it this way, life didn't originate in a junkyard.

I'm afraid that's only your opinion, and in my opinion, you're wrong.    Whatever.  It seems like, 'You don't understand evolution because you don't agree with it."  Because we believe we're not an accident, means that we don't understand the theorizing of people who do.  [joke]Of course we understand!  They need psycological help - oh, you mean their species, not their birth?  Oh, I see.  Ok, never mind.[/joke]

Um, no, every arguement you've (and other people) made 'against' has been against an incorrect version of evolutionary theory.  It strikes me, that to attack something as if you have some sort of better explanation, it surely would be a good idea to properly understand what you're attacking?

Because this pisses me off.  It's not just the use of incorrect characterisation, the use of scientifically flawed arguements disproven by 5mins research, it's the sense that evolution is being attacked simply because it's not creationism, and that not being creationist is the only arguement required against evolution.  That evolution - because it's the best answer - is somehow the only answer not requiring God

Explain.  I don't understand you.  [sermon]This is what we do when we don't understand something; we ask for clarification.  We don't take the closest assumption that makes the other person seem absurd and run with it.[/sermon]

Evidence based conclusions.  y'know, 'look and see what's there' rather than 'decide what's there and make up what you see'.

[karajorma]

Without evolution to explain our existence, "Creationism" is the only conclusion that makes sense.

Wrong.

What you've forgotten is that there were other scientific hypotheses that also cover everything that Darwinian evolution cover. Namely Saltationism, Lamarckism and Mutationism. All three have been been completely discredited by modern science but the fact is that any evidence you might get which weakens the claims for Darwinian evolution is likely to strengthen the claims for one of the rejected hypotheses.

This topic started due to the discovery of a transitional fossil. The creationists have spent most of the topic trying to prove that there is no such thing as a transitional fossil. Lets say you won. Lets say you proved without a doubt that there was no such thing. Saltationism is now back on the cards as a viable scientific theory since it is the existance of transitional fossiles that killed Saltationism as theory.

So as you can see you can't make the if evolution is wrong creation is right argument. Whatever evidence you can find that discredits evolution could easily lead to the discovery of a newer theory or revive an old one.

Actually, everyone used to pretty much believe in some form of creationism until Darwin came along.  Even if they had some pre-Darwin idea of evolution, they thought that some deity, higher force, or what have you helped to create the universe.  So, really, creation would be the proof of Creation, if you catch my drift.

Everyone believed the world was flat in the 15th century. We now think it's round. Lets say new evidence came in saying that it was in fact cube shaped. Your argument is the same as saying that cause there is evidence the world isn't round it must be flat. Even though the evidence scienfically points at a third conclusion.

If there is proof that evolution is wrong it doesn't automatically mean that creationism is right. The evidence that proves evolution wrong might be an alien biosciences lab containing details of a practical joke they plan to play on the humanoids on the planet in some type of cosmic Candid Camera show. That would not be proof of biblical creationism yet it would prove evolution wrong.

Science only says a theory is correct if it fits the evidence AND is the only theory that does. You need to not only prove evolution wrong, you need to prove that creation is right.

[Mefustae]

Wait a minute jr2, why go the extra step to complicate things? You say God was always there, and he created the universe, and so-on and so-forth. They say that the simplest answer is almost always the correct one, thus what need is there for God? The Universe has always been, and life within the universe has always been. Flawless and, as with a persitantly-existing-God, no need for proof. Utterly perfect.

There. I win via your own logic.

...S***, I should write this down, I could win a Nobel Prize for this! Drawing conclusions without wasting my time with pointless 'proof' rocks!

[aldo_14]

Wait a minute jr2, why go the extra step to complicate things? You say God was always there, and he created the universe, and so-on and so-forth. They say that the simplest answer is almost always the correct one, thus what need is there for God? The Universe has always been, and life within the universe has always been. Flawless and, as with a persitantly-existing-God, no need for proof. Utterly perfect.

There. I win via your own logic.

...S***, I should write this down, I could win a Nobel Prize for this! Drawing conclusions without wasting my time with pointless 'proof' rocks!

Have you been reading The Blind Watchmaker?