Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[Split Rock]

I simply do not have the faith to believe in evolution, whereas creation itself testifies of God's existence

Sorry, but The Creation itself makes creationism look foolish. It was by studying The Creation that we came to understand where the human species really came from, and how old the earth is. It was only by believing in a book written by men that some came to have faith in creationism instead.

 

[Split Rock]

You want to know what's ironic, MoonLancer?

While you guys were frothing at the mouth at us because we couldn't come up with a working definition of KIND --- Pluto reared up and caught you guys off-guard without a definition of PLANET.

And you had to sacrifice that whole planet to save face.

Did you hear that sound??

That was the sound of AVET whipping a dead horse. "C'mon girl!... you can do it!... get up.... c'mon..... get up!" ......

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think what he is saying that creationism as hypothesis isn't testable. Can you show anything that's testable or falsifiable about it? Their have been many opportunities to show evolution wrong, and at every step the fundamentals of evolution have been proven right.

Yes it is testable, which is why you hear all the time that it has been proven false by evolution.

I agree. Evolution doesn't say anything about god. I think its up to people to reconcile that themselves. I do think its wrong to teach something without evidence or to exclude something because one doesn't like the evidence and its obvious conclusions.

There have been things in Science that have been taught without evidence, do you feel that way then?

Really creationists should be more upset with abiogenesis

Why?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I simply do not have the faith to believe in evolution, whereas creation itself testifies of God's existence

Perhaps it is the definition of evolution that you don't agree with or perhaps the assumptions that some make about evolution that you don't agree with.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, but The Creation itself makes creationism look foolish. It was by studying The Creation that we came to understand where the human species really came from, and how old the earth is. It was only by believing in a book written by men that some came to have faith in creationism instead.

I think it would be more accurate to say that some creationists have made creation look foolish.

 

[AtheianLibertarist]

There have been things in Science that have been taught without evidence, do you feel that way then?

I don't agree with anything being taught without evidence. Which things are you speaking about?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, but The Creation itself makes creationism look foolish. It was by studying The Creation that we came to understand where the human species really came from, and how old the earth is. It was only by believing in a book written by men that some came to have faith in creationism instead.

I don't agree with anything being taught without evidence. Which things are you speaking about?

Abiogenesis for one. It was taught for a long time without out one piece of evidence to support it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't agree with anything being taught without evidence. Which things are you speaking about?

 

[AtheianLibertarist]

Abiogenesis for one. It was taught for a long time without out one piece of evidence to support it.

What was taught before that? God did it. Then came a better explanation, and theory. The difference is that science was trying to prove it and (GET OFF THEIR [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]) to prove things.

 

[AtheianLibertarist]

SETi Picture

(copied the drake equation)
The Drake equation states that:

N= R* x Fp x Ne x Fl x Fi x Fc x L

where:
N is the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible; and
R* is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy. fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets. ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planetsfℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some pointfi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent lifefc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into spaceL is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.___

So you are against the Mars search for life? Against proving the earth was round, and not having 4 corners? Sometimes you just have to search, and you will come up (or not come up) with the evidence. Then the theory will either be true or false.

So instead of dissecting the Evolution theory, get off your high horse and do some research yourselves. The complete lack of understanding, and just getting by with quoting scripture is insane. I'm still looking forward to the creationist argument in scientific journals

 

[SiderealExalt]

I simply do not have the faith to believe in evolution, whereas creation itself testifies of God's existence

And the Buddhist spiritual and physical creation is testified to the Buddhist, and the Islamic creation is testified to the Muslim, and the world resting at in the roots of Yggradsil is testified to the Wodan worshiper and so on and so forth. And it all in reality testifies to one thing. People see what they want to see. Even if it really isn't there and that's it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Against proving the earth was round, and not having 4 corners?

Man, you're WAY BEHIND here, my friend. I've already shown from the Scriptures where the earth was referred to as round, and I have already shown how the earth indeed can have four corners, as well as how they can be located --- several times.

You need to catch up here, sir.

Sometimes you just have to search, and you will come up (or not come up) with the evidence.

I don't need to search anywhere --- I've already shown from the Scriptures that this universe is teeming with life from one end to the other, and every star in-between. You're Drake Equation is WAY BEHIND the Bible.

So instead of dissecting the Evolution theory, get off your high horse and do some research yourselves.

I already believe in evolution, hot shot, but thanks for the advice, anyway.

The complete lack of understanding, and just getting by with quoting scripture is insane.

Good --- then count me insane.

I'm still looking forward to the creationist argument in scientific journals

We're waiting on S.E.T.I. to finish first.

 

[AtheianLibertarist]

Man, you're WAY BEHIND here, my friend. I've already shown from the Scriptures where the earth was referred to as round, and I have already shown how the earth indeed can have four corners, as well as how they can be located --- several times.

You need to catch up here, sir.I don't need to search anywhere --- I've already shown from the Scriptures that this universe is teeming with life from one end to the other, and every star in-between. You're Drake Equation is WAY BEHIND the Bible.I already believe in evolution, hot shot, but thanks for the advice, anyway.Good --- then count me insane.We're waiting on S.E.T.I. to finish first.

Congrats? So i have to go read through all your posts to see what you have proven? If you want to have a conversation here, you can't just say "I did it". Show me, don't just state that you have done it. So what if S.E.T.I. comes back with a transmission from another planet? What does that have to do with lazy creationists and getting actual, factual, statistical articles published in renowned journals?

 

[Split Rock]

Are you implying there is something wrong with the theory behind radio telescopes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you implying there is something wrong with the theory behind radio telescopes?

What's the "theory behind radio telescopes"? I wasn't aware they were built on "theory" --- principle, maybe --- not "theory".

 

[Split Rock]

What's the "theory behind radio telescopes"? I wasn't aware they were built on "theory" --- principle, maybe --- not "theory".

There is a theory behind every technology; in this case, it is primarily wave theory.

 

[tanzanos]

evolution fails at the start unless you can accept that something can appear from nothing as an act of nothing with influence from no one.

And what did God create this universe from

 

[Oncedeceived]

What was taught before that? God did it. Then came a better explanation, and theory. The difference is that science was trying to prove it and (GET OFF THEIR [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]) to prove things.

That is a very short sighted and somewhat typical response. Many of our scientists in the past were believers. God did it never stopped them from discovering or trying to find out how "things" worked.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And what did God create this universe from

And what would Science say? God says that the universe was made from:

Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters.

This says to me that there was darkness (nothingness?) and that the first "thing or beginning" was liquid.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That is a very short sighted and somewhat typical response. Many of our scientists in the past were believers. God did it never stopped them from discovering or trying to find out how "things" worked.

Indeed. However, the problem lies with those who would say "God Did This" is an acceptable answer. There are countless scientists who are Christians even today. However, in no cases do they, in the pursuit of science, say "well this reaction didn't proceed the way I had hypothesized, ergo I'm going to assume that God altered the outcome of the reaction. Selah."

It is, in a sense, a non-overlap in the two "magesteria" if you will. Perhaps the religious person who is a scientist says ultimately that God established all the laws of science or started the clock ticking, but the clock ticks because of known, measurable and fully physical reasons.

The reason the CREVO debate goes on is precisely because there are some religious folks (most of whom don't actually do science) who would like to impose religion into science. And that's where it gets problematic.