Printable View
Well if you are in Michigan make sure to write your congressmen and try and save your schools from becoming another national laughing stock. It seems some nut job has proposed a bill to push creationism in science classes. Personally I think they ought to at least attach a rider that involves forcing big bang theory and evolution to be taught in Sunday schools (good for the goose good for the gander). Hopefully this dies in comity.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._7_28_2003.asp
That's not really surprising if you know that close to 50% of Americans (and all Muslims, too) refuse to believe Darwin's theories...
Four of the representatives have Dutch names... that might explain it :p
There is more politics than science here, on both sides of the argument.
http://www.stalbans.org.nz/Teachings...n/disc_beg.htmQuote:
Beneath such reactions lurk non-rational or moral factors for denying God’s existence. Not many scientists and thinkers are honest enough to admit this. One who was was Aldous Huxley. In his book Ends and Means, Huxley candidly wrote: ‘I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning. . . . For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
:cool:
I would still argue regardless of the individual politics of any given person that there is no reason to include creationism in a scienc class. Evolution = scientific thoery acceptable to be taught and debated in science class, ID = phlosaphy/thology save it for religion/philosaphy class.
Evolutionists have lost the argument in the arena of free discussion, and, increasingly
desperate, must fall back upon the law to force their views on unwilling people.
We are forced to pay taxes to support their biased schools that only teach their narrow
dogma. So much for being a "free" society.
:cool:
I for one do not believe in the big bang theory.
As you said rcgreen, evolutionists are becoming more desperate to force schools to teach that theory.
It's a shame to see that some people are so narrow-minded that they refuse to let BOTH SIDES of an argument be heard. I can't help but deduce that you fear that your evolution argument is too weak to stand up to the challenge. Creationism is a valid theory.....just as much as you see evolution as a valid theory. Now if you are going to force the big bang into Sunday school you are opening the door for religion to get back into government and schools, which I seriously doubt that you want by the tone of your post.
I don't know about other places, but there's a big push here in Ga. to have Creationism taught in public schools alongside the evolutionary theory. The biggest argument is that most of the time evolution is taught as fact...and it is also the only possibility that is being presented to children...I believe this in itself is wrong. (I also believe evolutionists are wrong...lol). Hell, I took a class that took every single piece of evidence that evolutionists use and the professor diddn't even dis-credit it...he showed how the evidence actually supports the theory of Creation better than it supports evolution (really, really impressive...took like a freakin hundred pages of notes but it was worth it). So based on what I know now, I think *at least* both should be taught in public schools everywhere. How did it get to be this way anyway? I mean how did it get to be where the only theory about our origin being taught in schools is evolution? I've heard some people's theories but I want to know what everyone at AO thinks.
Umm folks there isn't a both sides of the discussion here. evolution is a theory, testable, has some proof backing it up, may still be disproven. Can I say for absolute fact that evolution is how things work...no , but that’s the point. ID on the other hand relies on faith, it is the opposite of science, its superstion instead of searching for the truth you say..."wow this science stuff is hard I am too dumb to understand it and those people who do understand it make me feel bad....I say god made every thing happen and whoever disagrees is evil." In ID you don't search for the truth you hide from it ( note I didn’t say religion, which deals in the realm of the spiritual and metaphysical ).
RC: last I checked evolution was taught in school by a consencious of educators and experts in the biology field ..its creationism that uses bureaucrats and politicos to force its way in.
Until there are some proofs for the ID hypothesis it is nothing but superstition...as soon as some verifiable proof exists (as opposed to ”evolution is too hard to understand it must be wrong”) I will be the first to support it in our schools...until then it is out.
Al: creationism isn't a theory it is a hypothesis...until there is evidence supporting it it can not be a theory. I think you may be confusing the definition of theory in the scientific sense with the definition of theory in the philosophical sense. As for my comment on Sunday school l.. that’s exactly what I wanted to say...biology has nothing to do with the existence of god. If evolution happened is a discussion for the realm of science, If god exists is a discussion for religious studies ..the too can coincide but are different in their methods and goals that they should not be combined. science = search for how the universe works be observation and experimentation. religion = belief without evidence based on faith. I would be just as upset if my kid learned about the big bang or evolution in Sunday school as I am about this crap.
cheyenne1212 : luckily your beliefs do not set the rules for the universe...can I say for absolute fact that there was a big bang. no that’s the fun of science theories are always evolving. But I can show you some damm good evidence for its occurrence (if an observatory wouldn’t scare you too much as a tool of satin you can go in and listen to it). Then if we delve into theoretical math and physics I can show you some theories that show we may be living at the point of the big bang now...but those get *very* weird.
Dose the big bang disprove the existence of god? NO> the existence of god is completely irrelevant to big bang/evolution/plat tectonics/math/science in general they can coexist peacefully, my suggestion to all of you is to let go of your fears and superstitions and go learn a little about your universe...I promise you wont go to hell or suddenly become an atheist by learning. My first suggestion would be to read “ The Universe in a nut shell” it goes over some of the major new theories in physics in terms that any one can understand (which is good super gravity and string theory loses my a lot of the time.).
Think for a second.....I've seen both theories and both have lots of evidence to support them but since neither can be proven they *both* require faith.I wouldn't say it's superstition, and...people who look into the theory of evolution *or* Creation are searching for the truth.Quote:
relies on faith, it is the opposite of science, its superstion instead of searching for the truth
Dude I'm a science whiz...I make straight 100% on every single test/paper/whatever even in public universities. It's not hard to understand it at all, it's just that I prefer the Creation theory over evolution.Quote:
wow this science stuff is hard I am too dumb to understand it
Heh, whatever.Quote:
you don't search for the truth you hide from it
I've seen zero "proof" of evolution that I personally can't take and use to support another theory just as easily. On a side note: if mutations are by definition are deformities and aren't genetic, then how the hell was evolution supposed to occur through mutations?Quote:
Until there are some proofs for the ID hypothesis it is nothing but superstition...as soon as some verifiable proof exists (as opposed to ”evolution is too hard to understand it must be wrong”) I will be the first to support it in our schools...until then it is out.
There is evidence. It is a theory.Quote:
Al: creationism isn't a theory it is a hypothesis...until there is evidence supporting it it can not be a theory.
Unless God created everything that is studied in biology....Quote:
biology has nothing to do with the existence of god.
Evolution is based on faith bc there is no truth. There is evidence to support Creation.Quote:
religion = belief without evidence based on faith.
Actually I saw something yesterday where the scientists using the Hubble telescope are baffeled (sp?) bc as they look further out into the universe they are expecting to see galaxies when they are first coming into existence (something about the light from them just now reaching earth, so we should see their beginnings) but instead they are seeing fully formed galaxies. Wonder how that could be? Maybe because they were all created at the same time?Quote:
But I can show you some damm good evidence for its occurrence (if an observatory wouldn’t scare you too much as a tool of satin you can go in and listen to it).
For most they can, but not for hard-core Bible believers that believe that the Bible is infallible. This is because the Bible says that it was all created as it is now by God...not that he made a big massive ball explode.Quote:
they can coexist peacefully
Very good idea. I think I'll read that book just because I have an interest in the field. (just bc I'm a Creationist doesn't mean I don't like science, or that I don't like reading about all the new theories. It just means I like to see how even though evolutionists try to prove their point, they just end up accidentally proving mine.) Thanks for providing such a great discussion and let's *please* not let this get into any flame wars or anything.Quote:
my suggestion to all of you is to let go of your fears and superstitions and go learn a little about your universe...I promise you wont go to hell or suddenly become an atheist by learning. My first suggestion would be to read “ The Universe in a nut shell” it goes over some of the major new theories in physics in terms that any one can understand (which is good super gravity and string theory loses my a lot of the time.).
-keezel
P.S. I look forward to futher discussion. :)
THIS IS AN OPINION.
Due to the fact that the "missing link" between apes and humans has never been found, Darwin's theories *could* be considered "unproven". But don't get me wrong...I believe that evolution is real...but I don't believe that we evolved from primates...man IS a divine creation and NO ONE can PROVE otherwise...although I expect that this statement will be met with "prove it". To be blunt...read the book of Genesis.
As for the big bang theory...I can say that I am fairly certain that there was a "big bang"...again, look at Genesis. God said "Let there be light" and BANG!!!...there was light.
No doubt someone will bring up dinosaurs...as well they should. Again, look to Genesis...you will find the story of creation TWICE, not once...which would comfortably explain the period of time that dinosaurs roamed the earth.
How could the earth have been created in 7 days....thats impossible. But is it? It's all a matter of perspective. You and I know a day as a 24 hour period. Yet biblical text tells us that a mans lifespan is but a twinkling in the eye of the Lord. The twinkling would be perhaps a twentieth a second in the physical universe (a supposition on my part). Do the math and you'll see a result of almost 11 billion years (based on Noahs 900+ year lifespan)...a figure close enough to what scientists have carbon dated the age of the universe to be. Bearing in mind that carbon dating is not infallable thats close enough for me...the rest is a matter of faith.
I would suggest that you read "The Bible as History" if you can find a copy of it. It contains a great deal of archealogical evidence to support the Bible and actually includes a photograph of the biblical "Manna" that the Israelites sustained themselves on during the exodus from Egypt.
Again...this is a PERSONAL OPINION and I respect everyones right to disagree. I do, however, think that we can all agree on one thing...that one thing being that none of us know enough to say with any amount of scientific certainty what the real truth is. I'm betting that we'll get to find out after we pass from this mortal veil.
Yes, but which religion's version of creationism are we going to teach?
Judeo/Christian/Muslim
Wiccan
Hindi
Buddist
If I have left your religion out, it is due to my ignorance not intolerance.
Two notes on the missing link. First we will never find all of the species that ever lived on earth it takes some extrodanary events to fosilise bones....second, look into some of the recent findings in archeology they have found a bunch of "the missing link" in asia (it looks like humans evolved in asia and the nmigrated back into africa). Honestly biology and archeology bore me so I haven't done more then scim articals in Nature and scientific america on the subject but if eveolution is somethign you are interested in you may want to look it up. Remember even if you don't beleive in science it is moveing further ahead and allways changeing, what we where taught in school may no longer be held true, this is very noticable when you talk to the ID crowd, they are working with 20+ year old thories of eveolution, biology has advanced significantly in those years.
I've an interesting question for you (interesting bc I think I know what you'll say) but if it takes such extraordinary events to fossilize bones, then how come there are thousands and thousands of fossilized animals? I'd guess you'd say that after millions and millions of years, thousands of animals are bound to be fossilized.....but if that's true, and if evolution is supposedly such a slow moving process, then why aren't these missing links showing up all over the place? According to the theory above, there should be an equal amount of fossils from every period in history, right?Explain what you mean by "don't believe in science", please.Quote:
even if you don't beleive in science
Very true, evolutionists have to constantly change the theory to make it fit with all the facts and other theories, but it's funny bc they have a whole lot of trouble keeping up as the real science (facts, not theories) discovers more and more facts about the universe we live in. My previous example with the Hubble Telescope and the scientists that are in control of it is a great example of this.Quote:
what we where taught in school may no longer be held true
Lets look at the folssiles first
We have found a lot of Primates that may be part of the link between man and our commen ancestor with the other primates...but with the millions of years we are dealing with and the billions of species taht have existed its just luck on what we find. Besides "the missing link" is a missnomer, we will never be able to hold up on fosil and say this is the species between man and ape, we can hold up a long line of species and say these are part of the missing link. As for fossiles through out history...what part of special sercomstancees did you not understand, if you fallow fossile digs you will notice that they are in pockets, the entire planet isn't covered with fosiles only spacifice areas..and in those aresa only during spacific times (geological times). Well that was a lengthy answer basicly it boils down to the fact that missing links are showing up all over the place if you know where to look, but ther ewill never be a smoking gun that screams hey I am half man half ape.
well thats what is wonderful about a theory, it is every changeing ...thats of science works, we never truely "know" anything.. It is an ever evolving process in all of science (physicas is a great example). You don't change a thory to fix the facts you modefy a thory as new evadence comes to light, this isn't a legal or political issue but a scientific one.
please explane who is doing this real science if it is not eveolutionary biologist, I know of a few jurnals taht would love t opublish their research...asuumeing it is reasearch, you know made from observation and experimintation and not conjecture and faith.
As for the don't vbelieive in science I think the fundies fit that catagory vrey well...you know the guys that refuse t obeleive in the fosil evadence, or cardon dateing, or anything that isn't writen in the bible.
Perhaps I should explain the problem I (and a good number of biologists) have with ID, the supporters of ID can do a good job shooting holes in older theories of evolution but the offer no counter theories (besides god did it), that’s not how the scientific community works, debate is good and encouraged but you need to supply a explanation for how things work that can be tested.
This may help a bit, its a brief over view of the different theories that make up Macroevolution, perhaps we need a common base of understanding to continue the discussion. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
As for the Hubble comment, well there is still a lot of debate in Astor physics as to weither or not the universe is expanding, (good evidence on both sides for this). Personal I fall into the Hawkins camp on this one, the universe may be a sphere but we are on the surface looking in and across. Combined that with the idea that all points in space time are the same and you can see why looking back in time would show us formed galaxies. (as you look back do to distances and light speed and what not you’re looking back in time.). Hell we may be at the center of a singularity right now, but we wound never know the difference.
Creationism or Evolution - It all boils down to where an individual wants to place their faith. For me G & JC. All I really have to know is that I cannot create something out of nothing. The Big Bang theory suggests a giant ball of dust and gas exploding, so where does the "ball" come from. And no I cannot tell you where God comes from. But I can tell you this, I would rather place my faith upon the shoulders of supreme being rather than a giant gaseous dust ball.
Just my thoughts.
______________________________
The mentally disturbed are persecuted here in America, and I say rightfully so!
These people are NUTS!
this is a falisy, creationism = based on faith. science = search for facts. a creationist would say we know where the world came from why look, a scientist would say this is how it may have happend now lets see if that is right. science is a dynamic thing, no lscientific law is ever writen in stone (there is some current work in quantom theory that may shater thermodynamics and entorpy) it is a process of constant questioning.Quote:
Originally posted here by OverdueSpy
Creationism or Evolution - It all boils down to where an individual wants to place their faith. For me G & JC. All I really have to know is that I cannot create something out of nothing. The Big Bang theory suggests a giant ball of dust and gas exploding, so where does the "ball" come from. And no I cannot tell you where God comes from. But I can tell you this, I would rather place my faith upon the shoulders of supreme being rather than a giant gaseous dust ball.
Just my thoughts.
______________________________
The mentally disturbed are persecuted here in America, and I say rightfully so!
These people are NUTS!
Oh and it isn't a big ball of anything at the beginning of the big bang theroy...its a singularity (or the singularity) read hawkings, he explains it in terms taht most of us can understand.
If the ID folks would be less afread of learing about the world they would relise that science isn't the enamy of religion, religion deals in the relm of metaphysics and spirituality this can coexist along with reality.
to misquote one of the worlds great minds
"My work dose not prove or disprove the existance of god, it only shows you what tools he may have used.)
bballad....I fear that one of these days you will open your eyes and see the truth only to find that it is too late for you. You make the statement that creationism is based on faith even though there is scientific evidence to lend credence to creationism. You seem to be blind and narrow minded, I can only feel pity for you. What a waste of a sharp mind.
Ok Al I call your bluff...give me the evadince for creationism that dosn't involve well eveolution isn't 100% right so it must be all wrong or well I don't know how it happened so god didn't.
Until I can be shown something that can’t be proven to be half primate or half man or something close to 40%-60%, then I’ll never consider that I am descended from a monkey. The one fossil that actually looked like it was half way between was taken by a “scientist” who used a hammer and a circular saw with some super-glue to make it look the way it “was supposed to look”…and he was totally serious and it was all over National Geographic (I saw a video if it instead of the magazine in a class). That’s about when I decided that a group of “scientists” that *created* facts to prove their point was not something I wanted to be involved with in any way. This is also the reason evolution is *not* science.Quote:
"the missing link" is a missnomer, we will never be able to hold up on fosil and say this is the species between man and ape, we can hold up a long line of species and say these are part of the missing link.
That’s bc it never existed :DQuote:
ther ewill never be a smoking gun that screams hey I am half man half ape.
When did science become based on theory where you never truly know anything instead of being based on facts? What happened to the “scientific method” where you have to prove something before it can be called science? Evolution is not science!Quote:
of science works, we never truely "know" anything
What’s the difference?Quote:
You don't change a thory to fix the facts you modefy a thory as new evadence comes to light
When an evolutionist scientist actually carbon dates a fossil (very rare), they are trying to date a rock that has taken the shape of something that used to be alive many years ago. Creationists have many impressive theories that aren’t written in the Bible. For example: the water canopy theory (lots of evidence to support that one and it explains a whole lot).Quote:
you know the guys that refuse t obeleive in the fosil evadence, or cardon dateing, or anything that isn't writen in the bible.
Well what other theory would you like? The whole Creation account is based on the “theory” that “God did it”. Of course there are far more details about it that aren’t listed in the Bible but of course there’s evidence to support it all. I’m beginning to think that since you know nothing about the Creationist’s theories you are assuming that there are none.Quote:
the supporters of ID can do a good job shooting holes in older theories of evolution but the offer no counter theories (besides god did it),
Well you’ve hit on something here. The whole problem with this is that it is difficult or impossible to test…which is why these things will never be anything more than theory (not fact, and therefore not yet science).Quote:
you need to supply a explanation for how things work that can be tested.
I agree. I’ll look up some modern theories of evolution if you’ll look up some modern theories of Creation. (since there are some crack-pots on both sides that neither of us will agree with, perhaps we should direct each other to good sources of information)Quote:
perhaps we need a common base of understanding to continue the discussion.
According to (most) Christians, God has always existed. This is something that is stated in the Bible but also something that we cannot understand because everything we know has a beginning and an end…even the Universe cannot be eternal. Also, according to an evolutionist when asked “where did the original ball of matter come from?” will respond “it has always existed”….which I also cannot understand but they have yet to come up with a better answer. As you can see, it comes down to whether you find it easier to believe in a God that has always existed or a ball of matter that has always existed. I find it easier to believe in God.Quote:
And no I cannot tell you where God comes from.
Allanb has already addressed this one, but I’d like to give it my 2 cents worth as well. You say that science is a “search for facts” (which sounds true enough) but I still believe that something cannot be called science until it is either fact or based on something factual. Evolutionists have used the example of “if a monkey were given a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, and if we were to assume that the monkey were constantly typing, then it would eventually type out the preamble to the Declaration of Independence”. This is false. Even if the monkey were to have an unlimited amount of time, it is still considered a mathematical impossibility. The probability of a bunch of amino acids coming together and forming bacteria which gradually progressed into fish, then marine mammals, then monkeys, then into Mankind (gross generalization) has been calculated at 1 chance in 1,000,000…..(3-4 pages full of zeros following here…) which I remember being for more of an impossibility than the monkey-typewriter impossibility. When I find the specific way it was calculated and the exact numbers I’ll be sure to post them. Anyway, the point is that this is in no way based on fact, and must therefore be based on faith.Quote:
this is a falisy, creationism = based on faith. science = search for facts.
I understand, but where did *that* come from? And we’re back to square one….it either had to come from somewhere or it has always existed.Quote:
Oh and it isn't a big ball of anything at the beginning of the big bang theroy...its a singularity (or the singularity) read hawkings, he explains it in terms taht most of us can understand.
Of course the Theory of Creation is based on more than that and this comment was a cheap shot from you…please be more respectful…and perhaps you will be once allanb and I and whoever else would like to take part in this conversation finds the evidence you’d like. Most of it is in my head but I have books and online resources to draw from, so I’ll try and write an organized response containing evidence soon….but if you aren’t even familiar with the theories the evidence supports then I feel it would be pointless. I’ll try and write some of the theories too, but you and I said earlier, we should learn each other’s theories.Quote:
Ok Al I call your bluff...give me the evadince for creationism that dosn't involve well eveolution isn't 100% right so it must be all wrong or well I don't know how it happened so god didn't.
-Keezel
Still waiting for evadence on creationism that isn't eveolution bashing...But for that I will be wating a long time.Quote:
Originally posted here by keezel
Of course the Theory of Creation is based on more than that and this comment was a cheap shot from you…please be more respectful…and perhaps you will be once allanb and I and whoever else would like to take part in this conversation finds the evidence you’d like. Most of it is in my head but I have books and online resources to draw from, so I’ll try and write an organized response containing evidence soon….but if you aren’t even familiar with the theories the evidence supports then I feel it would be pointless. I’ll try and write some of the theories too, but you and I said earlier, we should learn each other’s theories.
-Keezel
kezeel yor views of science date from prescientific method, we are searching for evadence, based on observation now, we have seen over and over again that known "facts" where just missunderstanding of the evadence, so no there are no "facts" or "laws" in science. Its aquest for understanding when you grasp that perhaps you will start to understand the world you live in a littel better.
As for the half primate half man comment...well its generaly accepted that man is a primate (it was pure victorian arogence that classified us as spereate.) from there you have to understand that there isn't one clear path on the eveolution of man, it looks more like a bush then a line. at one point man and neaderthals where seperate species but not seperate genis , there was interbreeding and a new species was fromed...this happened a lot. Hell if you look at fossiles of early man they where very apelike in some of there qualities. IF you want the smoking gun look at the genetics, we are so close to chimps that we could probably mate and breed (the ofspring would be sterail like a mule).
As for inteligent desing, how dose it explain an ear that's main funtion is balance, a tail that drops off inutero, vistegual organs..ect ect. IF we where made intelegently who ever made us was rather stupid....Sorry I am not a gnostic I don't beleive in a blind dumb god
So...where would you put it? I think that the inner ear, right next to the brain and in one of the most protected areas of the skull is a great place for it.Quote:
IF we where made intelegently who ever made us was rather stupid
As the medical field advances, there are fewer and fewer organs that don't have a purpose (bc doctors find what they really do)....so it's not that they have no purpose, it's just that we aren't advanced enough yet to see what their purposes are.Quote:
vistegual organs
It may be just me, but it seems like the people arguing against the Creationist theories don't even know what they are, so here ya go.
(got this from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_statc.htm)
Quote:
Biblical catastrophism: Creation scientists believe that the geological formations that we see today were mainly produced over a very short time interval during the Noachian Flood. "The Flood...brought about vast changes in the earth's surface, including volcanism, mountain building, and the deposition of the major part of sedimentary strata."
Quote:
Creation processes: During creation week, God used processes about which we have no knowledge, because they are not "operating anywhere in the natural universe" today.
Quote:
More recent processes: Most creation scientists believe that God created the world less than 10,000 years ago. Thus, scientists who support evolution are wrong when they point out that certain processes (continental drift, uplift of mountains, deposits of up to one mile-thick layers of sedimentary rock, etc.) took millions of years. The deposit of sedimentary rock, in particular, was completed during the year of Noah's flood.
Quote:
Noah's Ark: All humans land animals are descendents of the inhabitants of the ark: of Noah, his family and of the animals that he loaded on board.
-I have yet to see a "good" mutation.Quote:
Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law says that the entropy of all systems in the universe tend to decay and become less ordered. This is the opposite to what would be expected if evolution occurred. (Scientists believe in the second law as well. However, they point out that it only applies to closed, isolated systems. The earth is not such a system: energy from the sun drives many of the earth's processes, and permits evolution -- at least for many billion years until it runs out of fuel.)
-Also, birds would be a little higher up since they can fly…(hence, birds being above reptiles….making evolutionists think that birds evolved from reptiles. Dinosaurs are also in this layer.Quote:
Fossil Record: The earth's fossil-containing sedimentary rocks were laid down during the year-long flood of Noah. The well-known observation that simple forms of life are found at the bottom of the geological column and human remains at the top is explained by three processes: 1. Hydrodynamic selectivity: Trilobites, brachiopods and other invertebrates appear at the lowest levels of the sedimentary rocks. They were already in the sea, and they would tend to fall faster than other forms of life because of their size and shape. 2. Location: Amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals would be buried next, since they lived on the land. Thus, they would appear in the geological column above the invertebrates.
-This is exactly what we see in the fossil record. The Flood was not only a collapse of the water canopy but also the eruption of every spring and volcano on the surface of the earth. This was a far more catastrophic event than most realize, and the “sediment” came from not only the very disturbed surface of the earth (there would also be massive worldwide earthquakes in such an event) but also the stuff that came from the very active volcanoes. This is also the reason why it could cover the entire surface of the earth (as many of you know, there is not enough water in the oceans, ice caps, and atmosphere combined to cover the surface of the earth today). Many who believe in the Flood speculate that this is when the extinction of the dinosaurs took place and the dinosaurs fit perfectly into the fossil record as presented above^. Also, at the time of the flood, most of mankind and other life was where the Middle East is today (hence, the oil from all the dead stuff…and this *is* where oil comes from if you’ll look it up…although it’s supposed to be “peat” first…). This massive deposit of sediment and the very rapid burial of so many living things explains how so many things could be fossilized in such a short period of time, instead of over billions of years.Quote:
3. Intelligence: The larger, more highly developed animals would have tended to flee from the encroaching waters of the flood. Humans in particular would be the last to drown, as they would have climbed to the highest accessible location.
Quote:
Language diversity: Most creation scientists also believe that God created the variety of languages seen in the world today during the incident at the Tower of Babel, as described in Genesis 11
I like this quote and I think it's very relevant to the original subject of this post:Quote:
Morality: Many creation scientists consider that the Theory of Evolution is responsible for much of the moral decline over the past century. They reason that if people believe that they are descendents of animals, and not as a result of special creation, then they might as well act as animals, without a highly developed sense of ethics.
Now you have something specific to pick at, lol. Also, as you asked, I haven't exactly attacked the theory of evolution either.Quote:
Teaching students about the acts of a creator is not a religious exercise because the students are not required to believe in the concept of the creator. The student need only understand that creation scientists believe in this way. Judge Overton replied that this "is contrary to common understanding and contradicts settled case law. Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980), Abbington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 222 (1963)."
-I also like this quote:
And if this is true...well it's interesting anyway:Quote:
A children's religious program produced by the Institute for Creation Research was broadcast over many conservative Christian radio stations in 2003-FEB. It described how evidence of live dinosaur DNA had been found in a dinosaur bone. If true, it would prove that the dinosaur was alive much more recently than 75 million years ago, because DNA could not possibly remain intact for that long. A writer at the Crying Voice in the Wilderness website was apparently referring to the same experiment whey they wrote: "Some fragments of DNA were found in supposedly 80 million year-old dinosaur bones. This means that the dinosaur bones are only a couple of thousand years old."
And this one's cool:Quote:
Genesis Park® describes a number of images drawn by Neanderthals and by humans in the Middle East which resemble dinosaurs. The suggestion is that the artists were drawing pictures of dinosaurs from memory of having seen the animals.
And before I go out for awhile, I'd just like to point out the one major flaw in the evolutionist's version of the fossil record: If every layer is supposed to represent several million years, then how can one animal be in more than one layer at a time? (I don't know of any that stretch through more than two layers, but just one in two different layers is a pretty big problem for the evolutionists' theory of how the fossil record was formed....and the only animals tall enough to stretch through 3 or more layers are on their side when they're dead, lol.)Quote:
But even if one of these observations pans out, and it is proven that dinosaurs were alive on earth within historical times, the theory of evolution would not topple. Only one detail -- that dinosaurs are believed to have became extinct about 75 million years ago -- would have to be revised. The basic principle of evolution -- that mutations and natural selection cause new species to develop from existing species over long periods of time -- would remain intact.
Umm if ther where a major flood taht coverd the entire erth there would be sngs ofthis...unfortunitly science dosn't hold this out...not being a geologist (and well geology bores me) I don't have that discuession on the top of my head...but with the amount of presure that much water would cause some major ifrences in rock formation (we wouldn't have any soft rocks or the formations made from them due to pressure.).
As for dinosuras...hell I can show you some alive today, guess waht a bird is. Dinos where not lizards..they where warm blooded lizards are cold blooded.
So what is your proof on the age of the earth besides an assertion that the bible is right and every thing lse is wrong...face it there was never a great flood...if every thing you have is based off of that assumption you are in trouble.
Interestingly you fall in the catagory of "new earth" creationists. Most proponants of Intalectual design would even argue agenst tha, it is a position with no support out side of the bible.
So with no flood and no big boat loaded with animals you are left with not much.
Then you pull the law of thermodynamics. Well most physacist would tell you that we are not in a closed system so energy s allways being added. Some quantom guys who are gaing support would let you in on a derty littel secrate of physics, thermodynamics dosn't work on any level...its a lie...they are running into a lot of backlash from the few netonians left but, when you take quantom effects into account thermodynamics second law dosn't work, the universe dosn't tend towards entorpy.
Here for those of you on the frings is a point by point on most creationist arguments (the flood is covered very well here.) I don't have time to write them all out and as they have been posted and check before I don't ee any inclanation. Keezel and Al let me know if any of your "proofs" havent been covered.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html
Oh and Iam still wating for the proff of crationism that dosn't rely on teh bible (great flood)
I have seen attempts to knock wholes in eveolution but no creationism/ID proofs yet, this does not shcok me.
First I should say that my last post was not meant to be a "proof" it is only the theory and I wanted you to point out specific flaws so that I could then defend it, and therefore get closer to proving it.
Actually this one was covered in the last post. Something that I diddn't mention was that the "signs" of the worldwide flood do exist, and I shouldn't have presented it as an assumption, but as a fact. (my bad) The pressure wouldn't be as much as you'd think, as it was really a big mixture of water (heavy) and ash (not heavy). It only takes enough of either one to kill someone...and in this case there was a whole lot of both. The total possible amount of water that was involved in the flood is in the oceans now, and we still find soft rock in layers of the ocean floor. I haven't seen this next fact on a site, but according to many geologists (I think it's boring too), at one point in history there was much less water in the oceans than there is today....now many people attribute that to the ice-ages, but you can look at where the entire continental shelf was at one time exposed.....and I'm not so sure about all that water disappearing into the form of ice...maybe a lot of it but not the entire amount that it takes to cover the shelf.Quote:
Umm if ther where a major flood taht coverd the entire erth there would be sngs ofthis
I believe that dinos and birds are not connected and never have been. It is my belief that they are, and have always been seperate species. I also never intended to say that lizards and dinos were the same, I just meant that according to the flood theory, they would wind up in the same layer.Quote:
As for dinosuras...hell I can show you some alive today, guess waht a bird is. Dinos where not lizards..they where warm blooded lizards are cold blooded.
This is not my proof, it's my theory. :DQuote:
So what is your proof on the age of the earth besides an assertion that the bible is right and every thing lse is wrong
Then prove it.Quote:
face it there was never a great flood
Yep, I'm a hard-core Bible believer...but if you just want to argue the ID side, go ahead, lol. And you're right, the ID believe in "theistic evolution", not "Creation". As for it having no support, you are wrong. If there were no support I would be a "theistic evolutionist" too bc at first it seems to make more sense and seems to be a good compromise, but the Creation theory actually holds up just as well as the theistic evolution theory.Quote:
Interestingly you fall in the catagory of "new earth" creationists. Most proponants of Intalectual design would even argue agenst tha, it is a position with no support out side of the bible.
Yep, I sure would be left without much....but you have yet to prove that there was no flood, and the archaeology that dates to a long time ago points to a world-wide tropical climate....which could only be possible with the existence of a water canopy, and if this were to collapse then the world would go through the same changes that we can see in more recent history (like sudden, wild climate changes....along with ice ages). (And it's collapse would also produce a flood....lol)Quote:
So with no flood and no big boat loaded with animals you are left with not much.
Once again I have never seen a good mutation....and until this law is disproven, then it'll be a thorn in the side of evolutionists. (It has yet to be conclusively disproven, and things still *seem* to deteriorate over time).Quote:
Then you pull the law of thermodynamics. Well most physacist would tell you that we are not in a closed system so energy s allways being added. Some quantom guys who are gaing support would let you in on a derty littel secrate of physics, thermodynamics dosn't work on any level...its a lie...they are running into a lot of backlash from the few netonians left but, when you take quantom effects into account thermodynamics second law dosn't work, the universe dosn't tend towards entorpy.
It *comes* from the Bible...which is always going to be one of the supporters of the theory. Several of the theories I've discussed aren't even spoken of in the Bible (like a water canopy...). It is true that this theory is based on the Bible, and it is also true that the Bible can never be *disproven*. It is concievable, however, that evolution could be disproven at some point in the future. I read somewhere that this is what makes the Creation theory seperate from the rest of science: the fact that it can't be disproven.Quote:
Oh and Iam still wating for the proff of crationism that dosn't rely on teh bible (great flood)
I liked the site....but even I could explain 90% of those things...and I have already explained a couple but I never brought up any of the points addressed there...
Give me an idea of what you would like as proof? I don't think you could offer any proof of evolution, so why should you expect something different for the theory of Creation?Quote:
I have seen attempts to knock wholes in eveolution but no creationism/ID proofs yet, this does not shcok me.
This thread was made in the belief that the Creation account of why we are here does not need to be discussed in school. I'm wondering what the initial reasoning was. If it is because there is nothing to discuss, then the reasoning was faulty bc if there were nothing to discuss, this thread wouldn't still be going :p . I'm just wondering if you still believe that it doesn't need to be taught in schools. I believe it has just as much right to be taught as the theory of evolution does, bc neither can be proven and both are popular beliefs, and both have evidence that should be seen....and then students *should* be allowed a choice between the two, and not just fed whatever the government decides they should believe. There are even some prominant athiest evolutionists that have decided to go with the Creation theory, which suggests there is some real substance to it. C.E.M. Joad I believe is one of them. I know some people that believe that evolution should not even be in schools bc there are so many problems with it and it's only a guess at how things happened....we just can't come up with anything better than that without adding God to the picture (and no athiest could ever accept that). My main point here is that I think either both or neither should be taught in schools, but to not even allow students a choice is...moronic and cowardly.
In an earlier post I suggested that you read "The Bible as History" in which you will find that there IS INDEED scientific evidence of the great flood....C14 dating places it at the time the bible says it happened...you just evidently CHOOSE NOT TO INVESTIGATE anything that will weaken your point (which now appears to be on the top of your head). This is most likely my last post to this thread because in this area you appear to have the mentality of a ROCK.Quote:
Umm if ther where a major flood taht coverd the entire erth there would be sngs ofthis...unfortunitly science dosn't hold this out...not being a geologist (and well geology bores me) I don't have that discuession on the top of my head...but with the amount of presure that much water would cause some major ifrences in rock formation (we wouldn't have any soft rocks or the formations made from them due to pressure.).
A scientific explanation for the great flood is that at one time the Mediterranean Sea was a basin with Gilbraltar as a natural dam. The dam broke, 15 miles of water 300+ feet high. It might push a boat up Mt Ararat. It could have happenned.
The trouble with using the bible as historical reference is that it was word of mouth for how many years, then written in Aramaic, translated to Greek, translated to Latin then to the rest of the languages. I'm not suggesting that someone would rewrite the bible for their own gain, except maybe the King James version.
In English alone in my life cool became hot then cool again. Someone who is "bad" is cool.
I sugest reading the link I posted aht gose over the "evidence" of a great flood in the eatrths past...face it it never happened. For those of you who are flood proponets where did the water come from and where did it go?
Assuming that a body of water will try to find a level if it's connected to another body of water...
The theory I read had the Mediterranean as a basin, a valley if you will, with little to no water in it. There was a wall where the straits of Gibraltar are now. That wall gave way, the basin flooded. I can't imagine what that much water being released quickly like that would do. The Atlantic and Pacific would drop to fill that basin.
Would it take 40 days to fill? Would it cause "rain". Did Noah then live to 900 years old? Was this what happenned to Atlantis? I don't know, I wasn't there, I don't know how anyone can conclusively say one way or the other whether it happenned or not.
Hey, maybe if we live long enough we can see it happen if the Three Rivers Dam in China ever gives way.
Umm If the water covered the entire earth that would have to be one hell of a high wall over the entire medaterania...and I doubt that the med could hold enough water to cover the entire earth up to the tops of the tallest mountains.
bballad,
The "world" at that time according to the only "documentation" from that time was the Med/middle east.
Our history of civilization tends to ignore a lot of the world
Our history dose, but there where some very advanced cultures in Asia and they make no referance to a flood at that time, nor do the prehistoric paintings (or oral histories) of the early americans. or any of the aboriogonal peoples of the world. So while middle eastern history may talk of a flood (understandable as middel eastern civilization started on flood planes.) this would not account for the biblical great flood that wiped out life on the planet. Or are you accepting that the entire earth was not covered by water, while I would agree with that the fundies here may not.
I accept most historical and scientific theories, usually with a grain of salt. I only get in discussions or arguments when people argue at the extreme ends of the issues. There's always a middle ground.
fair enough, it seems that at least you agre that there was no world covering biblical flood (regardless of if there was a regional flood that a story was based on and later exagerated.). now if we can jsut get the rest of the folks here to accept reality.