Devastating to Evolution theory?

[sub_zer0]

A new paper by Wilson et al., is called: “Environmental Coupling of Selection and Heritability Limits Evolution.”

You can find it at the Public Library of Science Biology, Volume 4 | Issue 7 | July 2006. But here is a quote for ya anyway!

Harsh environmental conditions were associated with strong selection for increased birthweight but low genetic variance, and vice versa. Consequently, the potential for microevolution in this population is constrained by either a lack of heritable variation (in poor environments) or by a reduced strength of selection (in good environments). More generally, environmental dependence of this nature may act to limit rates of evolution, maintain genetic variance, and favour phenotypic stasis in many natural systems. Assumptions of environmental constancy are likely to be violated in natural systems, and failure to acknowledge this may generate highly misleading expectations for phenotypic microevolution.

[towski]

A new paper by Wilson et al., is called: “Environmental Coupling of Selection and Heritability Limits Evolution.”

You can find it at the Public Library of Science Biology, Volume 4 | Issue 7 | July 2006. But here is a quote for ya anyway!


Ummmm, quick question.

How can you claim not to believe in evolution, then post an article which discusses limiting rates of evolution?

That's like me claiming to not believe in magic pixies, then citing a study showing that their numbers are decreasing.

[Meek Heir]

Consequently, the potential for microevolution in this population is constrained by either a lack of heritable variation (in poor environments) or by a reduced strength of selection (in good environments).

The whole point of this system is that in a good enviroment you don't need to be heavy, and producing many different light children allows you to experiment in times of plenty.

But in times of famine you produce one or two tried and true forms and invest extra into them.

Thus when you have a famine. you only assure survival. But when you have plenty you can actually try to improve.

[sub_zer0]

Ummmm, quick question.

How can you claim not to believe in evolution, then post an article which discusses limiting rates of evolution?

That's like me claiming to not believe in magic pixies, then citing a study showing that their numbers are decreasing.

You are so blind to what the paper represents? Evolution can't work if it is limited! If it is limited then it is creation or variation within the holobarmin.

It is like me saying that evolution can't happen and posting an scientific article based on observations saying that evolution can't happen due to limiting factors.

The whole point of this system is that in a good enviroment you don't need to be heavy, and producing many different light children allows you to experiment in times of plenty.

But in times of famine you produce one or two tried and true forms and invest extra into them.

Thus when you have a famine. you only assure survival. But when you have plenty you can actually try to improve.

Let's try this again, I'm all for improving but that isn't evolution. Especially when those changes do not produce a new organism. Read what the quote says again!

Assumptions of environmental constancy are likely to be violated in natural systems, and failure to acknowledge this may generate highly misleading expectations for phenotypic microevolution.

[FlyingGuineapig]

You are so blind to what the paper represents? Evolution can't work if it is limited!

Why can't evolution work if it's limited? From a control-systems perspective, any system which isn't limited is unstable.

[Riddley]

You are so blind to what the paper represents? Evolution can't work if it is limited! If it is limited then it is creation or variation within the holobarmin.
Has this been stated by an evolutionist? Explicitly, I mean.

[sub_zer0]

Why can't evolution work if it's limited? From a control-systems perspective, any system which isn't limited is unstable.

Any system that is limited also cannot go past that limit! That is why evolution can't work, because it is limited.

[Dangerrmouse]

I tracked down the Public Library of Science, despite the lack of a link. I didn't see the article "quoted " from, but found this item. Ironic, no?
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040167

"Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology
Liza Gross

Liza Gross is Science Writer for the Public Library of Science. E-mail: lgross@plos.org

Funding. The author received no specific funding for this article.

Published: April 18, 2006

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040167

Copyright: © 2006 Liza Gross. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Americans have long been ambivalent about science. Conflicting attitudes toward science are not uncommon among industrialized countries—Canadians, Europeans, and Japanese, for example, also appreciate the benefits of science but worry about potential impacts on society. What sets Americans apart is that their reservations center primarily around religion. And now, as the United States struggles to maintain its undisputed position as world leader in science and technology, religious ideology has spilled over into the public sphere to a degree unmatched in other industrialized societies. Religious groups are turning scientific matters like stem cells and evolution into political issues.
...
Since 1979, the proportion of scientifically literate adults has doubled—to a paltry 17%.

Say no more! (nudge, nudge, wink, wink!)

[Meek Heir]

Let's try this again, I'm all for improving but that isn't evolution. Especially when those changes do not produce a new organism. Read what the quote says again!

I was just discribing why such a system would be beneficial on a species level. I don't in particular see how evolutionary rate could change. Maybe I would be able to explain better (and read the quote for the first time) if I had the actual article. But I've only seen what you've shown here. So I'll respond based on what I've seen.

[dittohead not!]

Ummmm, quick question.

How can you claim not to believe in evolution, then post an article which discusses limiting rates of evolution?

That's like me claiming to not believe in magic pixies, then citing a study showing that their numbers are decreasing.

I'm pretty sure that there are fewer magic pixies now than there used to be. Maybe they are losing the game of natural selection.

[steveksux]

You are so blind to what the paper represents? Evolution can't work if it is limited! If it is limited then it is creation or variation within the holobarmin.Come back when you learn to read. The article states:

may act to limit rates of evolutionNotice MAY and RATES ?.

Speed limits limit the rate of vehicles. THat doesn't change how far vehicles can go, just how long it takes to get there. That just means evolution could take longer than expected to work.

And perhaps you need to refresh your memory of what may (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/may) means.

No wonder you can't understand evolution. Simple english words like "may" and "rate" are beyond your ability to comprehend.

Unless you're back to lying about the content of the arricles you cite.

Randy

[brainpan]

Ummmm, quick question.

How can you claim not to believe in evolution, then post an article which discusses limiting rates of evolution?

That's like me claiming to not believe in magic pixies, then citing a study showing that their numbers are decreasing.What do you think of sub's hiding of sources, and link-free articles?

[sub_zer0]

Come back when you learn to read. The article states:

Notice MAY and RATES ?.

Speed limits limit the rate of vehicles. THat doesn't change how far vehicles can go, just how long it takes to get there. That just means evolution could take longer than expected to work.

And perhaps you need to refresh your memory of what may (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/may) means.

No wonder you can't understand evolution. Simple english words like "may" and "rate" are beyond your ability to comprehend.

Unless you're back to lying about the content of the arricles you cite.

Randy

Indeed, I see your point. Unlike you, I try to actually be nice in responses without taking underhanded shots like, "may and rate are beyong your ability to comprehent". I'm actually trying to stay on this board but you and others make it impossible. As a matter of fact, I can't count how many direct insults I have recieved.

[Dangerrmouse]

Indeed, I see your point. Unlike you, I try to actually be nice in responses without taking underhanded shots like, "may and rate are beyong your ability to comprehent". I'm actually trying to stay on this board but you and others make it impossible. As a matter of fact, I can't count how many direct insults I have recieved.

The unwarranted superior tone, condescension and tongue-sticking smilies are your idea of "nice"?

[heel31ok]

Come back when you learn to read. The article states:

Notice MAY and RATES ?.

Speed limits limit the rate of vehicles. THat doesn't change how far vehicles can go, just how long it takes to get there. That just means evolution could take longer than expected to work.

And perhaps you need to refresh your memory of what may (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/may) means.

No wonder you can't understand evolution. Simple english words like "may" and "rate" are beyond your ability to comprehend.

Unless you're back to lying about the content of the arricles you cite.

Randy
yeah sub the whole of evolution is based on that simple little word "may" along with "could" , "maybe".when you hear it from randy it is straight from the horses mouth.when he says that the word "may" is a key to understanding evolution, but I think we already understand that even better than he.watch that lying now ,sub. :rolleyes:

[heel31ok]

What do you think of sub's hiding of sources, and link-free articles?
ah yes another missing link to contend with.

[heel31ok]

The unwarranted superior tone, condescension and tongue-sticking smilies are your idea of "nice"?
No, that would be me! :lol: :lol: :rolleyes: ;) :D

oops! forgot :p

[Dangerrmouse]

You flatter yourself.

[heel31ok]

You flatter yourself.
thank youuu!

[dittohead not!]

Yet more evidence for evolution (as if any more were needed):

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=791912#post791912

[julierep]

Yet more evidence for evolution (as if any more were needed):

http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?p=791912#post791912

What exactly linked the birds to this amphibious duck? What DNA matched the two?

[dittohead not!]

What exactly linked the birds to this amphibious duck? What DNA matched the two?

Aha! I thought I'd get some response to this story if it were posted somewhere besides the science and technology forum.

Here's the original article:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13342029/

And an excerpt:

Most of the ancestors of birds from the age of dinosaurs are members of groups that died out and left no modern descendants. But Gansus led to modern birds, so it’s a link between primitive birds and those we see today,” Lamanna, a co-leader of the research team, said in a telephone interview.

What makes this find remarkable is that it is a modern bird, but from the age of dinosaurs 110 million years ago. The article doesn't mention DNA, but that would be an interesting study as well, if the specimins are well enough preserved.

[sub_zer0]

What makes this find remarkable is that it is a modern bird, but from the age of dinosaurs 110 million years ago. The article doesn't mention DNA, but that would be an interesting study as well, if the specimins are well enough preserved.

So we now know ducks were around longer than expected, so what, lol.

[Dangerrmouse]

You will agree that 110,000,000 years kicks your 6,000 claim into the long grass....

[sub_zer0]

You will agree that 110,000,000 years kicks your 6,000 claim into the long grass....

Not really. Assumptions are based on evolutionary thinking then they date the fossils.

[burntgorilla]

yeah sub the whole of evolution is based on that simple little word "may" along with "could" , "maybe".when you hear it from randy it is straight from the horses mouth.when he says that the word "may" is a key to understanding evolution, but I think we already understand that even better than he.watch that lying now ,sub. :rolleyes:

I noticed that neither of you were capable of actually responding to the point he made.

Not really. Assumptions are based on evolutionary thinking then they date the fossils.

Does that mean that you could come up with a form of radiometric dating that dated everything to within 6,000 years?

[dittohead not!]

Does that mean that you could come up with a form of radiometric dating that dated everything to within 6,000 years?

Yes, it's very simple really. Just make up your mind that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and ignore any inconvenient facts that contradict your belief.

[Dangerrmouse]

Not really. Assumptions are based on evolutionary thinking then they date the fossils.

You accepted the premise implicit in dittohead not!'s post in order to make your fowl "joke" ;)

[heel31ok]

Yes, it's very simple really. Just make up your mind that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and ignore any inconvenient facts that contradict your belief.
i would have to agree because that is how it is done to make things millions of years old.

[Dangerrmouse]

i would have to agree because that is how it is done to make things millions of years old.

Do you have a smidgeon that little thing called evidence to support this antiscience drivel?

[heel31ok]

Do you have a smidgeon that little thing called evidence to support this antiscience drivel?I was just agreeing with dhnot!

[burntgorilla]

But making things milliions of years old has a bit of science and common sense behind it. Handily, you don't need to have blind faith that tells you everything so you don't need to work it out. Of course, people used to believe in a geocentric model, from what the Bible told them.

[heel31ok]

But making things milliions of years old has a bit of science and common sense behind it. Handily, you don't need to have blind faith that tells you everything so you don't need to work it out. Of course, people used to believe in a geocentric model, from what the Bible told them.
No it only makes the preconceptions sound feasible. It is not science or sense it is a search for validation of a belief or an unbelief.

[Strel]

No it only makes the preconceptions sound feasible. It is not science or sense it is a search for validation of a belief or an unbelief.


Which "preconceptions" would those be?

[burntgorilla]

See, you're talking about religion there. What, exactly, is unscientific about thinking the Earth is more than 6000 years old? Here, I'll write down some points on each side:

Millions of years old:
Looking down through ice cores, radiometric dating, geology, cosmology, astrophysics and the like all point to it, time needed for variation of life to develop, provides a reasonable timescale for the Earth's development. There's far more, but that's off the top of my head.

6000 years old:
The Bible says so.



Now, remind me, which one has science behind it?

[steveksux]

Which "preconceptions" would those be?The preconception would be that the laws of the universe remain constant over time. That evidence we see is actually genuine, and not "tricks" planted by the "Creator" intended to make the earth look older than 6000 years old. :lol:

The word is "rationality", that is the essential preconception missing from someone's worldview preventing them from acknowleging science.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

It would be nice to try and move on from these debates. It would be impossible for sub_zer0 or heel to debate properly and admit the possibility of being wrong, so we're destined to go round and round and round. Still, it can be fun.

[sub_zer0]

See, you're talking about religion there. What, exactly, is unscientific about thinking the Earth is more than 6000 years old? Here, I'll write down some points on each side:

Millions of years old:
Looking down through ice cores, radiometric dating, geology, cosmology, astrophysics and the like all point to it, time needed for variation of life to develop, provides a reasonable timescale for the Earth's development. There's far more, but that's off the top of my head.

These are all based on the assumption that evolution is fact.

[steveksux]

These are all based on the assumption that evolution is fact.Completely and utterly false. None of them were. They were all investigated in order to prove evolution right OR wrong. And they all corroborated it.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

These are all based on the assumption that evolution is fact.

Don't talk rubbish. They were developed and the only logical conclusion that came out of them was that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old. Scientists didn't walk around thinking to themselves "hmm, what could I use to prove evolution?".

Edit: You might be interested in Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" (I think that's it). It has an interesting chapter on geology, and how the idea of old Earth came about. You might find it useful to learn about things before you try and disregard them.

[dittohead not!]

No it only makes the preconceptions sound feasible. It is not science or sense it is a search for validation of a belief or an unbelief.

Science is never based on preconceptions. The scientific method is all about explaining observed facts through observation and experimentation. Once someone thinks he has a good explaination for the observed facts, and has conducted a few experiments that show that the explaination is probably correct, he has an hypothesis, an educated guess. Once many different people have obtained the same results independently over time, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. A theory is accepted as fact until it is disproven. As of now, there is really no doubt at all that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and that the many and varied life forms we find here evolved over millions of years. Both of the above assertions are based on many theories that would all have to be disproven for anyone to be able to convince a reasoning individual that the Earth was created only 6,000 years ago, complete with interrelated life forms and apparently ancient fossils.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that is anti God. The only problem between religion and science comes from the insistence of a few that ancient writings are the literal word of God and that any facts that seem to contradict that point of view must be wrong and are to be ignored. That is the same thinking that led people to believe that the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.

[burntgorilla]

I looked up the book I mentioned earlier. It confirmed something that I thought I had remembered.

Basically, people thought the Earth was older than 6,000 years long before Darwin's theories.

Edmond Halley put forward a theory in 1715 on how to work out the age of the Earth, though it was impossible to test.

Georges-Louis Leclerc estimated that the Earth was about 75,000-168,000 years old in the 1770s.

Charles Lyell, in the 1830s, thought that the Earth was far older than 6,000 years, though it doesn't say exactly. He developed the idea of different eras, and his ideas held well up until the 1980s, so he seemed to know his job.

Basically, by the nineteenth century, most people thought the Earth was a few million years old.

The Origin of Species wasn't published until 1859.

Basically, you can have an old Earth and no evolution. Sub has attempted to make it out that an old Earth and evolution are somehow deeply entwined, that they were put out as a trick against the world. However, in reality, most educated people already thought that the Earth was more than 6,000 years old, before they'd even heard of evolution.

[heel31ok]

Completely and utterly false. None of them were. They were all investigated in order to prove evolution right OR wrong. And they all corroborated it.

Randy
circular at best, lying at worst. Leaning towards...

The preconceptions were the ages assumed and then testing data made to fit those assumptions.starting out wrong ends up wrong. Testing was used to come up with "the" answer not "an" answer. It helps when to age objectives are preset.

[heel31ok]

The preconception would be that the laws of the universe remain constant over time. That evidence we see is actually genuine, and not "tricks" planted by the "Creator" intended to make the earth look older than 6000 years old. :lol:

The word is "rationality", that is the essential preconception missing from someone's worldview preventing them from acknowleging science.

Randy
Yes ,that preconception throws thing way off.no tricks needed but a major upheaval of the whole world tends to throw things out of uniformity.
Assuming no flood goes with the other prconceptions.the trick is to dismiss an event that changes evrything .

[sub_zer0]

Completely and utterly false. None of them were. They were all investigated in order to prove evolution right OR wrong. And they all corroborated it.

Randy

You are proving my point Randy, you state they were to prove evolution right or wrong, the investigations was not used to find out what actually happened.

[heel31ok]

Science is never based on preconceptions. The scientific method is all about explaining observed facts through observation and experimentation. Once someone thinks he has a good explaination for the observed facts, and has conducted a few experiments that show that the explaination is probably correct, he has an hypothesis, an educated guess. Once many different people have obtained the same results independently over time, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. A theory is accepted as fact until it is disproven. As of now, there is really no doubt at all that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old and that the many and varied life forms we find here evolved over millions of years. Both of the above assertions are based on many theories that would all have to be disproven for anyone to be able to convince a reasoning individual that the Earth was created only 6,000 years ago, complete with interrelated life forms and apparently ancient fossils.

There is nothing in evolutionary theory that is anti God. The only problem between religion and science comes from the insistence of a few that ancient writings are the literal word of God and that any facts that seem to contradict that point of view must be wrong and are to be ignored. That is the same thinking that led people to believe that the Earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe.


Thank you, this goes with what I have been saying about evolution and the age of the earth and what not.you are correct about science which is why I say it is not science but faith and fairytale because it is based on preconception and a certain outcome.
hack,pseudo science not worthy to be lumped in and piggy backing true science.It is religion in its purest form.

[steveksux]

circular at best, lying at worst. Leaning towards...

The preconceptions were the ages assumed and then testing data made to fit those assumptions.starting out wrong ends up wrong. Testing was used to come up with "the" answer not "an" answer. It helps when to age objectives are preset.That's been explained and disproved. Many times now. If they guess the age of the sample wrong, the tests confirm they guessed wrong, and whether they guessed high or low so they can pick a more appropriate test.

Randy

[steveksux]

Thank you, this goes with what I have been saying about evolution and the age of the earth and what not.you are correct about science which is why I say it is not science but faith and fairytale because it is based on preconception and a certain outcome.
hack,pseudo science not worthy to be lumped in and piggy backing true science.It is religion in its purest form.If you were the least bit honest, you would stop demeaning science by comparing it to your superstitious nonsense.

Its a duplicate post, but you seem to not get things the first time through so I'll leave it.

Randy

[steveksux]

Thank you, this goes with what I have been saying about evolution and the age of the earth and what not.you are correct about science which is why I say it is not science but faith and fairytale because it is based on preconception and a certain outcome.
hack,pseudo science not worthy to be lumped in and piggy backing true science.It is religion in its purest form.If you were the least bit honest, you would stop demeaning science by comparing it to your superstitious nonsense.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

If you were the least bit honest, you would stop demeaning science by comparing it to your superstitious nonsense.

Randy

How about you stop demeaning science to include only one point of view?

[steveksux]

How about you stop demeaning science to include only one point of view?Science accepts any point of view with evidence to back it up. Science welcomes revolutionary changes like Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, earth is not the center of the univers, etc, etc, etc that totally disrupt the established order. When they are backed up with facts. This is a perfect example of why your theory of science in a vast conspiracy to deny Creationism is so ridiculous.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Science accepts any point of view with evidence to back it up. Science welcomes revolutionary changes like Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, earth is not the center of the univers, etc, etc, etc that totally disrupt the established order. When they are backed up with facts. This is a perfect example of why your theory of science in a vast conspiracy to deny Creationism is so ridiculous.

Randy

So how isn't creationism backed up by facts? Or, how has evolution been observed?

[steveksux]

So how isn't creationism backed up by facts? Or, how has evolution been observed?1900 year old religious tomes are not evidence. That's your mistake. All the real evidence, geology, radiometric dating, etc all support old earth and evolution.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

1900 year old religious tomes are not evidence. That's your mistake. All the real evidence, geology, radiometric dating, etc all support old earth and evolution.

Randy

And what does geology say about evolution that it doesn't say about creation?

[Dangerrmouse]

So how isn't creationism backed up by facts? Or, how has evolution been observed?

False argument. Again.

Even assuming for the sake of discussion, that evolution were unproven, that does not give any possible alternative options a free run at the vacancy. The "theory" of creationism has no factual testable reproducible data to support it.

[steveksux]

And what does geology say about evolution that it doesn't say about creation?Earth > 6000 years old for one.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

False argument. Again.

Even assuming for the sake of discussion, that evolution were unproven, that does not give any possible alternative options a free run at the vacancy. The "theory" of creationism has no factual testable reproducible data to support it.

All scientific observations support creationism, but not evolution.

[steveksux]

All scientific observations support creationism, but not evolution.Only the scientific observations that you do not ignore. Which unfortunately leaves NO scientific observations left at all to support creationism.

:laughter: :laughter: That's funny. If scientific observations supported creationism, the scientists making them would support creationism.

Randy

[heel31ok]

If you were the least bit honest, you would stop demeaning science by comparing it to your superstitious nonsense.

Its a duplicate post, but you seem to not get things the first time through so I'll leave it.

Randy
if you were honest you would stop demeaning science with this cheap perversion of it.Using the shield of real science to fend off objection to the false "science" trying to hide within it's walls of legitimacy.

[heel31ok]

1900 year old religious tomes are not evidence. That's your mistake. All the real evidence, geology, radiometric dating, etc all support old earth and evolution.

Randy
flawed tests made to fit a certain predetermined result. Wow science has come a long way, south.all based on false assumptions.

[dittohead not!]

So how isn't creationism backed up by facts? Or, how has evolution been observed?

Here's how evolution has been observed, along with the paleontological record, of course:

http://www.agner.org/evolution/

How has creationism backed up by facts?

How is creationism contrary to evolution?

[sub_zer0]

Here's how evolution has been observed, along with the paleontological record, of course:

http://www.agner.org/evolution/

All this shows me is the need for an intelligent designer.

[steveksux]

if you were honest you would stop demeaning science with this cheap perversion of itYou are referring to creationism if course? Why DO you flock to the cheap perversion of not only science, but Christianity that is creation "science". Even mainstream religions gave up objecting to evolution years ago. Get on the bus, man...

.Using the shield of real science to fend off objection to the false "science" trying to hide within it's walls of legitimacy.You guys are the ones claiming all sorts of scientific disciplines are in on the conspiracy to promote evolution in the face of all contrary evidence. What, according to your conspiracy theory is real science? Pretty much all of it confirms evolution, so you're going to have to scrap pretty much the whole thing in your quest to deny the obvious correctness of evolution.

Randy

[steveksux]

flawed tests made to fit a certain predetermined result. Wow science has come a long way, south.all based on false assumptions.Well, go ahead and explain the flaw. What are the problems? Just because they all contradict your misguided misinterpretation of scripture? That's indicative of the flaws in your misinterpretation of scripture. As evidenced by all mainstream Christian denominations backing evolution.

Again, you can't even get your theology right, your speciality. There is no hope at all you'll get the science right since that's not your strong suit.

Randy

[dittohead not!]

All this shows me is the need for an intelligent designer.

There could well have been an intelligent designer. Evolution doesn't address whether the process ocurred on its own, nor can it. The idea of creation is a religious concept that is outside of the realm of science.

It seems unlikely to me that the vast and complex web of life that exists on Earth could have come about by random chance, but that doesn't mean I would argue that evolution didn't happen. It just means that I think the process was guided along the way. I can't prove that there was intelligent guidance, of course, but then neither can anyone disprove it.

The question of intelligent design vs evolution is a lot like asking whether a modern automobile was created, or whether it evolved from simpler machines. It isn't an either/or proposition.

[heel31ok]

Only the scientific observations that you do not ignore. Which unfortunately leaves NO scientific observations left at all to support creationism.

:laughter: :laughter: That's funny. If scientific observations supported creationism, the scientists making them would support creationism.

Randy
flawed logic which assumes the goal is truth instead of making data fit belief.No matter what the data they would not allow it to support anything other than their own agenda which is why it is not a legitimate science but a farce. Those who are honest admit there is no evidence which puzzles them to no end.

"after chiding the theologian after his reliance on myth and miracle,science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create mythology of its own:namely the assumption that what, after long effort,could not be proved to take place today had,in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Dr Loren Eiseley

[heel31ok]

Well, go ahead and explain the flaw. What are the problems? Just because they all contradict your misguided misinterpretation of scripture? That's indicative of the flaws in your misinterpretation of scripture. As evidenced by all mainstream Christian denominations backing evolution.

Again, you can't even get your theology right, your speciality. There is no hope at all you'll get the science right since that's not your strong suit.

Randy
what scripture says either way has no bearing on the fact that these so called scientists assume to the point of fantasy and then present these assumptions as fact. They violate the very rules of sciencethey supposedly represent. The flaw is cooking the books of the data to make it fit their worldview and misconceptions.It is not a hard concept.First you determine your results then you go find them. The researcher needs millions of years so he starts from their and fits the data to that baseline.
My misinterpretation or correct interpretation of scripture does not cause the principles involved to commit these violations of scientific requirements.

My theology has nothing to do with this lack of truthfulness on their part.Your preconceptions of my theology is just as flawed as their's.
Not only does all of mainstream christian denominations not follow evolution not even a majority of mainstream America follow it.a majority of americans across the board believe God is the creator without the aid or involvement of evolution. :sorry: But you do represent your side with the similar tactics they use.

[heel31ok]

Here's how evolution has been observed, along with the paleontological record, of course:

http://www.agner.org/evolution/

How has creationism backed up by facts?

How is creationism contrary to evolution?
Yeah and maybe we can play donkey Kong afterwards, or better yet electronic slots.
did this program just download itself after many years ? What a joke.

[steveksux]

what scripture says either way has no bearing on the fact that these so called scientists assume to the point of fantasy and then present these assumptions as fact. They violate the very rules of sciencethey supposedly represent. The flaw is cooking the books of the data to make it fit their worldview and misconceptions.It is not a hard concept.First you determine your results then you go find them. The researcher needs millions of years so he starts from their and fits the data to that baseline.
My misinterpretation or correct interpretation of scripture does not cause the principles involved to commit these violations of scientific requirements.

My theology has nothing to do with this lack of truthfulness on their part.Your preconceptions of my theology is just as flawed as their's.
Not only does all of mainstream christian denominations not follow evolution not even a majority of mainstream America follow it.a majority of americans across the board believe God is the creator without the aid or involvement of evolution. :sorry: But you do represent your side with the similar tactics they use.I'm sorry, do you have any information about the flaws and tricks scientists are using to hoodwink everyone into believing evolution buried in all the blather? I didn't think so. Explain how the flaws are flawed, what the flaws are. You keep avoiding the question and making grandiose claims that amount to nothing but empty ramblings devoid of factual details.

Time to put up or shut up I should think.

Randy

[heel31ok]

You are referring to creationism if course? Why DO you flock to the cheap perversion of not only science, but Christianity that is creation "science". Even mainstream religions gave up objecting to evolution years ago. Get on the bus, man...

You guys are the ones claiming all sorts of scientific disciplines are in on the conspiracy to promote evolution in the face of all contrary evidence. What, according to your conspiracy theory is real science? Pretty much all of it confirms evolution, so you're going to have to scrap pretty much the whole thing in your quest to deny the obvious correctness of evolution.

Randy
non of it confirms evolution thus it is not scientific.
The bus is heading for a cliff , I suggest you get off.
The conspiracy is what it is,purposely yes some, ignorantly for others.A lack for the search of truth turned up just that, a lack of the truth.

[steveksux]

non of it confirms evolution thus it is not scientific.
The bus is heading for a cliff , I suggest you get off.
The conspiracy is what it is,purposely yes some, ignorantly for others.A lack for the search of truth turned up just that, a lack of the truth.I suggested put up or shut up. I've heard plenty of nonsense already. Don't need more.

What are the specific flaws and distortions in this grand conspiracy you see in your feverish delerious dreams? Have you any? Or just blather and nonsense with nothing to corroborate it? Are you just making this up as you go along?

Randy

[heel31ok]

I'm sorry, do you have any information about the flaws and tricks scientists are using to hoodwink everyone into believing evolution buried in all the blather? I didn't think so. Explain how the flaws are flawed, what the flaws are. You keep avoiding the question and making grandiose claims that amount to nothing but empty ramblings devoid of factual details.

Time to put up or shut up I should think.

Randy
You just descibed evolution in a nutshell,agin the flaw is predetermination of the result then making the data fit that determination. You are the one avoiding the answer.
Evolution is "making grandiose claims that amount to nothing but empty ramblings devoid of factual details." You have got it right but like many you are just applying it incorrectly.your flaw is you presumed result.

One more thing I agree with you on is yes, you should think.

[JoeR]

I think once you go into conspiracy theory it's time to just let him simmer in his own delusions.

[heel31ok]

I think once you go into conspiracy theory it's time to just let him simmer in his own delusions.
That is what I am doing , :D thanks.

[steveksux]

You just descibed evolution in a nutshell,agin the flaw is predetermination of the result then making the data fit that determination. You are the one avoiding the answer.How and where does it do this. What are the flaws. How are they flawed. Be specific. Give examples. You make nothing but empty claims devoid of both details and common sense. All you've got is your tin foil hat in hand and a made up conspiracy theory that is even more stupid than the theory that the moon landings were faked. Back it up for once.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

How and where does it do this. What are the flaws. How are they flawed. Be specific. Give examples. You make nothing but empty claims devoid of both details and common sense. All you've got is your tin foil hat in hand and a made up conspiracy theory that is even more stupid than the theory that the moon landings were faked. Back it up for once.

Randy

The flaws are the assumptions made in the first place!

[neo of the mind]

Originally Posted by steveksux
I'm sorry, do you have any information about the flaws and tricks scientists are using to hoodwink everyone into believing evolution buried in all the blather?

How about all the hoaxes over the years? That's at least one way they have tried to trick the public. You have to factor in the media over the years as well. Everytime there is some startling new discovery, it's front page news and in the news, but when it turns out to be false, it's page 32 and out of sight.

[heel31ok]

How and where does it do this. What are the flaws. How are they flawed. Be specific. Give examples. You make nothing but empty claims devoid of both details and common sense. All you've got is your tin foil hat in hand and a made up conspiracy theory that is even more stupid than the theory that the moon landings were faked. Back it up for once.

Randy
My hat is proudly a UNC interlock thank you very much.
Really going out ona limb there randy, "when you got nothing, you got nothing to lose." Interpreted you aresaying go ahead prove my lack of truth. Your lack of truth is proof.Like evolution itself you cannot get anything out of nothing.So let me be specific, there is nothing so nothing is what you get.

[heel31ok]

Originally Posted by steveksux
I'm sorry, do you have any information about the flaws and tricks scientists are using to hoodwink everyone into believing evolution buried in all the blather?

How about all the hoaxes over the years? That's at least one way they have tried to trick the public. You have to factor in the media over the years as well. Everytime there is some startling new discovery, it's front page news and in the news, but when it turns out to be false, it's page 32 and out of sight.
come on neo do not spoil it for me.Like evolution this is not a search for the truth or I would have looked elsewhere a long time ago. ;)
Intentional or not I would not suggest aligning with the religious nuts of this board. :angel: run away,run away!

[JoeR]

How about all the hoaxes over the years?

If we're going on number of hoaxes, Creationists are the kings.

[neo of the mind]

If we're going on number of hoaxes, Creationists are the kings.

Really? Can you give me an example, because I don't even know how a Creationist would go about in faking an example of creation.

[neo of the mind]

come on neo do not spoil it for me.Like evolution this is not a search for the truth or I would have looked elsewhere a long time ago. ;)
Intentional or not I would not suggest aligning with the religious nuts of this board. :angel: run away,run away!

You are outnumbered I believe. :D

[sub_zer0]

How about all the hoaxes over the years? That's at least one way they have tried to trick the public. You have to factor in the media over the years as well. Everytime there is some startling new discovery, it's front page news and in the news, but when it turns out to be false, it's page 32 and out of sight.

Not to mention the textbooks that educate our youth are just as bad.

[heel31ok]

You are outnumbered I believe. :D
All my life ,want to fight about it? :D

[dittohead not!]

All my life ,want to fight about it? :D

Actually, you may be outnumbered in this particular argument, but yor display a human characteristic that is common to many of us:

You have your beliefs, and do not want to see facts that counter those beliefs.

[Craig]

Really? Can you give me an example, because I don't even know how a Creationist would go about in faking an example of creation.

Duane Gish has repeatedly made dishonest claims about evolution despite being confronted by biologists on several occaisions and being posed questions to which he could not answer. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html

[neo of the mind]

Duane Gish has repeatedly made dishonest claims about evolution despite being confronted by biologists on several occaisions and being posed questions to which he could not answer. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-rutgers.html

I read your link, I believe I have read that before, but it does not constitute a hoax as in Evolutionists creating missing links in the "evolutionary" chain by putting fossils together from different specimens.

[heel31ok]

Actually, you may be outnumbered in this particular argument, but yor display a human characteristic that is common to many of us:

You have your beliefs, and do not want to see facts that counter those beliefs.
I am not opposed to exposure to the facts and I will run any references to that effect.I just am not going to swallow everything presented without examination. My belief in God does not cause me to run from truth but allows me to run towards it no matter what.The truth is not an assault on God or me , but sometimes what the "facts" are is not what the truth is.

Anywhoo, my response was more a possible commonality b/t neo and myself because of our southern location and access to a certain Big Show personality.
I post alot of cryptic messages to see who has similar interests.

[Craig]

I read your link, I believe I have read that before, but it does not constitute a hoax as in Evolutionists creating missing links in the "evolutionary" chain by putting fossils together from different specimens.

A quick check with dictionary.com indicates that a hoax is:

1) An act intended to deceive or trick.

Might I remind you that speaking is an act. This means, therefore, that speaking in any way to mislead, distort, pervert, corrupt on the subject of evolution is a form of hoax.

[JoeR]

Paluxy footprints http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
Castenedolo and Olmo skulls http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC112.html
Moab and Malachite Man http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC111.html
Lucy's Knee Joint http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/knee-joint.html

This doesn't even touch the use of out of context quotes, false scientific credentials, dishonest things such as Kent Hovnid's $250,000 dollar offer, just plain silly things such as making lists of scientists that were creationists who lived years and years before the publication of Origin of the Species.......

you can go on and on and on

[heel31ok]

A quick check with dictionary.com indicates that a hoax is:

1) An act intended to deceive or trick.

Might I remind you that speaking is an act. This means, therefore, that speaking in any way to mislead, distort, pervert, corrupt on the subject of evolution is a form of hoax.
I thought a hoax was a certain element of society's weapon of choice.

[Craig]

The flaws are the assumptions made in the first place!

This is silly. Over and over again, you and heel keep repeating about how evolution is flawed because it makes assumptions and people then proceed to find evidence to support evolution. However, this assertion is false, and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Let's take a look at what dittohead not! said about science:

The scientific method is all about explaining observed facts through observation and experimentation. Once someone thinks he has a good explaination for the observed facts, and has conducted a few experiments that show that the explaination is probably correct, he has an hypothesis, an educated guess. Once many different people have obtained the same results independently over time, then the hypothesis becomes a theory. A theory is accepted as fact until it is disproven.

Now, if what you are asserting about evolution starting with an assumption and then trying to make the facts "fit" it is true, it has to start at the very beginning of the scientific method. In other words, in order for a theory to be "bad science", one has to start with the theory before anything else. Hitler, for example, was promoting what you described when he started with the idea of a superior Aryan German race and then told Nazi scientists to find evidence supporting this belief. Notice in dittohead's description of the scientific method that the first thing that should occur is observation, rather than an idea or theory.

If we look at The Origin of Species, we see that Charles Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution while philosophizing one day, and then proceeded to try to prove it. Rather, he was a Christian naturalist who made various voyages and made many observations about species during that time. One such observation was the fact that birds in the Galapagoes that ate specific types of food had similar beaks to birds in Europe that ate the same type of food, despite the fact that the two species were halfway around the world from each other. This and other observations lead Darwin to search for some sort of answer that would explain these observed phenomenon. Eventually, that answer was realized in the Theory of Evolution. It was at this point that biologists began to look for evidence that supported or did not support the theory.

You may disagree that the evidence out there supports evolution. But regardless of whether it does or does not, your claim that evolution begins with an idea and looks for evidence to prove it is patently false. Evolution began with observations, then it developed as an idea, and then people began to look for evidence for or against it. The fact that evolution proceeded as an inductive form of reasoning, just like the scientific method that dittohead not! describes, proves that it is not bad science and is valid under the scientific method.

[heel31ok]

This is silly. Over and over again, you and heel keep repeating about how evolution is flawed because it makes assumptions and people then proceed to find evidence to support evolution. However, this assertion is false, and displays a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Let's take a look at what dittohead not! said about science:



Now, if what you are asserting about evolution starting with an assumption and then trying to make the facts "fit" it is true, it has to start at the very beginning of the scientific method. In other words, in order for a theory to be "bad science", one has to start with the theory before anything else. Hitler, for example, was promoting what you described when he started with the idea of a superior Aryan German race and then told Nazi scientists to find evidence supporting this belief. Notice in dittohead's description of the scientific method that the first thing that should occur is observation, rather than an idea or theory.

If we look at The Origin of Species, we see that Charles Darwin did not come up with the idea of evolution while philosophizing one day, and then proceeded to try to prove it. Rather, he was a Christian naturalist who made various voyages and made many observations about species during that time. One such observation was the fact that birds in the Galapagoes that ate specific types of food had similar beaks to birds in Europe that ate the same type of food, despite the fact that the two species were halfway around the world from each other. This and other observations lead Darwin to search for some sort of answer that would explain these observed phenomenon. Eventually, that answer was realized in the Theory of Evolution. It was at this point that biologists began to look for evidence that supported or did not support the theory.

You may disagree that the evidence out there supports evolution. But regardless of whether it does or does not, your claim that evolution begins with an idea and looks for evidence to prove it is patently false. Evolution began with observations, then it developed as an idea, and then people began to look for evidence for or against it. The fact that evolution proceeded as an inductive form of reasoning, just like the scientific method that dittohead not! describes, proves that it is not bad science and is valid under the scientific method.
actually Darwin was heavily influenced by his father and grandfather towards this belief.It did not come from his travels he just used them to validate his preconceptions.He was taught these philosophies way before he went to the Galapagoes.Then like the gold rush the race was on not to prove or disprove but merely to prove,to mine the gold that was offered in this theory.
if that is your view of how it happened I at least see why you would think that is the way it is.

[JoeR]

Proof of this?

[heel31ok]

Proof of this?
Lizzy Borden.

[burntgorilla]

What evidence is there for creationism? All I've seen is attempts to smear evolution, which doesn't prove creationism.

[Strel]

They don't have any evidence.


Even more importantly, Creationism makes no falsifiable hypotheses. As a (pseudo)scientific "theory", it cannot be tested and is therefore worthless. It is nothing more than mythology that some people choose to believe over verifiable, proven facts.

I'm not interested in arguing with Young Earth types or Creationists in general about evolution. It is pointless, because as Carl Sagan said:

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]

I am not really interested in hearing their bogus arguments against evolution. What I would like to know is what drives their apparent need to believe in things that are contradicted by objective reality, and how their peculiarly delusional conditioning is established in their minds.

[steveksux]

The flaws are the assumptions made in the first place!
And again you and heel are unable to provide a single example. Because you haven't got one.

Lies and vague made up generalities and platitudes void of specifics is all you got.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

This is what I consider to be true and it does not conflict with the Bible or with Science.

http://www.christiangeology.com/

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by steveksux
I'm sorry, do you have any information about the flaws and tricks scientists are using to hoodwink everyone into believing evolution buried in all the blather?

How about all the hoaxes over the years? That's at least one way they have tried to trick the public. You have to factor in the media over the years as well. Everytime there is some startling new discovery, it's front page news and in the news, but when it turns out to be false, it's page 32 and out of sight.So what? When something turns out to be false, it is no longer taught as science. This is true of any old theories that have been modified or replaced. Whether its the theory of relativity proving Newtonian mechanics wrong, or a deliberate hoax.

Unlike creationism which still continues to peddle nonsense like the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs and man coexisted peacefully for a time. Science has the cojones to admit when it is wrong, to shun and expel its dishonest practitioners.

Randy

[steveksux]

I thought a hoax was a certain element of society's weapon of choice.You mean the hoax of the dinosaur footprints alongside mans perpetrated by the creationists? The Paluxy river footprints if I recall correctly?

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

That was no hoax, just some gentle ribbing....or was that eve?

[neo of the mind]

You mean the hoax of the dinosaur footprints alongside mans perpetrated by the creationists? The Paluxy river footprints if I recall correctly?

Randy


I think you are exaggerating. There was mistake in analysis of what it was, that the foot prints were human, but the Creationists didn't MAKE the fossilized tracks.

[steveksux]

I think you are exaggerating. There was mistake in analysis of what it was, that the foot prints were human, but the Creationists didn't MAKE the fossilized tracks.Really? They didn't have to make the tracks. They took the tracks and made a hoax.

Mistake? Really?

Explain why it is still being touted as real by creationists...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm


Randy

[neo of the mind]

steveksux

All I was pointing out was there is a difference between misinterpreting the data and actually creating the data. It is a fact that Evolutionists have actually physically put together crap to forward their agenda, which later is discovered as such. This is not the case with Paluxy.

[steveksux]

steveksux

All I was pointing out was there is a difference between misinterpreting the data and actually creating the data. It is a fact that Evolutionists have actually physically put together crap to forward their agenda, which later is discovered as such. This is not the case with Paluxy.And I was pointing out there's a difference between science discovering and correcting mistakes and creationists refusing to abandon mistakes when they are pointed out.

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

steveksux

All I was pointing out was there is a difference between misinterpreting the data and actually creating the data. It is a fact that Evolutionists have actually physically put together crap to forward their agenda, which later is discovered as such. This is not the case with Paluxy.

I beg to differ. Puposely wetting an indistinct dino track to highlight its "human" shape in photographs is one well documented "creative" act.

Then we have the main protagonist in the creationist fraud, Carl Baugh of the doubtful degrees infamy, (both religious and scientific), who continues to attempt to resurrect his discredited assertions.

Frauds in science tend to be uncovered by other scientists using the scientific process to test the hypothesis. No such check exists within religious dogma.

[dittohead not!]

steveksux

All I was pointing out was there is a difference between misinterpreting the data and actually creating the data. It is a fact that Evolutionists have actually physically put together crap to forward their agenda, which later is discovered as such. This is not the case with Paluxy.

What exactly does that mean? Are you saying that paleontologists are planting fossils or what?

If you have any hard evidence at all of your outrageous and unfounded assertions, let's hear them. Otherwise, maybe you could write an article for the supermarket tabloids.

[steveksux]

What exactly does that mean? Are you saying that paleontologists are planting fossils or what?

If you have any hard evidence at all of your outrageous and unfounded assertions, let's hear them. Otherwise, maybe you could write an article for the supermarket tabloids.I think he was referring to some documented cases of frauds. Not paleontologists in general. Trying to remember, was it the Java man skeleton? Or Peking man? There was a case around the turn of the century when dinosaur and cave man bones were just beginning to get a lot of public attention, someone mixed ape bones with human bones to try to create a missing link skeleton.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

The "evolutionists" on this forum are just as guilty as fundamentalists in that you guys are booth stuck in a box and don't actually listen to the other side.
Why do you guys bother?

I gave a link that describes in detail a theory that explains an old earth and the 7 day creation at the same time. It allows for both, without contradicting either one of them. Let's see how dogmatic both sides are.
Who will actually read it with an open mind and not discount it after a paragraph. This will show whether you all are just wasting time and arguing for argue sake or are really sincere in seeking the truth.

http://www.christiangeology.com/

[dittohead not!]

I think he was referring to some documented cases of frauds. Not paleontologists in general. Trying to remember, was it the Java man skeleton? Or Peking man? There was a case around the turn of the century when dinosaur and cave man bones were just beginning to get a lot of public attention, someone mixed ape bones with human bones to try to create a missing link skeleton.

Randy

There have been documented cases of fraud, to be sure. Those cases have been uncovered by other scientists and shown to be phony. There was a famous case right here in California in which a skull was found and perported by the finder to be from ancient man. The truth that soon came to light was that the skull belolnged to an unfortunate miner '49er. The case was concluded by naming a county "Calaveras", Spanish for "skulls."

None of that really detracts in any way from the overall theory of evolution, or from the scientific method.

[steveksux]

There have been documented cases of fraud, to be sure. Those cases have been uncovered by other scientists and shown to be phony. There was a famous case right here in California in which a skull was found and perported by the finder to be from ancient man. The truth that soon came to light was that the skull belolnged to an unfortunate miner '49er. The case was concluded by naming a county "Calaveras", Spanish for "skulls."

None of that really detracts in any way from the overall theory of evolution, or from the scientific method.Agreed, but I don't think Neo was painting all of science as fraudulent like Heel and Sub were. I don't think he was taking a few isolated cases to broad brush the whole lot of them, which is what I thought you assumed based on that original response...

Randy

[steveksux]

The "evolutionists" on this forum are just as guilty as fundamentalists in that you guys are booth stuck in a box and don't actually listen to the other side.
Why do you guys bother?

I gave a link that describes in detail a theory that explains an old earth and the 7 day creation at the same time. It allows for both, without contradicting either one of them. Let's see how dogmatic both sides are.
Who will actually read it with an open mind and not discount it after a paragraph. This will show whether you all are just wasting time and arguing for argue sake or are really sincere in seeking the truth.

http://www.christiangeology.com/What does it say about dinosaurs?

Randy

[FlyingGuineapig]

The "evolutionists" on this forum are just as guilty as fundamentalists in that you guys are booth stuck in a box and don't actually listen to the other side.
Why do you guys bother?

I gave a link that describes in detail a theory that explains an old earth and the 7 day creation at the same time. It allows for both, without contradicting either one of them. Let's see how dogmatic both sides are.
Who will actually read it with an open mind and not discount it after a paragraph. This will show whether you all are just wasting time and arguing for argue sake or are really sincere in seeking the truth.

http://www.christiangeology.com/

Hmm, well, the only "scientific" info listed on the page is this:
Science remains at a loss to explain the anomaly of an extraordinary body of evidence indicating global massive volcanism, gigantic tidal waves, seismic activity, large temperature swings, and mysterious mega fauna extinctions across the face of the Earth about 12,000 to 10,000 Radio Carbon years ago
My geology is a bit rusty - I don't recall this. A massive worldwide flood / earthquake that occured 10,000-12,000 years ago? (or was the flood/earthquake localized to the Middle East? - the site seems to imply global)

Any links to mainstream science on where this comes from?

[dittohead not!]

The "evolutionists" on this forum are just as guilty as fundamentalists in that you guys are booth stuck in a box and don't actually listen to the other side.
Why do you guys bother?

I gave a link that describes in detail a theory that explains an old earth and the 7 day creation at the same time. It allows for both, without contradicting either one of them. Let's see how dogmatic both sides are.
Who will actually read it with an open mind and not discount it after a paragraph. This will show whether you all are just wasting time and arguing for argue sake or are really sincere in seeking the truth.

http://www.christiangeology.com/

Now, there's an intersting hypothesis. Not only does it come up with a way in which the Earth could have been created in 7 days without discounting the evidence that it is much older than indicated by Genesis, but it also answers the obvious question:

If a day is the time it takes for th Earth to rotate once on its axis, then what was a day before the Earth was created?

Very creative.

[steveksux]

The "evolutionists" on this forum are just as guilty as fundamentalists in that you guys are booth stuck in a box and don't actually listen to the other side.
Why do you guys bother?

I gave a link that describes in detail a theory that explains an old earth and the 7 day creation at the same time. It allows for both, without contradicting either one of them. Let's see how dogmatic both sides are.
Who will actually read it with an open mind and not discount it after a paragraph. This will show whether you all are just wasting time and arguing for argue sake or are really sincere in seeking the truth.

http://www.christiangeology.com/The problem is science is not based on studying religious manuscripts to get the correct interpretation. Its commendable that these guys are reinterpreting scripture to acknoledge scientific discoveries to some extent. But that is reactive, not active. Science is still driving the process, making the discoveries that require reinterpretations of the bible to avoid conflicts.

It sounds more in line with traditional Christian denominations that do not ignore science.


But they're still clinging to some remnants of creationist mythology that are unsupportable.

Summation: The truth of these passages and the emerging evidence affirms that true Modern Man is a newcomer to the face of this old planet. True Man, made in the image of God, has only been on the Earth about 6,000 years. He is a created creature, he did not evolve. Although he was preceded on the face of the Earth by lineages of "humanoids" of varying morphology closely approaching modern anatomical similarity, Adam and his descendants (us) are unique. That uniqueness is defined as creation in the "image of God," and that definition eludes scientific quantification.http://www.christiangeology.com/lifeform.html They're trying to have their cake and eat it too, split the difference to some degree. But there are cro magnon fossils (modern man) much older than 6,000 years old.

Its simply watered down creationism with a slice of science for flavor. But I give them credit for at least attempting to reconcile science with their beliefs instead of ignoring it, closing their eyes, holding their ears and going "LA-LA-LA-LA" like the fundamentalists.

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

I think he was referring to some documented cases of frauds. Not paleontologists in general. Trying to remember, was it the Java man skeleton? Or Peking man? There was a case around the turn of the century when dinosaur and cave man bones were just beginning to get a lot of public attention, someone mixed ape bones with human bones to try to create a missing link skeleton.

Randy
That sounds like Piltdown Man..
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html

[steveksux]

That sounds like Piltdown Man..
http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.htmlThat was it... couldn't quite remember the exact name.

Randy

[heel31ok]

Agreed, but I don't think Neo was painting all of science as fraudulent like Heel and Sub were. I don't think he was taking a few isolated cases to broad brush the whole lot of them, which is what I thought you assumed based on that original response...

Randy
you are right, you don't think.I do not paint all science as fraudulent as I do not lump evolution in with science. at this point it is mere religion and fairytale.Just like your analysis of evolution your analysis of my comments are nowhere near accurate.
You paint all of science as suspect when you try to link it with the deception of evolution.

[heel31ok]

You mean the hoax of the dinosaur footprints alongside mans perpetrated by the creationists? The Paluxy river footprints if I recall correctly?

Randy
no you missed it ,look back and you may figure it out.If not I have moved on already. as far as the evidence you call for there is plenty.I just like talikngabout how deceptive evolutionis, which it is .I also like saying how there is no evidence for it , which there is not.
Now this Paluxy or whatever thing is not just a single find there are multiople finds there that have not been called into question I think it is over a hundred.

[steveksux]

Now this Paluxy or whatever thing is not just a single find there are multiople finds there that have not been called into question I think it is over a hundred.Yet they're still using Paluxy, I guess they have such shoddy flimsy evidence that points to creationism they can't afford to let go of even the hoaxes. :lol:

Randy

[steveksux]

you are right, you don't think.The guy that ignores science and sticks to interpretations of Christianity that have been discarded nearly a century ago accuses someone else of not thinking. That's pretty funny. Too bad you intended it as an insult.
I do not paint all science as fraudulent as I do not lump evolution in with science. at this point it is mere religion and fairytale.You're halfway right, you just admitted religion is a fairy tale. Too bad evolution is beyond your comprehension.
You paint all of science as suspect when you try to link it with the deception of evolution.Too much of science backs up evolution. You have to throw most of it out if you continue with the charade of claiming evolution is not scientific.

Randy

[Craig]

Lizzy Borden.

Umm Heel, do you want to actually give some proof of this? A little girl who apparently axed both her parents to death doesn't really relate to how and when basic premises of evolution arose.

[neo of the mind]

"Agreed, but I don't think Neo was painting all of science as fraudulent like Heel and Sub were. I don't think he was taking a few isolated cases to broad brush the whole lot of them, which is what I thought you assumed based on that original response..."

Thanks for clarifying for me steveksux. Yes, I was not saying all Scientists do this. It is a fact of life that people will falsify evidence to forward their agenda, careers and in the case of academia or government funded entities, their budget/grants.



"What does it say about dinosaurs?"

steveksux - I don't think the theory disputes dinosaurs at all, they were on the earth in the time frames that Science shows, which was between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2. They died periodically of course and account for some fossils. Science states, correct me if I am wrong, that they became extinct rather quickly due to catastrophic changes in the earth, which would explain more fossils. The ones that were not fossilized became what occurs normall y to other dead animals, dirt.



"Hmm, well, the only "scientific" info listed on the page is this:" - FGpig, well, not certain that the sites purpose is to contain hard data, but rather more of general information that contains the foundaion of the theory. There are plenty of other pages and links, so there may be more than you think.


"Now, there's an intersting hypothesis. Not only does it come up with a way in which the Earth could have been created in 7 days without discounting the evidence that it is much older than indicated by Genesis, but it also answers the obvious question:

If a day is the time it takes for th Earth to rotate once on its axis, then what was a day before the Earth was created?

Very creative."

- dittohead not!, well to be more correct, the theory is that there was an orignal creation and a old earth with dinosaurs and other creatures now extinct, then there was a new creation that starts after Gen 1:2 that took place within 6,000 years. That creation was more of a transformation of what was already there, but in a "destroyed" form, hence 6,000 years.



http://www.christiangeology.com/lifeform.html They're trying to have their cake and eat it too, split the difference to some degree. But there are cro magnon fossils (modern man) much older than 6,000 years old.


Steveksux, I looked at the link but the author states that the Cro-Magnon remains were 60,000 years old, so the author is not contradicting what you are saying??

"Recently the remains of an "anatomically modern human" (Cro-Magnon) found in Australia, have revealed that it was at least 60,000 years old and had a mitochondria DNA generic marker which is now extinct. That is, nobody today is descended from that particular line of beings, at least on the female side. This find has raised serious debate between the "Out of Africa" and "Regional Continuity" evolutionary camps. Will future testing of other Cro-Magnon remains reveal similar DNA surprises? If the Bible is true then the prediction is that they will."



So, this theory does not contradict Science and I don't see where it contradicts the Bible as far as a old earth that was destroyed between Genesis 1:1 and a "fix" of the existing earth along with new creations at Genesis 1:2 forward.

The questions that remain in my mind would be if there was evolution during the old earth or is evolution incorrectly being thought as the solution of connecting the old world and the new world along with it's explanation. In other words, both the Evolutionist camp and the Fundamentalist camp think that the earth came into being only once and was continuous after that point. In reality, the theory is there was an inital creation that goes back an undertermined period of at least millions of years, that creation was made a "ruin" and then there was a "regeneration" and a second creative process that started about 6,000 years before Adam. The Evolutionists are trying to explain, besides the old earth, the life forms that existed in the old earth and assuming that they continued through without a break. This theory states that is not the case but that all those old earth life forms were destroyed and new life forms were created, that in a lot of instances were similar. Why would that not be the case though, could God not have chosen to make creatures for the new creation that were similar to the old?

[steveksux]

"Agreed, but I don't think Neo was painting all of science as fraudulent like Heel and Sub were. I don't think he was taking a few isolated cases to broad brush the whole lot of them, which is what I thought you assumed based on that original response..."

Thanks for clarifying for me steveksux. Yes, I was not saying all Scientists do this. It is a fact of life that people will falsify evidence to forward their agenda, careers and in the case of academia or government funded entities, their budget/grants.No problem at all, glad to help, I try to be fair to all. If we're going to argue, lets argue about what we actually said, right? :D



"What does it say about dinosaurs?"

steveksux - I don't think the theory disputes dinosaurs at all, they were on the earth in the time frames that Science shows, which was between Gen1:1 and Gen1:2. They died periodically of course and account for some fossils. Science states, correct me if I am wrong, that they became extinct rather quickly due to catastrophic changes in the earth, which would explain more fossils. The ones that were not fossilized became what occurs normall y to other dead animals, dirt.Not sure of the time frames in your iterpretation of Gen 1:1 to Gen 1:2, but as long as you're talking millions of years ago, and you don't have humans and dinosaurs in the same timeframe, that sounds like its compatible.


http://www.christiangeology.com/lifeform.html They're trying to have their cake and eat it too, split the difference to some degree. But there are cro magnon fossils (modern man) much older than 6,000 years old.


Steveksux, I looked at the link but the author states that the Cro-Magnon remains were 60,000 years old, so the author is not contradicting what you are saying??

"Recently the remains of an "anatomically modern human" (Cro-Magnon) found in Australia, have revealed that it was at least 60,000 years old and had a mitochondria DNA generic marker which is now extinct. That is, nobody today is descended from that particular line of beings, at least on the female side. This find has raised serious debate between the "Out of Africa" and "Regional Continuity" evolutionary camps. Will future testing of other Cro-Magnon remains reveal similar DNA surprises? If the Bible is true then the prediction is that they will."I didn't see that part, but I'm not sure how they reconcile that with the summation I quoted which put an age limit of 6,000 years on "True Man". Are they saying the 60,000 year old cro-magnons are not "True Man"? Those cro-mag fossils are physically indistinguishable from modern skeletons.

Randy

[brainpan]

ah yes another missing link to contend with.More super-spamming troll maneuvers that fail to mask the fact you support lying for Christ.

[dittohead not!]

Of course if you understand that there was no such thing as a "day" before the Earth was created, then it follows that the 6,000 year age of the Earth has no basis in fact, either scriptural or scientific. If you can accept that, then there is no conflict between creation and evolution. One is from the realm of science, the other from religion. One has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the other a matter of faith. Both can be correct. Therefore, there is no real need to come up with an old earth, new earth hypothesis, or anything else.

[neo of the mind]

Of course if you understand that there was no such thing as a "day" before the Earth was created, then it follows that the 6,000 year age of the Earth has no basis in fact, either scriptural or scientific.
Huh? Nor could a 20 million year age of the Earth have a basis in fact UNTIL the Earth was created.


If you can accept that, then there is no conflict between creation and evolution. One is from the realm of science, the other from religion. One has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the other a matter of faith. Both can be correct. Therefore, there is no real need to come up with an old earth, new earth hypothesis, or anything else.

The rest of your comments don't make any sense in relation to the foundation of your comment, which is in blue. Please re-write so I can understand. Thanks.

[neo of the mind]

I didn't see that part, but I'm not sure how they reconcile that with the summation I quoted which put an age limit of 6,000 years on "True Man". Are they saying the 60,000 year old cro-magnons are not "True Man"? Those cro-mag fossils are physically indistinguishable from modern skeletons.

Randy

explanation -

"and had a mitochondria DNA generic marker which is now extinct. That is, nobody today is descended from that particular line of beings, at least on the female side."

and

"Summation: The truth of these passages and the emerging evidence affirms that true Modern Man is a newcomer to the face of this old planet. True Man, made in the image of God, has only been on the Earth about 6,000 years. He is a created creature, he did not evolve. Although he was preceded on the face of the Earth by lineages of "humanoids" of varying morphology closely approaching modern anatomical similarity, Adam and his descendants (us) are unique. That uniqueness is defined as creation in the "image of God," and that definition eludes scientific quantification."

[dittohead not!]

Of course if you understand that there was no such thing as a "day" before the Earth was created, then it follows that the 6,000 year age of the Earth has no basis in fact, either scriptural or scientific.
Huh? Nor could a 20 million year age of the Earth have a basis in fact UNTIL the Earth was created.


If you can accept that, then there is no conflict between creation and evolution. One is from the realm of science, the other from religion. One has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the other a matter of faith. Both can be correct. Therefore, there is no real need to come up with an old earth, new earth hypothesis, or anything else.

The rest of your comments don't make any sense in relation to the foundation of your comment, which is in blue. Please re-write so I can understand. Thanks.

That's assuming that the 6,000 year figure is based on the idea that the Earth was created in 6 days. Not everyone uses that method.

In fact very few people believe in the young earth idea at all.

[heel31ok]

Umm Heel, do you want to actually give some proof of this? A little girl who apparently axed both her parents to death doesn't really relate to how and when basic premises of evolution arose.
I never said she did. This was an excercise in who is really paying attention. If you go back you may see what I posted and why? so far 2 are not.

[heel31ok]

More super-spamming troll maneuvers that fail to mask the fact you support lying for Christ.
Of course it fails to mask because there is nothing to mask. It was more like a witty play on a concept from the evolutionary debate. Again an evolutionist will try to make more out of it than it ever could be. Thanks for that. :) Maybe if we wait a million years you may turn out correct. By my radiometric dating system I have determined that this tactic is as old as the hills ,or should I say strata. :D
If you could recognize a lie you would not be defending one so vehemently.

[heel31ok]

That's assuming that the 6,000 year figure is based on the idea that the Earth was created in 6 days. Not everyone uses that method.

In fact very few people believe in the young earth idea at all.
The few, the proud, the Me!

[Craig]

I never said she did. This was an excercise in who is really paying attention. If you go back you may see what I posted and why? so far 2 are not.

All you said was "actually Darwin was heavily influenced by his father and grandfather towards this belief.It did not come from his travels he just used them to validate his preconceptions.He was taught these philosophies way before he went to the Galapagoes.Then like the gold rush the race was on not to prove or disprove but merely to prove,to mine the gold that was offered in this theory.
if that is your view of how it happened I at least see why you would think that is the way it is."

You provided no evidence to support this assertion, hence why JoeR asked his quesiton, which lead to a response of "Lizzy Borden". As for paying attention, the issue here is you clarity of communication, and nothing else.

[brainpan]

Of course it fails to mask because there is nothing to mask.There's plenty to mask. ID is continually presented as science, which is deceptive.
...an evolutionist will try to make more out of it than it ever could be.Scientists follow where the evidence leads.
If you could recognize a lie you would not be defending one so vehemently.If you're so sure that evolutionary theory is a mass conspiracy to deceive people, then make your case. Otherwise, you're just spam-trolling and I don't think it is fair for us to put up with it.

[sub_zer0]

All you said was "actually Darwin was heavily influenced by his father and grandfather towards this belief.It did not come from his travels he just used them to validate his preconceptions.He was taught these philosophies way before he went to the Galapagoes.Then like the gold rush the race was on not to prove or disprove but merely to prove,to mine the gold that was offered in this theory.
if that is your view of how it happened I at least see why you would think that is the way it is."

You provided no evidence to support this assertion, hence why JoeR asked his quesiton, which lead to a response of "Lizzy Borden". As for paying attention, the issue here is you clarity of communication, and nothing else.

How bout this one. Natural selection was developed by Ed Blythe, a Christian using a Biblical, creationist model nearly 25 years before Darwin.

His study concluded just as Darwin's still does today, that natural selection leads to adaptation, which is the filtering of traits that already exist in the gene pool.

Having said that, it is obvious people were not interested in the scientific studies, from either view. The science didn't change in the 25 years before Darwin or the hundred some odd years after.

The point is, people responded to Darwin's because of the philosophical, religious implications of it!

[steveksux]

I didn't see that part, but I'm not sure how they reconcile that with the summation I quoted which put an age limit of 6,000 years on "True Man". Are they saying the 60,000 year old cro-magnons are not "True Man"? Those cro-mag fossils are physically indistinguishable from modern skeletons.

Randy

explanation -

"and had a mitochondria DNA generic marker which is now extinct. That is, nobody today is descended from that particular line of beings, at least on the female side."Nope, doesn't cut it. There's plenty of maternal lineages that died out, and die out every generation. The earliest mitochondrial DNA of the maternal lineage that DID survive to the present day (Mitochondrial Eve so to speak) was from around 150000 years ago. Farther back than the 60,000 year old one that didn't make it. The numbers don't add up. Nothing special about 6,000 years ago to support a difference between True man and Cro-Magnon man.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Nope, doesn't cut it. There's plenty of maternal lineages that died out, and die out every generation. The earliest mitochondrial DNA of the maternal lineage that DID survive to the present day (Mitochondrial Eve so to speak) was from around 150000 years ago. Farther back than the 60,000 year old one that didn't make it. The numbers don't add up. Nothing special about 6,000 years ago to support a difference between True man and Cro-Magnon man.

Randy

Evolutionists have tried to evade the force of these results by countering that the high mutation rate only occurs in certain stretches of DNA called ‘hot spots’ and/or that the high (observed) rate causes back mutations which ‘erase’ the effects of this high rate. Therefore, conveniently, the rate is assumed to be high over a short timespan, but effectively low over a long timespan. However, this is special pleading to get out of a difficulty, and the burden of proof is on evolutionists to sustain the vast ages for ‘Eve’ in the face of these documented, modern-day mutation rates. These are indeed encouraging results for creationists. In summary:

1. The mitochondrial Eve findings were, in the first instance, in line with biblically-based expectations; while not proving the biblical Eve, they were consistent with her reality, and were not predicted by evolutionary theory.
2. The dates assigned to mitochondrial Eve were said by evolutionists to rule out the biblical Eve. But these dates were based upon ‘molecular clock’ assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs about when certain evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions of years ago.
3. When these assumed rates were checked out against the real world, preliminary results indicate that the mitochondrial ‘molecular clock’ is ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believed possible. If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 to 6,500 years ago, right in the ballpark for the true ‘mother of all living’ (Genesis 3:20).
4. These real-time findings also seriously weaken the case from mitochondrial DNA which argued (erroneously) that Neandertals were not true humans.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp#r3

[Dangerrmouse]

... "while not proving the biblical Eve, they were consistent with her reality," ...

What does this mean? Do they suggest there are different realities?

[brainpan]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp#r3We're still quoting from the source that was taken in by the tuba and bagpipe-playing cavemen April Fool's Day joke? For seven long years, I mean? :lol:

[steveksux]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/eve.asp#r32. The dates assigned to mitochondrial Eve were said by evolutionists to rule out the biblical Eve. But these dates were based upon ‘molecular clock’ assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs about when certain evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions of years ago.
3. When these assumed rates were checked out against the real world, preliminary results indicate that the mitochondrial ‘molecular clock’ is ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believed possible. If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 to 6,500 years ago, right in the ballpark for the true ‘mother of all living’ (Genesis 3:20).
I love it when they debunk themselves.

Mitochondrial eve was not the first human female. Even if you haven't misrepresented the evidence she was from 6000 years ago, that still proves that mankind was much older than that. Mitochondrial eve was the earliest common ancestor of the SURVIVING mitochondrial dna. There were plenty of other lines that existed way before her, plenty of other people existing along with mitochondrial eve. Their mitochondrial dna simply stopped being passed down to later generations when one generation along the way to the present failed to have a daughter to pass that dna down to their daughter, since that dna only follows the maternal line.

You just admitted the earth, and humanity is far older than 6000 years, Sub. Thanks for doing business with us.

Next time learn what you're talking about before you open your mouth. :sorry: :lol: :thanks: :laughter:

Randy

[steveksux]

We're still quoting from the source that was taken in by the tuba and bagpipe-playing cavemen April Fool's Day joke? For seven long years, I mean? :lol:You can laugh at how gullible AIG is. But you really have to wonder how much more gullible people have to be to still take AIG seriously once its been shown how gullible AIG is.... :lol:

Is that gullible squared?

Randy

[burntgorilla]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9389-oldest-spider-web-found-in-amber.html

I'm shocked that NewScientist would lie to me like this. This web isn't 110 million years old, it could only be about four thousand years old, because a web clearly couldn't survive the flood, and so it must have come after. The insects found were all on Noah's Ark, they didn't evolve, but they only became extinct a few thousand years ago because.... um....

[neo of the mind]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9389-oldest-spider-web-found-in-amber.html

I'm shocked that NewScientist would lie to me like this. This web isn't 110 million years old, it could only be about four thousand years old, because a web clearly couldn't survive the flood, and so it must have come after. The insects found were all on Noah's Ark, they didn't evolve, but they only became extinct a few thousand years ago because.... um....


Is this condusive to serious discussion or would you like for the Creation camp to start making stupid, monkey boy jokes and derisions? Seems like the debate here has gone down to the lowest denominator, sarcasm with a touch of malice.

[dittohead not!]

Is this condusive to serious discussion or would you like for the Creation camp to start making stupid, monkey boy jokes and derisions? Seems like the debate here has gone down to the lowest denominator, sarcasm with a touch of malice.

It's difficult to have a serious discussion debating whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, as some have interpreted ancient writings to mean it is, or whether it is much older, as all of the evidence found thus far has shown it to be.

The debate between creation and evolution is much easier. There is no conflict between the idea of a creator and the manner in which creation was accomplished.

[neo of the mind]

It's difficult to have a serious discussion debating whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, as some have interpreted ancient writings to mean it is, or whether it is much older, as all of the evidence found thus far has shown it to be.

The debate between creation and evolution is much easier. There is no conflict between the idea of a creator and the manner in which creation was accomplished.

It may be difficult, but it is possible and can more enjoyable in the process if people are given respect. I notice that you say "ancient writings", which is showing respect, you could say "fable book" or "fiction for retards", etc. That is a start in getting anyone to listen to what you are saying. I am not saying anyone has parlayed that yet, but it appears to me, being new, that if it has not already surfaced, it is about to.

"The debate between creation and evolution is much easier. There is no conflict between the idea of a creator and the manner in which creation was accomplished."

I would agree that the debate would be easier and less one sided in this regard.


dittohead not! - I think those in the discussion of evolution and creation need to recognize the quandry that both sides face in the realization that they are wrong.

In order for Evolution to be truth, the earth has to be millions of years old with no full extinction of life.

In order for Young Earth Creationist to be truth, the earth has to be roughly 6,000 years old.

The fear that the Evolutionist has is that if they are wrong, then there is a God and that God would not be smilin at them.

The fear that the Young Earth Creationist has is that if they are wrong, they may be wrong on other things in regards to the Bible and may miss the boat on Salvation or rock their faith so much that they no longer believe in God. The problem with that is once your mind and heart believes in God, anything else is such a large drop on the scale, life becomes rather moot.

Of course this is just my opinion and not based on a scientific poll. :o

[heel31ok]

All you said was "actually Darwin was heavily influenced by his father and grandfather towards this belief.It did not come from his travels he just used them to validate his preconceptions.He was taught these philosophies way before he went to the Galapagoes.Then like the gold rush the race was on not to prove or disprove but merely to prove,to mine the gold that was offered in this theory.
if that is your view of how it happened I at least see why you would think that is the way it is."

You provided no evidence to support this assertion, hence why JoeR asked his quesiton, which lead to a response of "Lizzy Borden". As for paying attention, the issue here is you clarity of communication, and nothing else.
My response was in refenrece to my previous post before responding to your post.
The response to you is common knowledge so I thought he must have meant the post before that one.My bad. :sorry:

[Dangerrmouse]

"The debate between creation and evolution is much easier. There is no conflict between the idea of a creator and the manner in which creation was accomplished."
...
The fear that the Evolutionist has is that if they are wrong, then there is a God and that God would not be smilin at them.

How do you reconcile agreement with the first statement, then asserting the second contrary viewpoint?

[neo of the mind]

How do you reconcile agreement with the first statement, then asserting the second contrary viewpoint?

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I was referring only to the first sentence.
"The debate between creation and evolution is much easier."

I would also like to apologize and correct a general statement that I made, which was namely:

"The fear that the Evolutionist has is that if they are wrong, then there is a God and that God would not be smilin at them."

I made a wide sweeping statement there and will correct in that there are people that accept evolution as fact and also consider themselves Christians or people of another faith for that matter.

Now, there is no doubt a more vocal majority of people that agree with Evolution that are professed Atheists and those are the people that my statement was really focused on.

I was just thinking today about the stars and what I was reading about them in relation to this controversy. I will create a new post that hopefully could just discuss that.

[dittohead not!]

It may be difficult, but it is possible and can more enjoyable in the process if people are given respect. I notice that you say "ancient writings", which is showing respect, you could say "fable book" or "fiction for retards", etc. That is a start in getting anyone to listen to what you are saying. I am not saying anyone has parlayed that yet, but it appears to me, being new, that if it has not already surfaced, it is about to.

True enough. Terms like "fable book" to describe a text some consider sacred adds nothing to a debate, nor does the term "retard." "Ancient writings" is simply an accurate description that anyone should be able to accept, regardless of their religious leanings.

"The debate between creation and evolution is much easier. There is no conflict between the idea of a creator and the manner in which creation was accomplished."

I would agree that the debate would be easier and less one sided in this regard.


dittohead not! - I think those in the discussion of evolution and creation need to recognize the quandry that both sides face in the realization that they are wrong.

In order for Evolution to be truth, the earth has to be millions of years old with no full extinction of life.

Yes, that is one of the basic concepts of the theory of evolution. It has stood the test of time, but, should it somehow be proven false, then the scientists would do what scientists always do: Formulate a new hypothesis based on the newly discovered facts. It's hard to imagine just what those facts might be, however.

In order for Young Earth Creationist to be truth, the earth has to be roughly 6,000 years old.

The fear that the Evolutionist has is that if they are wrong, then there is a God and that God would not be smilin at them.

Why should God care that science got it wrong? Remember, there is no conflict between evolution and a creator. It is quite possible that evolution describes how god created life. Both concepts operate independently, one from a religious perspective, the other scientific.

The fear that the Young Earth Creationist has is that if they are wrong, they may be wrong on other things in regards to the Bible and may miss the boat on Salvation or rock their faith so much that they no longer believe in God. The problem with that is once your mind and heart believes in God, anything else is such a large drop on the scale, life becomes rather moot.

Of course this is just my opinion and not based on a scientific poll. :o

If the young Earth Creationists got it wrong, which I beleive thy did, it just means that the Earth is older than they thought. The age of the Earth has nothing at all to do with whether God created it.

The concept of god creating the Earth and life on it is independent of the idea that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god, nor has it tried. It has done a really good