If you think that this will stand up as an explanation, you're sadly mistaken. Scriptural 'evidence' isn't evidence at all.

Like I said, it takes thousands upon millions of years for any complex organism [i.e. anything that's multicellular] to exhibit mutations drastic enough to be considered a 'new species'. And contrary to what creationists like to believe, evolution doesn't take place for the benefit of species, but for the benefit of specific genes and traits. Every species that survives has genetic traits that are dominant and 'useful', and therefore able to withstand interbreeding. Some traits, because of environmental changes, become obsolete and no longer viable in nature, and the species that carry them eventually mutate or go extinct, depending on what other traits they possess. This explains some of the more curious features of the human anatomy, like the appendix and the vestigial tail.

Again, I understand why people have trouble trusting the idea of evolution, since it's a process that takes place over such a long period. Is there a possibility that some of the precepts of evolution are misstated, or just plain wrong? Yes. Does this lend any credence at all to the idea of Creationism? Emphatically NO.

Then how come all genetics are going down hill, all people will have brown hair and brown eyes someday (other than the albinos.) That is the complete oposite of evelution, people are loseing genes, not gaining them.

Thanks - although I don't think many people will give up evolution so easily, the theory's come close to dying before and other people just picked it up again.

Anyway, yeah. I like to make a scientific argument because people so easily throw away scriptural evidence.


Oh, and What, no bacon? the age-old argument that scripture is a pack o lies doesn't hold up either. There have been several instances where people disagreed with historical references in the Bible, things that 'couldn't happen' and other stuff. But every time, historians and archaeologists have found evidence to the contrary. Scientists have proven that soundwaves of a certain frequency (within the range of human speech, too!) could shake stone from the mortar around it. This shows that Jericho could actually have fallen by the Israelites' marching and trumpeting.
Other instances include mating times and gestation periods for frogs - when certain ones overlap, frogs appear in much greater quantities. Historians speculate that was one of the punishments God put upon Egypt. They have also found evidence of a pre-epidemic outburst of the Black Plague in Egypt, as well as explanations for all the others. However I don't have the book with me, so I'll just post it later.

Even historical references have seemingly contradicted the Bible, then later showing that the Bible is right. I need to go NOW, so I will finish this later. Sorry!

You clearly didn't understand what I said. Genes get outmoded because they are no longer viable. Blond hair is a recessive trait and is not environmentally sustainable because of its susceptibilities. Albinism will also eventually be outmoded. It shows that nature is cycling out traits that no longer fit into the 'grand scheme of things', so to speak. And the idea that we're only 'losing' genes and not 'gaining' them is also faulty. Mutations may seem to be contractionary, but the fact is that we're always developing new traits [albeit over a protracted time span] to sustain us in nature as a species, because we're such complex organisms. Remember, changes in nature happen very gradually, and as such, changes in human genetic code happen even more gradually, because they're essentially playing catch-up.

I found my copy of the Dawkins book, so I'll be able to pull stuff out of there to support what I'm saying now. Yay!

I never said that scripture is a 'pack o lies'. I'm well aware that many of the events described in the bible are based on actual events. The problem is that historical evidence by and large rules out any kind of divine intervention, and all the events you described can be explained very easily without reference to any kind of mystical powers.
When it comes to the book of Genesis, however, there has been absolutely nothing to support the claim that the earth was created in 7 days, 5,000-10,000 years ago. And there is certainly nothing to support the claim that this was done at the hands of some all-powerful being with a grand design in mind.

But the Albinism will spread, it may even end up with everyone being albino.
The reason brown hair and brown eyes will be is because it cancels the other colors out. but being albino cancels out the brown, so unless all albino people are killed or don't have children it will spread just as brown eyes and hair will.

Tell me a change for the better the human race has taken.

Albinism will spread... wha? Where'd you hear that? Albinos are rarer now than they were 200 years ago, and the chances of an albino child being born, even to an albino parent are very slim. Case-in-point, my dog's father is an albino boxer, but she herself has brindle hair and brown eyes, and none of the other dogs in her litter exhibit any albino traits, either.

I'm not a biologist, or anything, but that's just a bogus assertion that you made.

That isn't true there are not fewer albinos, and your dog now caries the albino gene his/her puppies could be albino, or there puppies or so on, but the albino gene in your dog will not deminish. The albino gene can spread, it may not, but if both paernts carry it there child will. Just because you aren't albino dosn't mean it isn't in your genetics. If only one of the parents have it there is only a slite chance, that is why I said "it may even end up with everyone being albino"

What proof do you have? Show me statistics that point to a rise in albinism in the general population, then we'll talk.

And no, the albino gene does not necessarily get passed on. Only half of the genes from each parent get passed on to a child.

I didn't say there were more! I said there is no fade away of albinism. you said it was going away, there is no way to cure albinism

And genes are not cut down the middle, there is even a chance that they will carry almost none of the albinism, but there will always be some traces of both parents genes.

It IS going away, because fewer and fewer people are carrying the gene.

^Do you have proof of this?

What this extrapolates to is a gradual decline in the incidence of carriers, even among children whose parents were both carriers.

Ok, I have been proven wrong, but that happends all the time, so we went from evolution/creation to Albinism, that is evelution, lol . It was fun while it lasted.
But we still havn't finished talking about Creation/Evolution. I still stand in the creationist view.

The question is, why? I know that a lot of people have been indoctrinated to accept the creationist view, but why try to discredit a view that, while not infallible, has some actual scientific backing, only to turn around and support one that has none whatsoever? Why not look for an alternative explanation?

Because there is history in creation. There are places found that where talked about, and places destroyed in the ways they described in the Bible.

Is there a solid fact that Evolution is true? because I havn't heard one.

What history? Like I said, a lot of what's written in the bible is based on real events, but the story of the 7 day creation is definitely not one of them.

Evolution's hard evidence is in paleontology. The discovery of fossils of animals that have long since disappeared from the planet, but still provide clues as to how the animals that do exist today came to be as they are.

For me it's the arrogance of science. I don't like the fact that once someone says, "it is scientifically proven that..." well, that's not enough for me. If you study scientific method, you realize that there are a lot of assumptions and non-empirical elements to the conclusions given. I don't like to base any metaphysics on science as that would be ultra empiricism, which has so many problems.

Technically to believe in creationism is a faith issue with regard to the authority of the Bible. To prove creationism is a lost cause. Just like proving the existence of god, the point is to show that it is not irrational to believe in the Genesis 1 creation. This leaves one to show that there is value to scripture. The value of scripture (bible) is authenticated based on tradition. There is always room for criticism, but the tradition is long standing. Because of the preciousness and care given to the Law of Moses over the years, it has some credibility of being original and accurate.

The move from simply thinking of the Bible as factual content to being the Word of God is a spiritual move. One that acknowledges that faith is not irrational when supported by reason.

In interpretational thinking, it is even a faith step to believe that cause and effect have value, so faith thinking is even used in scientific reasoning. So, this faith is not irrational. The point is that science is not infalliable and has plenty of faith/irrational aspects to it. It's just that because it's a holy modern word, we don't defile science by thinking of the faith aspects of it.

Just ask yourself, "Was somebody there?"
How did the Big Bang start?
Where do the dates originate from in a book of fossils?
When did that goup in a pond "evolve" into something liveing?
Was the earth created in 7 days?
How did that liveing thing survivr if plants where not liveing yet? (this one can be switched around because plants need carbon dioxide from people, and people need oxygen from plants.)
How did the atmosphere come to be?

See It is imposible to know these things because nobody was there.

I'm getting the impression that the people arguing against evolution don't know much about the theory, at all.

What, No Bacon?

I can't see how you feel justified asking people for statistics when you provide none yourself. What study showed that albinos are diminishing? Genetically, that would not happen.

IF all albinos on earth stopped procreating (A major feat, and more distinct than the shady explanation you regurgitated) then there would still be albino children born, because Mendelian genetics shows - two Brown-haired people can still have an albino child, there is just a small chance of it. And also, what proof do you have that in China around 200 BC there were more albinos than now? I defy you to show evidence.

Your argument begs the question much more than you accuse his of, since you hypocritically ask for evidence without showing any.


I also have a new piece of evidence: The Big Bang first states that all the gas in the universe coagulated into a tiny dot. (It never mentions WHERE the universe came from, it assumes it was just... there.) This violates physics already because gas does not coagulate in a vacuum. It expands. Imagine opening the airlock of a spacecraft in deep space. Would the air stay in? No. Neither would air be able to turn into a tiny little dot no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

Then, assuming the gas somehow came together, it would have to start spinning around and around. Why? Noone knows. (Was it an act of *gasp* God?) Then, after the dot started spinning for some reason, it exploded. This violates the known laws of physics, but that's okay, because it's done so already quite a few times.

This comes to the point of my argument: The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum states that when a spinning object explodes, all the little pieces will be spinning the same direction. Why is it that some of the outer planets (I might be wrong but I think it's Uranus and Jupiter) spin the other direction, or even on a different axis?

And don't try to tell me that the planet was hit by an asteroid or something like that, because if the Big Band was just an explosion, the entire universe would be a ring of ever-thinning material, not planets in every direction.

Please explain to me how this is 'Scientific fact'. I really want to know, because if it is, this is no science I know of.


EDIT -
Please stop double and triple posting, or I'll sic the Grammar Police on you.

The albino thing is common sense. Albinism is rare to begin with, and when there's only a ¼ chance that when two people that carry the recessive gene mate produce an albino child, and just as good a chance that the child won't carry the gene at all, and the other half of the children not exhibiting albinoid features, of course the numbers are going to shrink, because the odds of the gene being bred out of existence within a single bloodline is much better than it burgeoning, because you're VERY unlikely to see two albinos have a child together. Just think about it from a mathematical perspective.

And don't accuse me of offering 'shady explanations', because what I posted came straight out of an encyclopedia. There's nothing at all shady about it.

As for the origin of the universe... the lifespan of the universe is, to put it simply, eternity. What happens beyond that eternity, both before and after, there's really no way of knowing. I consider the origin of the universe an entirely separate issue from the origin of mankind. And there's no possible answer for it, because no matter what route you take to explain it, a question of causation remains. If you ask, 'where did the matter that existed before the 'Big Bang' come from?', you should also ask, 'If God created the universe, where did God come from?'

You're asking questions that you yourselves can't answer. The same is true of all religious apologists.

This is getting a bit more off point at times. As far as evolution itself is concerned, it doesn't matter whether there is a god or not. What matters is whether God created all living creatures as they are without evolutionary change.

There is anecdotal/paleontological (sp?) evidence that suggests that there were changes in species. For instance, simple similarities between species makes it seem plausible. It may be inconsistent with other scientific concepts, but this is typical of scientific thinking anyway. Not all of it has to gel right away. So, to constantly argue the scientific impossibility of it is really meaningless.

Science changes as time goes on. In another 100 to 500 years, new laws or more comprehensive laws will be understood that will make these laws you use now meaningless. So using science only hurts your cause as you will have to concede that there is a possibility of the arguments you use as becoming obsolete.

Thus, the argument should be framed as to the status of the theory. Is it a testable theory or not? Can it defeat experiments that are designed to prove it wrong? Are there experiments possible to actually test it at all? This is the true weakness of evolutionary theory. It's not even appropriate to call it a scientific theory, but rather a historical-analytic recreation of species change over time. Basically it's more of a historical issue rather than hard science and is more prone to typical problems of interpretation.

Again, I'm a conservative christian with a fairly conservative theology, but I don't like using science itself as a basis for refuting something like this. It's been shown too many times that previous scientific thought has been wrong by new scientific thought (that's why I don't like Argument by Design very much).

Bacon simply has to say that although there may be more involved than we think, it's still plausible because of the historical evidence we've uncovered. There's a possibility that there is something more comprehensive at work, but we don't know about it yet. For all we know, once every million years the laws of nature change to allow for all this stuff. We still don't know the full consequences of 100% exposure to radiation that's not filtered by magnetics of the earth (the sun spots/flares are still partially filtered and if they weren't, we'd probably be fried ).

Call creationism what it is - a theological belief based upon the belief that the verses in the Bible are true and accurate. Science cannot prove theology, it can only assist in showing that it's rational.

Trying to build an argument for Creationism on a scientific basis is like trying to build a house on quicksand.

You know, Bacon, more and more I want to punch that smug little avatar you've got there.

And as for albinism, you obviously don't know how Mendelian genetics works. The albino trait STAYS IN the genes of a person, only dormant. There could be absolutely ZERO albinos on earth, and still more would be produced, because the albino trait is NOT in only albinos, it lays dormant in almost every person on earth.

The same is with the cherished example of 'evolution' people always point to: The Pepper Moth. When the trees were dark from pollution, the birds would eat the white moths, leaving the black ones alone. HOWEVER, there was still the same amount of black and white moths born, no evolution took place. The reason more black moths were found in catches was because all the white ones got eaten.
And of course then a pollution ban was put into effect and the trees changed color from a sooty gray back to the white of birch bark. Then all the black moths were eaten, making more white ones found in the catches. BUT NO EVOLUTION OCCURRED. Otherwise today, there would be no black moths, just white ones. Why are there still black moths? Because the genetic information to create black wings is stored *dormant* in the genes of white moths.

The same applies to albinos, only instead of simple Mendelian genetics, there are more than one set of genes that controls the trait. That is also why it is rarer.

And also: Why would albinos be mutating away? They don't get eaten by birds, nor do they simply refrain from having sex and making babies. What you're talking about is the mixture between blacks and whites - this is a nondominant trait, meaning the genes of both parents mix evenly, like mixing paint. Albinism is nothing like this, or everybody would be looking slightly grayer.

So - now that that's taken care of, let's move on to the next example of evolution in progress, and we can take it apart.

We didn't evolve from monkeys, they share a common ancestor from us, which explains why 98% of their DNA are similar to ours.

That's micro-evolution - evolution within species. It's about the same as breeding evolutionary changes. The real kicker is actually getting a species change somehow. Even mutating fruit flies doesn't produce much more than strange fruit flies
Well, if you extrapolate microevolution, don't you think that minor changes over millions of years can add up to something big? Take 1/1000 and add it to 1/1000 and you probably won't get far. But over millions of years, small things add up.

You come across a mansion in the middle of nowheres. You enter and inside you see it full furnished, but then no-one's home.
The mansion does show signs of having a designer. Organisms however, do show signs of evolution, such as the suboptimal design of our eye. Mutations that are benefical aren't always optimal. For example, our own eyes where the blood vessels actually block our light sensive cells because the vessels are placed across the retina instead of across it. An intelligent designer wouldn't have made such a flagrant error.

To quote skepicrepot:


To make a slam-dunk you need: a player, a b-ball, and a court. If you keep a b-ball on the court and expect it to bounce on it own--AKA, without any interference--your outta your head if you think that "time will work the process" without any intelligence. It's parallel to the Big Bang - you've got the ingredients and the location... but what above the player? Answer that, Sherlock...
Order can arrive from disorder without a concious designer. Ever seen a snowflake? No intelligent designer required, the orderly snowflake arrives from natural processes.



Hell, no -- it's down right COMMON SENSE AND LOGIC.
You can't rely on common sense in science - because nature is just absurd (esp. at the quantum level). Common sense tells us that the Earth is flat, that the truely does rise and fall, that the Earth isn't moving at over 1000mph an hour, that continents don't move, that a bowling ball will fall at a faster rate than a marble. However, science has been used to prove all these common sense ideas wrong.

It's bullshit to believe a mansion sprung out of the ground on its own... it's stupidity to think that a senseless basketball can do the slam dunnk ON ITS OWN!
So you invent the idea of God to fill gaps in knowlege. That's typical. Where knowledge ends, religion begins. For me, if I don't know something, I don't make up superfluous bullshit. I go where the evidence leads me.



I just don't want evolution to be thought of as a theory. It's an untested hypothesis that makes sense.
It has been tested, which is why it's a theory (a theory isn't just mere speculation). In a recent example, elephants born without tusk are being natually selected since poachers hunt them down for tusk.

The problem with creationism by the way, is that it CAN'T be tested. It predicts things "as they already are." They theory that we're in the Matrix or the world is just a by-product of your imagination is every bit as consistent with the data explained by creationism. Maybe the entire world just popped into existence 5 minutes ago with even our memories of "ealier" events intact, or we truely are in that other side of [spoiler omiited]. Neither capable of confirmation or falsification, so why bother? Evolution does make testable predictions, and there are potential falsifications of the theory, just like any scientific theory.

This is in part caused by that original sin Eve commited back in the Garden of Eden, that being eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (it's not an apple, that's only used for illustrational purposes. I'm sure you knew that already, though)
This is a flaw in boolean logic known as the ad hoc fallacy. The principal of Occam's Razor (alluded above) would delete this assumption because it's an unnecessary, unevidenced assumption.

I can even defend the view that the Earth is actually flat using ad hocs. If you tell me that we have pictures of a round Earth from NASA I'd say that Satan must be decieving us by bending light so it makes the Earth appear round in space. If you tell me that we've circumnavigated the Earth, I'd say we've really entered a wormhole that takes us to the opposite edge like a pac man game.

However, if you use the principal of Occam's Razor (also known as the pricipal of parsimony), you cut the unevidenced fat and you're left with an Earth that's round.

Thanks - although I don't think many people will give up evolution so easily, the theory's come close to dying before and other people just picked it up again.
Not even remotely true.

I'm getting the impression that the people arguing against evolution don't know much about the theory, at all.
It's always like that.

The Big Bang first states that all the gas in the universe coagulated into a tiny dot. (It never mentions WHERE the universe came from, it assumes it was just... there.)
Damn! Better not trust atomic then. They don't explain how the atoms came into existence and yet it's used to explain chemistry! Can't trust cell theory either, since it doesn't explain how cells came into existence, and yet it's explaining phenomena such as cancer!

This violates physics already because gas does not coagulate in a vacuum. It expands. Imagine opening the airlock of a spacecraft in deep space. Would the air stay in? No. Neither would air be able to turn into a tiny little dot no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.
You think scientist aren't aware of this? Show us pictures of your Nobel prize ceremoney when you disprove the Big Bang.

And don't try to tell me that the planet was hit by an asteroid or something like that, because if the Big Band was just an explosion, the entire universe would be a ring of ever-thinning material, not planets in every direction.
But an increasing universe allows order to form, and I think the attraction of the matter could form into solid objects given millions or even billions of years.

Science changes as time goes on. In another 100 to 500 years, new laws or more comprehensive laws will be understood that will make these laws you use now meaningless. So using science only hurts your cause as you will have to concede that there is a possibility of the arguments you use as becoming obsolete.
That's the great part about science. We don't obstinatly and perversely adhere to our own pet theories when contradictory data arrives. We don't change the facts to fit the theory, we change the theory to fit the facts. Hell, we could be wrong that the Earth is round, but it we find data that tells us it isn't round, then we accept it. And that is much more reliable than religious apologicets.

The same is with the cherished example of 'evolution' people always point to: The Pepper Moth. When the trees were dark from pollution, the birds would eat the white moths, leaving the black ones alone. HOWEVER, there was still the same amount of black and white moths born, no evolution took place.
The example wasn't ever purported to be evidence for evolution (changes in allele frequiences), but for natural selection. Organisms that are more fit will survive better and reproduce. If you want evidence for evolution, look into insect resistence to farm pesticides.

One question for the creationist: Why aren't there any peer reviewed journals written by creationist? And if evolution is flagrantly wrong, and already been disproven, why is it still a scientific theory? I have yet to see a creaionist earn a Nobel prize for diproving evolution. Must be the evil atheistic science community.


These fossils were planted by Satan to decieve us!!!!!111one The shortening jaw lengths from adapting to our changing diets throughout time are the cause for our wisdom teeth, by the way.

Can any creationist explain why we have a vestigal third molar called the wisdom tooth? It's useless, sometimes grows at the wrong angle, and can ruin the alignment of our teeth if not removed. Why would an intelligent designer give us 32 teeth when we only have room for 28? Counting problems? Wisdom teeth are quite a nuisance like our useless appendix. The appendix was useful for our ancestors to digest grassy plants but we no longer need them, and they can explode on us any minte causing bile to integrate with our blood stream and death from infection! Must be from that Fall of Adam and Eve.

wow..

There is even stuff in there I didnt know..

I studied evolution...

Nice one m8.

This is certainly becoming a very deep arguement, people are set in their beliefs. Thats good to see.

That's what kills me about these debates. I hate seeing how set people are and unable to concieve of the other's position.

I think Wittgenstein wrote something about evolution and how he was dissapointed in it as a scientific theory. I'll have to look it up sometime. I just want those who believe in creationism to be honest about it being a theological perspective, which is nothing to be ashamed of.

I didn't mean quite like that sorry. What I meant was that people can back up their arguements. I didn't think people would be so educated in this field.

I have read what everybody has written but I still believe what I always did. Unfortunatly the idea that the all powerful created us will never wash with me, no matter what evidence is presented to me. To me its like believeing in the supernatural.

Nice ideas..
I like to belive that I am master of my own fate...
Not some big guy on a throne or summin thike thatt....

Okay, I know I double posted, but the damn thing won't let me edit the first post - so if any Mod happens to see this, please delete the above post.

Now, getting back to what I was talking about:

When you mentioned that changes between species happen over a long period of time, that doesn't add up. You see, mutations are almost always harmful (I think only two beneficial mutations have been recorded in known history - Sickle-Cell Anemia and something else.)



I also point to carcinogens. Carcinogens are extremely harmful products usually created by humans that can cause cancer in other organisms. The interesting thing is this: They do so by interfering with the way DNA replicates, creating massive mutations. If mutations were beneficial, don't you think evolutionists would be lobbying for more of these elements in nature. Why, then, are we avoiding them like the plague? Because they cause cancer, a disease.

There is also another way to mutate yourself: Radiation. Why, then, don't people go running to the nearest nuclear plant and roll in the radioactive byproducts? Because all you will get is cancer, leiukemia, (I hope I spelled that right) and other 'evolutionary advances'. Strange, because if mutations are beneficial in any way, why aren't there better and better animals springing out of Three Mile Island, the nuclear tests around the Bikini islands, and such?

BECUASE MUTATIONS ARE ONLY HARMFUL. You can compare mutation to opening up your operating system's source code, and then deleting three letters. Just three letters, no more. Then replace them with "Z X B". Will your computer still run? Not correctly. And there is absolutely NO chance of your computer running faster than before.

The only way humans have not been wiped from the earth by genetic load (The accumulation of mildly harmful or dormant mutations in the genome.) is that our body adapts! When you get cancer, you will be given chemotherapy. The reason chemotherapy works is NOT because it kills the cancer, it's because it mutates the ends of your telomeres, (The 'head' and 'tail' of DNA) making the mutation obvious to your immune system, which then proceeds to kill it.

So - in conclusion, Mutations are not beneficial, they are only harmful. I remember mentioning Sickle-Cell Anemia, the one 'beneficial' mutation? I correct myself. That is not a beneficial mutation, it's anemia. Anemia is when your blood cells cannot get enough oxygen to the body - the byproduct of this is that Malaria spores cannot germinate on the mutated blood cells. However, that malaria-immune person also tires more easily, can't work as hard, and gets out of breath faster than normal people. If that's beneficial, please tell me how.


And another thing: You mentioned snowflakes as how order can arise out of chaos. Not true. Snowflakes do have order to them, but they get this ordered structure by using the kinetic energy in a snowstorm. If it happened otherwise, it would be in violation of the Law of Entropy.


And finally: someone mentioned before how the appendix and other organs are useless. Not true. The appendix is like a holding cell for infectious organisms: The immune system takes them there and kills them. Please explain how this could have evolved. If the immune system just 'evolved' the instructions to bring all infectious agents to the appendix, it would be quite useless without an appendix, wouldn't it?
And the reason blood vessels cross inside your eye is obvious: If they were behind your eye, then the shearing motion made when you look in different directions would constantly pull and tear at the vessels until they either toughened and you couldn't move your eyes, or they would break open and bleed into your eye itself. Sounds a lot better than what we have now, doesn't it?

And please explain how some of the simplest organisms could have evolved: Protists. A euglena uses a whiplike tail to propel itself through the water. Tell me, if you were in a pool and all you had was an Indiana Jones whip, could you move very fast? No, not really. However, these mindless little creatures do it every day. In fact, taxonomy shows that they don't just whip the little tail around, they actually spin it with a biological equivalent of an outboard motor! Now, please tell me this could have 'evolved' by chance: Without the flagella, the biological rotor would be useless, without the rotor, the flagella would be useless. Either way, the organism is eaten and it's an evolutionary dead end.
Ah, but you say, what if they both happened at once? Then it would fit and I can keep my theory. Well, people extrapolated that as well, and came up with Interrupted-Something Evolution. Their theory, in a nutshell, is that the first bird just popped out of a dinosaur egg, conpletely formed and everything. Sound plausible? No? This is just an example of how desperate evolutionary scientists are to keep their theory.

And another thing I want to point out: You proclaim yourself to be a scientific-thinking person, but yet everything you do is done TO PROVE a theory. A true scientific experiment makes a theory, then tries everything it can to disprove the theory. Instead, evolutionists came up with a theory and started amassing all the evidence they could find for it. Doesn't sound very scientific to me.

First of all for you who don't know, I'm Native American and we have a completely different idea on how the world was created. One thing is that there are many tribes who all have a different story on how the world was created. Going through all of them would take a life time, so I suggest you do that on your own time. Ther is one thing that limks all off the different Indian myths together and that is the fact that we do not believe that there is no one god or spirit.

I honeslty don't want to go in to more detail than that, because the stories from different tribes are so different and unique. You can look them on the internet if you want, or if you have questions you can ask me!

Creation...I'm a Christian

not going to bother reading all 3 pages just going to state I stand by Creation

and not just cause i'm a christian

just think about it

as people that believe in evolution and other scientific stuff

look back how things are created, even to the molocule who created the atom, you think it just appeared, even the so called Big bang, how did it go off and that can be guessed by a big supernova type explostion right, how did it become a big ball of matter or whatever, did it just apear?

I was about to choose Creation until I saw... "Jeebus"
So I didn't vote...
I am a Catholic, BTW

EDIT: Can't help it, voted anyway Kinda surprised by poll results

-

im not religous, so i believe what they tell us in school. we came from soup :]

your choices are pointless

There is a Evolution for each one of life form. Becouse world is changing and we are changing to adapt it. But that isnt mean there is no creation. Nothing start without creation.

I'm christian so i believe in Creation. Yes, i believe that God created everything on this world and me.

I am agnostic. I believe in evolution, but I think something had to be created in order to evolve so I'm inbetween evolution and intelligent design for this poll. I think that something is definately there (so I'd consider myself more spiritual than religious), but I think it's so over our heads that it's pointless to even try to get to the bottom of it. All I know is that I choose to live my life as a good person. I won't steal, kill, or intentionally hurt someone without good reason. I'll be there for my family and friends and be greatful for their love and support. People should be able to believe in whatever they want, I just don't want them imposing their beliefs on me if I don't want anything to do with it.

Intelligent design is such garbage. If creation is perfect, then explain homosexuality. Explain birth defects. Explain genetic differences.

I don't think perfection in the sense you describe is necessary. In fact, I don't really know how your criticism effects Intelligent design at all.

Perfection is a value that may or may not be defined in the way you are alluding. Perhaps you should define your concept of perfection first and determine whether that conception is absolute in some way so as to ascribe it to the Intelligent Designer. Then show that if perfection isn't present in the universe then an Intelligent Designer could not have created the universe. This still wouldn't be enough, but at least be a nice start.

I'm a Christian and I believe in Creation.

Evolution seems possible, but I just don't believe I came from an animal...Not because humans are better than animals, but because I'd like to know why primates are still alive then, if we evolve to survive.

And Intelligent Design...Come on, why would we just be here. Just like that. What made us come here then? Someone answer me that one.

Well, perhaps 'perfect' was the wrong word. But certainly a deity that planned every species to appear and act as they do would not have created such abberations. I have to disclaim that I have nothing at all against homosexuals, but there's no arguing that it's an anomaly for members of any species to not have a natural predisposition to procreate, if it was intended by the designer that all species were meant to 'be fruitful and multiply' ab infinitum.

I'm actually very much open to there having been some sort of original creative spark, so to speak, that was the work of a deity or deities... But again, to claim that we were molded by god to be as we are is vanity and ignorance of the worst kind.


Because evolution isn't linear. If you actually read up on the subject, you'd know that.

This may not be possible based on the type of creation provided. These abberations may be part of the value of the design. I think that it may be a distinction between whether the designer is still interactive with the universe or not. If not, then it makes sense that there would be some abberations. Even small variations on any construction design causes some difficulties. So in a sense, it's the difference between theoretical ability for non-abberations and the actual "created" world.


I don't see it as ignorance at all. I think that it's ignorant to claim the impossibility of God as a possible Intelligent Designer based on a false sense of "rationality".

Personally I think there's a mexican standoff between the two issues. I don't think that the explanation of evolution has met its requirements fully. The methodology for explanation is not satisfactory for me. I will still say that evolution is probably the best explanation currently available for all the evidence, but the best explanation is not enough to say that it is the correct explanation.

Also, it is rational to think that the world was created all at once by a God or Intelligent Designer. It's just not provable and offers no ability to really test either empirically or logically.

In order to accept any scientific explanation of past events, one must assume that laws and evidence viewed today are the same as in the past. There is still a reasonable possiblility that the laws we hold to today did not exist the way we think they did in the past. It's not even observable to test this, but simply assumed. One could say that it's ignorance to just assume such things and vanity to believe that we can just assume such things.

I would argue that what you believe as "rational" is not necessarily as rational as you think and offers no ability to make polar statements against Intelligent Design. I'm not saying that scientific thought is inappropriate, but I am saying that it is not able to fully determine metaphysics (or at least it's a different argument). Just because there is evolution doesn't mean that Intelligent Design is eliminated or irrational.

Why thank you for telling me so kindly I'm afraid I have no reason to read up on the subject for any other reason than science homework.

BTW: the issues I bring up are very simply outlined in this thread. I'm still not 100% confident in my own philosophy of science, but I'm very interested in thinking about it more as well as understand its limitations in our ability to know reality and speak to metaphysics.

İm muslim and believe God

We are changing with world for harmoniousness. That isnt mean there is no creation. Nothing start without creation