Evolution or Creationism

[Abdju]

I meant, why can't God've created science?

Which "God"?

*shrugs* I always got my head in knots trying to work this one out, but it's not a hugely important theological issue to me so I should leave it be.

[Apollonesia]

AAAHHHRGHH, THERE ARE HEATHENS EVVERYYWHEREEE. HALP!!!

Ahem, sorry. Creationism, my child, creationism. We are all G-d's creations. Even those who disagree with the Lord's Divine Power are still His children.

[Abdju]

Any god, I'm not going to pick. I was just putting the idea out there.



And that's your reason? Because education is secular?

If you bring up "God" then you have to pick. And yes, public education, at least, should be secular. You want to teach mythology as science, open a private school.

Or take government money and open up a "free school", just like all the dodgey cults are doing here

[Norstal]

AAAHHHRGHH, THERE ARE HEATHENS EVVERYYWHEREEE. HALP!!!

Ahem, sorry. Creationism, my child, creationism. We are all G-d's creations. Even those who disagree with the Lord's Divine Power are still His children.

Testable proof for creationism please or don't shove it down our throats.

5 times and counting.

[Abdju]

AAAHHHRGHH, THERE ARE HEATHENS EVVERYYWHEREEE. HALP!!!

Ahem, sorry. Creationism, my child, creationism. We are all G-d's creations. Even those who disagree with the Lord's Divine Power are still His children.

Testable proof for creationism please or don't shove it down our throats.

5 times and counting.

You failed the poe test, my friend

[Apollonesia]

AAAHHHRGHH, THERE ARE HEATHENS EVVERYYWHEREEE. HALP!!!

Ahem, sorry. Creationism, my child, creationism. We are all G-d's creations. Even those who disagree with the Lord's Divine Power are still His children.

Testable proof for creationism please or don't shove it down our throats.

5 times and counting.

Look to the Heavens, my child!

[Avenio]

God was Francis Bacon?

You can't proove he isn't

If he was Sir Francis Bacon, then it would explain a lot of things; there has been some question of whether or not Bacon was a homosexual, which, given that God was so repressed about homosexuality in the Old Testament, would mean that he's got quite a psychological complex going. Though Bacon was generally a pretty good person, in contrast with the fire-and-brimstone God, so I guess *something* changed along the line. Maybe he met a good man?

[Norstal]

Testable proof for creationism please or don't shove it down our throats.

5 times and counting.

You failed the poe test, my friend

Power over Ethernet? Nah, my Ethernet is still good.

[Apollonesia]

Testable proof for creationism please or don't shove it down our throats.

5 times and counting.

You failed the poe test, my friend

As in Poe's Law?

Oh, I'm quite serious about what I've said...

[Amorgas]

And that's your reason? Because education is secular?

Yes? That and Intelligent Design is not empirical.

Like I said, 4 times now, give me a testable proof for creationism and I will reward anyone who does it with $1 million.

I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be secular. I was just saying that that shouldn't be your reasoning for ruling out that a God coul've created science. You give me proof that any god of anybody doesn't exist....

Any god, I'm not going to pick. I was just putting the idea out there.



And that's your reason? Because education is secular?

If you bring up "God" then you have to pick. And yes, public education, at least, should be secular. You want to teach mythology as science, open a private school.

No I don't. I'm not going to pick what God I mean so you can nit pick that religion. I never said it shouldn't be secular.

[Norstal]

Testable proof for creationism please or don't shove it down our throats.

5 times and counting.

Look to the Heavens, my child!

All I see is Mars in my telescope. There seems to be evidence of bacteria-like structures there.

[Apollonesia]

Look to the Heavens, my child!

All I see is Mars in my telescope. There seems to be evidence of bacteria-like structures there.

Look five metres to the right...

[Norstal]

Yes? That and Intelligent Design is not empirical.

Like I said, 4 times now, give me a testable proof for creationism and I will reward anyone who does it with $1 million.

I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be secular. I was just saying that that shouldn't be your reasoning for ruling out that a God coul've created science. You give me proof that any god of anybody doesn't exist....

You deliberately choose ignorance and empirical evidence then? Well, there's nothing I can do about that.

[Norstal]

All I see is Mars in my telescope. There seems to be evidence of bacteria-like structures there.

Look five metres to the right...

Ooooh, I see a rock and it says: "Creationism is a lie. Evolution is the truth. We Martians need to move on as a race."

[Amorgas]

I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be secular. I was just saying that that shouldn't be your reasoning for ruling out that a God coul've created science. You give me proof that any god of anybody doesn't exist....

You deliberately choose ignorance and empirical evidence then? Well, there's nothing I can do about that.

You're good at this. I can see you've been doing this for pages and pages.

[Abdju]

No I don't. I'm not going to pick what God I mean so you can nit pick that religion. I never said it shouldn't be secular.

You have to pick a side if you want to debate. The nature of gods differ, so to properly debate the topic you have to define what you consider to be a god and stick with that. If you feel that religion can be "nit picked" apart by solid arguement, then perhaps that says something more about the religion you are using, rather than the person opposing you.

[Norstal]

No I don't. I'm not going to pick what God I mean so you can nit pick that religion. I never said it shouldn't be secular.

You have to pick a side if you want to debate. The nature of gods differ, so to properly debate the topic you have to define what you consider to be a god and stick with that. If you feel that religion can be "nit picked" apart by solid arguement, then perhaps that says something more about the religion you are using, rather than the person opposing you.

He says any god will do, but his heart says Jesus. *nods*

[Apollonesia]

Look five metres to the right...

Ooooh, I see a rock and it says: "Creationism is a lie. Evolution is the truth. We Martians need to move on as a race."

The first thing the irreligious fools do: they demand PROOF that the Lord exists. However, how are we to show them in a way that they won't keep asking for more proof? It's ridiculous.

You're a bit rude, I might add. You can't accept the fact that others have different opinions, and you immediately say "Nay!" to our beliefs. For shame!

[Farnhamia]

No I don't. I'm not going to pick what God I mean so you can nit pick that religion. I never said it shouldn't be secular.

You have to pick a side if you want to debate. The nature of gods differ, so to properly debate the topic you have to define what you consider to be a god and stick with that. If you feel that religion can be "nit picked" apart by solid arguement, then perhaps that says something more about the religion you are using, rather than the person opposing you.

And considering the colossal nit-picking creationists do - "Show me every single fossil that ever was fossilized, in order, with dates accurate to within a fortnight" - I don't see why asking for a little detail, like "which god" is such an imposition.

[Farnhamia]

Ooooh, I see a rock and it says: "Creationism is a lie. Evolution is the truth. We Martians need to move on as a race."

The first thing the irreligious fools do: they demand PROOF that the Lord exists. However, how are we to show them in a way that they won't keep asking for more proof? It's ridiculous.

You're a bit rude, I might add. You can't accept the fact that others have different opinions, and you immediately say "Nay!" to our beliefs. For shame!

Piffle. You can believe whatever you like, just stop trying to present your beliefs as facts. As you yourself said, they are "opinions."

[Norstal]

Ooooh, I see a rock and it says: "Creationism is a lie. Evolution is the truth. We Martians need to move on as a race."

The first thing the irreligious fools do: they demand PROOF that the Lord exists. However, how are we to show them in a way that they won't keep asking for more proof? It's ridiculous.

You're a bit rude, I might add. You can't accept the fact that others have different opinions, and you immediately say "Nay!" to our beliefs. For shame!

Rude? You're the one that presented a falsifiable evidence when I clearly requested a testable one. Testable means that I can reproduce the results on my own. Looking up in the sky is the same as looking into a microscope: it doesn't do crap.

I mean really, if I were to make a scientific achievement in Biology and I ask people to "just look into the microscope!" I'll look like a fucking idiot.

[Apollonesia]

The first thing the irreligious fools do: they demand PROOF that the Lord exists. However, how are we to show them in a way that they won't keep asking for more proof? It's ridiculous.

You're a bit rude, I might add. You can't accept the fact that others have different opinions, and you immediately say "Nay!" to our beliefs. For shame!

Rude? You're the one that presented a falsifiable evidence when I clearly requested a testable one. Testable means that I can reproduce the results on my own. Looking up in the sky is the same as looking into a microscope: it doesn't do crap.

I mean really, if I were to make a scientific achievement in Biology and I ask people to "just look into the microscope!" I'll look like a fucking idiot.

There is no point in trying to show those who were raised in a non-observant environment that the Lord exists. To each her own.

[Sociobiology]

Evolution is the idea that life began as a simple organism created from inanimate matter, either through some unknown, unguided natural process or some sort of designer (I think most people would agree directed panspermia is nonsense, however ). This simple organism mutated and became every single species we see today using a process known as natural selection.

Unknown?

Evolution can also be called nonsense. Evolution argues eyes evolved 40 to 60 different times, despite the incredible complexity of an eye.

Eyes are remarkable organs, yes, but they are fairly simple to evolve. All life with photoreceptive cells currently has the same genetic machinery behind it, suggesting a common origin, and as life evolved to fill more and more complex niches eyes began to specialize; this is best demonstrated through the following video.

uh no, that is only true of Bilateria. Echinoderms, Mollusks, Cnidaria, and archeobacteria all use different genetic coding for their eyes.
but that eyes are painfully simple to evolve is true. All you need is one light sensitive protein (which there are dozens in your average human, several in the liver) even a light sensitive spot, no good for anything except being able to detect night vs day, is a huge advantage.

Evolutionists arguments rest on similarities between species which is not evidence for evolution.

Really. Do tell, why are homologous and analogous structures, like the structure of vertebrate hands suddenly invalid as evidence for evolution?

similarities alone is not evidence, the fact that those similarities follow a predictable and organized pattern IS evidence for interrelationship (evolution).

Subjects still taught in classrooms are rejected by modern evolutionists

Bohr models are quite outdated when compared to modern quantum mechanical models of the atom, but we still teach them; they serve as an important stepping stone in introducing students to much more complicated theories. Older, simpler theories can provide a useful stepping-stone to more complex ideas, as well as providing a perspective as to how our understanding of the field(s) in question has changed.

(Miller's experiment

I'm assuming you're talking about the Miller-Urey experiment, yes? In which case, though its not considered to be a correct model of abiogenesis anymore, it is still very useful both as one of the first large-scale forays into the field, and its findings are still correct within their own frame of reference. (ie still very useful as a model for the formation of amino acids in early Earth)

yea the miller is only taught by inept teachers, the experiment has been refuted ny dozens of experiments using more accurate data that yeilded BETTER RESULTS. most recently the Gerland/ Sutherland experiment which created RNA from naturally occuring material. the problem it turns out was that other experiments were not starting with simple enough precursors, in other words you have to start with simpler molecules to make make the experiment work.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/ ... cleotides/
Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions Matthew W. Powner, Beatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009.

I'll repeat that because it is important
To create the complex molecules of life, previous experiments were starting with goo that was too complex, and that is why they failed.

and the pepper moth experiment).

The peppered moth experiment is by no means incorrect. Unless of course you have a profound revelation to deliver unto the scientific community, that is.

stop helping you don't know enough, the peppered moth experiment was crap, the experimenter never really did any experiments, not that it matters because the peppered moth was never used as proof for evolution by the scientific community just the textbook publishers.

try this for reading material, its a very useful site.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Evolutionists found that coelacanth, when they were discovered, showed no signs of becoming anything close to amphibians as they had once expected.

Err, what? No-one expected that the coelocanth would turn into an amphibian; it branched off from the sarcopterygii that became the tetrapods almost 400 million years ago. The coelocanth and its ancestors continued on in their fish-like form until about 65 million years ago (The K-T extinction event), whereupon it disappeared from the wider fossil record. It was assumed extinct because of this, but a small number of species managed to survive with relatively small habitats and ranges.

this is correct, Yez is just rephrasing the "if we evolved from monkeys, why are their still monkeys" idiocy. again showing he has no clue how evolution works. The hierarchy of life was never part of science or evolution just part of pop culture.

Evolutionists think that genetic diversity can increase because existing species have variation (evolution is just more of speciation).

Not sure exactly what you're trying to say here. You've stated a basic tenet of biology as inaccurate, but have provided no evidence of such.

Nylon-eating bacteria
Nylon is a human invention and is not naturally occurring, the bacteria evolved special enzymes to eat molecules that did not exist before 1935

also
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Evolution has flaws, inaccuracies and logically impossible events.

Care to name any? Because the examples you've listed stem from ignorance on your part, not a fault in the theory.

I agree care to name a few?

I do believe creationist and ID explanations should be considered before people dismiss them as nonsense.

[/quote]

they were considered in 1800's and was found to be a poorer and less accurate at predicting future finds and experiments, and since then has only become even poorer.
should we consider geocentric solar system again even though it was refuted hundreds of thousands of times? No, once a hypothesis is repeatedly refuted, while others have such overwhelming evidence they become theories (the highest form of scientific knowledge) you stop wasting time with the refuted idea.

should we go back to teaching the four humors instead of germ theory?

[Amorgas]

Yet no one can prove that God exists or doesn't exist. So really this thread is for people to come here and make fun of each other. Or in other words, hey let's go make fun of Christians because that's the only religion I know how to criticize.

[Farnhamia]

Yet no one can prove that God exists or doesn't exist. So really this thread is for people to come here and make fun of each other. Or in other words, hey let's go make fun of Christians because that's the only religion I know how to criticize.

So, by not immediately embracing your suggestion that both creationism and evolution might be valid and that "God" might have created science, we're Christianity-bashing, are we? Gosh, I'm sure no one wanted to do that.