We Created Creationism

[DanzaDeLaMorte]

We Created Creationism

<staff edit>

 

[explodingboy]

well aren't you just a ray of sunshine this morning.

 

[PhantomTorment]

"The wise don't make a show of their knowledge, but fools broadcast their foolishness" Proverbs 12:23 (NLT)

"Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions" Proverbs 18:2 (NLT)

 

[Ost]

cool story bro

 

[BreadmanInAus]

I don't believe in creationism either but I don't wholeheartedly believe in evolution.
I'd say I believe in "scientific-creationism" which is the belief that yes we did evolve but the entire process (from The Big Bang onward) was started and guided by God.
That's what I believe.
BTW just because people don't believe what you believe doesn't give you the right to attack them. That's just mean.

 

[ModestGirlsRock]

I don't believe in creationism either but I don't wholeheartedly believe in evolution.
I'd say I believe in "scientific-creationism" which is the belief that yes we did evolve but the entire process (from The Big Bang onward) was started and guided by God.
That's what I believe.
BTW just because people don't believe what you believe doesn't give you the right to attack them. That's just mean.

I had a science teacher once told me she believes that Science is just another amazing to see how wonderful God works. And then a friend of mine who goes to bible school was telling me how the hebrew word for creation could also mean this other word. Some scholars believe it's this other word due to context clues and structuring of the sentences. I think this other word was "modify" or "add to"...I don't remember. I'll have to ask him again. Anyways, my point about that is that he said it would explain how the earth is billions of years older than the amount of time we've been here. Either way, God made the universe, earth, and us, right? I don't really care how short or long He took to do so.

As for the original post, atheists have been just as guilty blindly following others regarding attacking other people's beliefs. Plus, I have no shame in being a fool for God. A person who doesn't believe and stand up for something will fall for anything.

 

[Fire for God]

The scientific facts actually fit better in the theory of creationism than evolution, so if someone is arguing through scientific facts to prove evolution, that person is most likely going the wrong direction.

Both creationism and evolution begin on assumptions, and are theories. Being theories, they are merely models. We cannot know the truth of how the earth came to be except through revelation.

As a Christian, all the revelation I have is through God's word. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth because it is said so in the bible. This is my beginning assumption, and the assumptions of evolution are mutually exclusive to this assumption that I hold true.

The original poster said this: 'The book has lied'.
If you claim the book has lied, you have lied.

Romans 1:22 'Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools'
Romans 1:25a 'They exchanged the truth of God for a lie'

The original poster also said this: 'You are all brainwashed sheep.'
I am a sheep of God, yes, but the Shepherd doesn't brainwash.
In fact, this is the benefit of being a sheep, and this is what the Shepherd does:

Psalms 23:1-4:
1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want. 2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
3 he restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
4 Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.



Now, DanzaDeLaMorte, I hope that Christ reveals His light to you and that you will no longer dance the dance of death, but the dance of life.


Sincerely, may God bless you.

 

[daniel777]

You are all brainwashed sheeps. Conforming to the populous, you mindlessly follow the blind accepting of a faith on little to no accurate proof. You have all been misled, into oblivion you follow one another untill your eyes can no longer adjust to the night, and you find yourself alone. The book has lied, your ears have grown ignorant. In Hell, in Heaven, your mind will succumb to neither upon the inevitable death. May the pearly gates yield a dirt tomb. God Bless you all.

We "sheeps" do render unto you a like response, may you learn to accepting proper syntax. God Bless you too.

 

[Isambard]

The scientific facts actually fit better in the theory of creationism than evolution,

How so?

so if someone is arguing through scientific facts to prove evolution, that person is most likely going the wrong direction.

You mean like the majority of biologists? Or people who understand science for that matter?

Both creationism and evolution begin on assumptions,

What assumption does ToE begin with?

and are theories. Being theories, they are merely models.

Creationism isn't a [scientific] theory. For one, it isn't falsifiable. Second, unlike ToE, it isn't actually on any sort of facts and makes no predictions.

We cannot know the truth of how the earth came to be except through revelation.

ToE has nothing to do with formation of the Earth. I suggest talking to a geologist about that.

 

[Fire for God]

Hey there Isambard,

Before I answer your first question, I'd like to challenge you:
Give me 10 facts that undeniably and exclusively fit into the evolution model. They cannot be fabricated, theorized (conjectures), or based on inaccurate scientific procedures.

As for your second question:
If the majority of biologists are using facts to prove the theory of evolution, then I don't believe they will ever reach their target (by prove I mean 'confirm' or 'validate'). My point is that empirical facts cannot prove evolution, nor creation for that matter, because these things happened so far back in the past, where there was no human witness. From facts, we can only infer about what happened in the past. I don't think the majority of biologists are using facts to prove the theory of evolution - they can at best support it. This goes for those who understand science as well. Neither evolutionists nor creationists can 'prove' their respective theories. We can, however, say that one theory is superior to other if the facts corroborate with one theory better than the other.

To your third question:
One false assumption that ToE makes is that complexity can evolve from simplicity through mutation. Biology shows that mutation only results in the loss of complexity. A very simple life-form cannot evolve into the complex lifeforms that we see today.

Regarding your assertion:
I have never said that creationism is a scientific theory. It is in essence unfalsifiable. It is linked, in many areas, to the bible itself, which makes predictions (prophecies) - but in itself, creationism (a theory, albeit not a strictly scientific one) does not make predictions. This viewpoint is acceptable. Nonetheless, it has no bearing on whether or not the theory of evolution should be accepted.

Regarding your last statement:
I agree with you. My mistake was in equivocating the ToE with Big Bang theory. Prior to this, I habitually linked ToE with Big Bang theory. (silly me )

 

[Isambard]

Before I answer your first question, I'd like to challenge you:
Give me 10 facts that undeniably and exclusively fit into the evolution model. They cannot be fabricated, theorized (conjectures), or based on inaccurate scientific procedures.

As you wish

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plenty there.
Could also try this for more hands on material
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for your second question:
If the majority of biologists are using facts to prove the theory of evolution, then I don't believe they will ever reach their target (by prove I mean 'confirm' or 'validate'). My point is that empirical facts cannot prove evolution, nor creation for that matter, because these things happened so far back in the past, where there was no human witness. From facts, we can only infer about what happened in the past. I don't think the majority of biologists are using facts to prove the theory of evolution - they can at best support it. This goes for those who understand science as well. Neither evolutionists nor creationists can 'prove' their respective theories. We can, however, say that one theory is superior to other if the facts corroborate with one theory better than the other.

You are correct. One cannot 'prove' ToE. This isn't exactly surprising though as only Mathematics and Alcohol deals in proofs. Like the the theory of gravity, ToE can only be validated consistently. An example of this is every time someone somewhere gets a vaccine, or a farmer breeds certain animals for desirable traits etc etc.

To your third question:
One false assumption that ToE makes is that complexity can evolve from simplicity through mutation. Biology shows that mutation only results in the loss of complexity. A very simple life-form cannot evolve into the complex lifeforms that we see today.

You seem to be confused as to how ToE and biology works. This vid should help as it deals with your criticism directly.
YouTube - 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

Regarding your assertion:
I have never said that creationism is a scientific theory. It is in essence unfalsifiable. It is linked, in many areas, to the bible itself, which makes predictions (prophecies) - but in itself, creationism (a theory, albeit not a strictly scientific one) does not make predictions. This viewpoint is acceptable. Nonetheless, it has no bearing on whether or not the theory of evolution should be accepted.

Well said and duly noted.

 

[Mess]

In short, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever for evolution, even evolutionist scientists know that. To give a simple example, the evolutionist scientist Professor Corner stated: "For anyone that is unprejudiced, the fossil story of plants speaks in favor of creation." Another example of a leading evolutionist speaking out against evolution is the head of the paleonthology department of the British Museum professor Paterson, who stated:"The theory of evolution doesn't only not seem to give any knowledge, it is in one way or the other giving anti-knowledge". There are more but this should be sufficient. Just think about this, they claim certain plants, and animals lived in certain times and eras, yet we find the fossils in totally different layers then in which they should be found. Something no evolutionist scientist can explain. There are many many many more examples, like the structuring of even the simplest of cells, or the way bacteria are formed, or the ground layers in the Grand Canyon(or any other place), the fossils of fish on top of the Mount Everest, or the first two laws of thermodynamics, or the complete lack of any missing links despite the millions of fossils.
We could also discuss the repeated prove from the bible itself that it is divinely inspired, like the food and hygiene laws, which are so incredible accurate and scientifically correct, that it would shock most people who think it's all just a fairytale. Food and Hygiene laws that are completely different than any other nation/religion had at that time, and showcases a knowledge that was completely unknown to mankind, and are just being explained by science in our time. Or the astrological prove from the bible. You name it it's all spot on. Or perhaps we should discuss the incredible reliability the bible has, meaning that it is not, like many people claim falsified.
So you go and keep dreaming on and believing in the greatest hoax in history which is the theory of evolution.

 

[explodingboy]

We could also discuss the repeated prove from the bible itself that it is divinely inspired, like the food and hygiene laws, which are so incredible accurate and scientifically correct, that it would shock most people who think it's all just a fairytale.

you'll have to link me to the scientific papers about shelfish being an abomination, because I can't recall having seen them of late.

 

[Mess]

you'll have to link me to the scientific papers about shelfish being an abomination, because I can't recall having seen them of late.

First off shelfish is a kind of meat that spoils very very fast. In fact most shelfish, without our conservation methods in climates like Israel has, goes bad in just a few hours. This is faster than the flesh of any other kind of animal. That is also the reason that it was forbidden until recently in most western countries to sell shelfish outside of the colder months.

Secondly, shelfish only grows in the shallow parts of the water. They live there because the water their is nutrious, which is in no small part due to the higher level of pollution/waste in those parts of the water. Shelfish are inmovable filterers, they pump the water past their gills, filtering out the food(and for us waste), which then moves to their mouths via tiny hairs. The more food the water contains, the bigger they get. That is the reason why the growth of clams for example is so succesful near human settlements. But with the nutritious water, the filterers also take in germs, for which they are the ideal place to grow. That is the reason goverments regularly check the water around clamfarms. And the reason clams are not allowed to be grown in waste water or near settlements or the sewerexits.

Thirdly, unscaled water animals, for example snails, are often hosts to all kind of sickness envoking worms, like the illness called schistosomiasis.

Finally, we have to remember that in ancient times the kind of shelfish that would have been used for consumption would have been the sweetwater variety. Say the Jews would have been allowed to eat all kind of clams and such from the sweetwater, which were filtering the water, whilest they didn't have the capability to let them grow in large numbers, that would have resulted in alot higher tally of germs in the drinking water.
Bernhard Grzimek wrote:"Sweetwater clams play a vital part in nature due to their filtering the water. From measurements it has become apparent that more then 40gallons of water pass the filitering organs of one clam every hour. If one would destroy the clams in the water, it would lead to the disruptance of bioligical balance, which could eventually lead the the threat on the lives of men itself. Afterall it is becoming increasingly clear how dependent men itself is on pure, healthy water."

Filter feeder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note:Text came from a dutch, scientific book, written by biologist Docter Ben Hobrink, Moderne wetenschap in de Bijbel(which translates to Modern science in the Bible)

 

[Isambard]

In short, there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever for evolution, even evolutionist scientists know that.

Thats funny as I just gave examples in the post directly before yours.

To give a simple example, the evolutionist scientist Professor Corner stated: "For anyone that is unprejudiced, the fossil story of plants speaks in favor of creation." Another example of a leading evolutionist speaking out against evolution is the head of the paleonthology department of the British Museum professor Paterson, who stated:"The theory of evolution doesn't only not seem to give any knowledge, it is in one way or the other giving anti-knowledge". There are more but this should be sufficient. Just think about this, they claim certain plants, and animals lived in certain times and eras, yet we find the fossils in totally different layers then in which they should be found.

Some citations and sources would be nice.

Something no evolutionist scientist can explain. There are many many many more examples, like the structuring of even the simplest of cells, or the way bacteria are formed, or the ground layers in the Grand Canyon(or any other place), the fossils of fish on top of the Mount Everest, or the first two laws of thermodynamics, or the complete lack of any missing links despite the millions of fossils.

Umm, all those can be explained and have been, repeatedly. I'm guessing however you are either a Poe, or have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Tell you what though, prove to me an explanation of the above wouldn't be a waste of my time and I'll oblige. My question is simple really. According to biologists, what does the theory of evolution propose? What is evolution?

We could also discuss the repeated prove from the bible itself that it is divinely inspired, like the food and hygiene laws, which are so incredible accurate and scientifically correct, that it would shock most people who think it's all just a fairytale. Food and Hygiene laws that are completely different than any other nation/religion had at that time, and showcases a knowledge that was completely unknown to mankind, and are just being explained by science in our time. Or the astrological prove from the bible. You name it it's all spot on. Or perhaps we should discuss the incredible reliability the bible has, meaning that it is not, like many people claim falsified.
So you go and keep dreaming on and believing in the greatest hoax in history which is the theory of evolution.

Yes, like that pi is a round number? What about the Moon making its own light? The Tower of Babel? Etc.

 

[Fire for God]

To some extent, I believe in evolution.

I believe that organisms do have changes in traits over successive generations, and that occurs due to natural selection, and possibly due to mutations as well (though it seems to me, from a very layman's point of view, that mutations resulting in positive traits occur very rarely, but the fact that they have the possibility of occurring cannot be discounted).

Nonetheless, I do not believe that the complexity of organisms today are the result of evolution. The changes are too vast for a simple organism to evolve into a more complex one. But once again, I am not very well acquainted with the complexities of evolution theory. I do not know if modern evolution theory, like what is popularly propagated about it, does in fact claim that simple organisms have evolved into much more complex ones.

Perhaps one way to phrase it is that I believe in micro-evolution, but not in macro-evolution.

As for the evidence that seem to point towards evolution:
I find that there is simply not enough evidence to strongly support macro-evolution as a whole. There are bits and pieces (or perhapsmany bits and pieces) here and there, and they do seem to point towards the possibility that evolution at such a level did occur (and still occurs), but it is not strong enough to dispel doubts. It could very well be possible that creationism has much less evidence to support its claim (probably a lot less, since the majority of scientists believe in evolution, resulting in more searches for missing links that will strengthen the ToE, as compared to creationism which has a smaller base of support), but that does not detract from the fact that ToE is not conclusive. It also doesn't discount entirely the possibility that creationism might be true.

With that in mind, I feel that it is not right to employ subtle ad hominem attacks on the believers of the other theory for the sake of elevating one's own. In the court of evidence, I would say that probably evolution fares better, but it still doesn't make the mark. I do not think that creationists should make fun of those who believe in evolution, nor should those who believe in evolution look down on those who believe in creationism. Both are not based on sufficient fact to be true with a capital T.

Nonetheless, I believe that God created the world in 6 days, each bird, animal, plant, and sea creature according to its kind. Sure, they may evolve on a micro level over successive generations, but not to the point of macro-evolution. Just as those who love science and have acquainted themselves with many evidences and theories are entitled to believe in evolution, those who love God and have acquainted themselves with His word are entitled to believe in creationism.

Whatever the case, in the context of Christianity, I feel that believing in evolution does not condemn one to hell, nor does believing in creationism bring you to heaven. It is therefore not so important to debate over it. Of course, there are many people who do not believe in God and claim that it is because the bible contradicts the theory of evolution, and that since the theory of evolution is most likely true, the bible (the whole of it) can't really be true. Perhaps a bit of talking through the difference between the two theories can really help a person who is sincerely seeking for answers or looking for God, but in most cases, it's just about evolutionists lambasting creationists at their stupidity and bigotry, and creationists lambasting evolutionists at their stupidity and bigotry. I find that discussion may be good, but anything else may not be very beneficial.

Of course, there are people who believe in God and macro-evolution. While I disagree with that view, I don't believe that someone who believe in God and macro-evolution will go to hell. I don't think they are any less of a person, or any less moral for believing in that. I think that irregardless of one's position in the origins of diverse organisms, no one should be condemned by anyone. It is not important to condemn, rather it is more important to understand. I think, therefore, that discussions about evolution and creationism could be much more civil and respectful. We don't have to win the other person over, it's not our job.

 

[Isambard]

I believe that organisms do have changes in traits over successive generations, and that occurs due to natural selection, and possibly due to mutations as well (though it seems to me, from a very layman's point of view, that mutations resulting in positive traits occur very rarely, but the fact that they have the possibility of occurring cannot be discounted).

Then it isn't a question of somewhat believing, you do accept evolution as what you described is how it works (for the most part).

Nonetheless, I do not believe that the complexity of organisms today are the result of evolution. The changes are too vast for a simple organism to evolve into a more complex one. But once again, I am not very well acquainted with the complexities of evolution theory. I do not know if modern evolution theory, like what is popularly propagated about it, does in fact claim that simple organisms have evolved into much more complex ones.

Perhaps one way to phrase it is that I believe in micro-evolution, but not in macro-evolution.

The distinction is an arbitrary one. Macro-evolution is just a lot of micro-evolution. By way of analogy, if you can walk a meter, why can't you walk two? If you can walk those, why not a mile? etc.

As for the evidence that seem to point towards evolution:
I find that there is simply not enough evidence to strongly support macro-evolution as a whole. There are bits and pieces (or perhapsmany bits and pieces) here and there, and they do seem to point towards the possibility that evolution at such a level did occur (and still occurs), but it is not strong enough to dispel doubts.

Here's a bunch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

There are also more lists if you do a quick search on wiki or google. And yes, it is strong enough to dispel doubts, at least to the majority of scientists and courts.

It could very well be possible that creationism has much less evidence to support its claim (probably a lot less,

Quick correction, Creationism has 0 evidence. The complete lack of peer-reviewed scientific papers published by creationists is evidence of this.

but that does not detract from the fact that ToE is not conclusive. It also doesn't discount entirely the possibility that creationism might be true.

Again, it is extremely conclusive. ToE is one of the strongest theories in science.

With that in mind, I feel that it is not right to employ subtle ad hominem attacks on the believers of the other theory for the sake of elevating one's own. In the court of evidence, I would say that probably evolution fares better, but it still doesn't make the mark. I do not think that creationists should make fun of those who believe in evolution, nor should those who believe in evolution look down on those who believe in creationism. Both are not based on sufficient fact to be true with a capital T.

ToE is based on big T. Why shouldn't make of Creationism? Academically speaking, it holds the same weight as people who believe sickness is due to devils and those people who believe the Earth is the center of the universe.

Nonetheless, I believe that God created the world in 6 days, each bird, animal, plant, and sea creature according to its kind. Sure, they may evolve on a micro level over successive generations, but not to the point of macro-evolution. Just as those who love science and have acquainted themselves with many evidences and theories are entitled to believe in evolution, those who love God and have acquainted themselves with His word are entitled to believe in creationism.

Whatever the case, in the context of Christianity, I feel that believing in evolution does not condemn one to hell, nor does believing in creationism bring you to heaven. It is therefore not so important to debate over it. Of course, there are many people who do not believe in God and claim that it is because the bible contradicts the theory of evolution, and that since the theory of evolution is most likely true, the bible (the whole of it) can't really be true. Perhaps a bit of talking through the difference between the two theories can really help a person who is sincerely seeking for answers or looking for God, but in most cases, it's just about evolutionists lambasting creationists at their stupidity and bigotry, and creationists lambasting evolutionists at their stupidity and bigotry. I find that discussion may be good, but anything else may not be very beneficial.

Of course, there are people who believe in God and macro-evolution. While I disagree with that view, I don't believe that someone who believe in God and macro-evolution will go to hell. I don't think they are any less of a person, or any less moral for believing in that. I think that irregardless of one's position in the origins of diverse organisms, no one should be condemned by anyone. It is not important to condemn, rather it is more important to understand. I think, therefore, that discussions about evolution and creationism could be much more civil and respectful. We don't have to win the other person over, it's not our job.

Thats fine until you claim Creationism is somehow equal to ToE or that ToE is somehow untrue. Both claims are false and if you don't want to be called on it, then best not say such things

 

[Fire for God]

I felt that the leap between micro and macro-evolution is a bit too much. It is akin to this analogy (to me): a snail can crawl 1 meter, and if it keeps going it can crawl about 1840 miles in its lifetime. But it can't crawl to Pluto by traditional means. That, to me, is how big a leap from organisms micro-evolving through natural selection and mutation, and simple organisms evolving into various, extremely different kinds of organisms.

I do agree with you, the evidence for evolution is really a whole avalanche of it. It is enough to convince most scientists and layman alike. But nonetheless, this does not make it conclusive as a fact. As a theory, yes, as far as a scientific theory of origins go, it is well supported. But how well supported can a theory of origins be? We are only able to theorize what happened in the past. Given the relatively short time that science has existed as part of the pursuits of the human race, it is only possible to observe micro-evolution. Through fossil evidence, as well as corroborations with fields such as geology (correct me if I'm wrong), it is possible to predict with some accuracy the date of fossilization, and hence aim to establish evidence that may fill in the 'missing links' of evolution. Nonetheless, I think it is a fact that not a single, undisputed chain of fossils exist that could prove, undeniably, that one of the simplest and oldest organisms many ages ago has evolved to one that is still living today. I understand that this is extremely difficult to prove due to the fact that fossilization does not occur so easily, and hence the presence of 'missing links'. But the presence of such a chain will end all disputes. It is as if, to use an analogy, we see Christ in His second coming. By then all disputes will be ended, because the proof (of evolution through the chain of fossils, or of God and the veracity of His word through the return of Christ) is before our very eyes.

"ToE is one of the strongest theories in science."

This is probably untrue. I would surmise that many theories in the natural sciences (that do not require the inference of how things used to be so far back in the past) are much stronger than the theory of evolution. This is not to say that the theory of evolution is not strong. It is just not as strong, nor is it strong enough to be undisputed. It is, however, strong enough to convince many scientists. That does not mean it is true.

"ToE is based on big T. Why shouldn't make of Creationism? Academically speaking, it holds the same weight as people who believe sickness is due to devils and those people who believe the Earth is the center of the universe."

Like explained above, ToE is perhaps less strong than theories in thermodynamics, mechanics, or electrodynamics. Those can be excepted in the current scientific paradigm as truths. It is not good to make fun of creationism just as it is not good to make fun of evolution. There are many people who have strong views on both camps, and both will be equally offended if their theories are being made fun of. Isn't it better to understand why the other would believe what he or she does, without having to make potentially hurting comments? But that being said, I don't mean to point fingers or be offensive. I myself have the inclination to make fun of other people's theory's as well, especially if I believe (either out of evidence, or out of my own bigoted thinking ) that I am true and they are definitely wrong. That still doesn't make mockery of another person's beliefs or another person a good thing to do.

Academically speaking, it is probably true that creationism holds the same weight as the two examples you have mentioned above. But this speaks more of the academic environment than the beliefs themselves. About the earth being in the center of the milky way (that's what you mean right? as in the sun rotating around the earth, and not that the earth is in the center of the universe since that might be true though its not very important ), well, I think it definitely holds very little weight. We have pictures, space satellites, and men in space shuttles who can testify that the sun does not rotate around the earth. As for sickness caused by devils, I would say that it is an extremely gray area. Mechanically, there are a lot of reasons for sicknesses. Spiritually, devils, or evil spirits, could be influences of some of them. However I do not wish to go into this. It is not recognized in the scientific community due to the current lack of ability and/or willingness of anyone who has experienced the spiritual realm to document such accounts in a scientific manner that will be accepted academically.

As for creationism, it suffers almost the same problems, just that its closer relation to the physical world allows for peer-reviewed journals to be published, albeit ones that are not recognized by the scientists who believe in evolution. As I said, this is an issue with the academic world, not the theory of creationism itself. If you were a staunch evolutionist, and someone gave you a journal that those silly, delusion-believing creationists wrote, would you read it? And if it were true, would you endorse it? Now pardon me for my language earlier, but that is how some evolutionists view creationists. Because of bias, they would not read it. Those who do, may disregard the evidences that suggest a creationist account. This is due to inherent biases. There are some, who read it, and begin to see that creationism is also possible. That is why there are scientists, recognized by the academic field (just not overtly so as creationists), who are creationists. Nonetheless, I do not mean that all evidence published in creationists journals are acceptable. I do not know if you have looked at it yourself, but you might want to if you haven't.

Creation question

This link might explain what I was talking about.

"Thats fine until you claim Creationism is somehow equal to ToE or that ToE is somehow untrue. Both claims are false and if you don't want to be called on it, then best not say such things"

I do not think creationism is equal to ToE in the academic sense, for reasons stated above. It is however, equally acceptable for a person to believe in creationism or ToE according to his knowledge and judgment. The person could not be knowledgeable, or could be in error, but this does not justify condemnation, only correction. That is all I'm saying. Also, I do not immediately say that ToE is conclusively untrue. This is because it has not been falsified. However, I do say that ToE may not be definitely true, for the lack of extremely conclusive evidence as mentioned above. The same lack of extremely conclusive evidence for creationism has resulted in many not believing in it. I do not think it is right to berate them, or make fun of them. Likewise, the lack of extremely conclusive evidence for evolution has resulted in some not believing in it. The equality, in this sense, that creationism and ToE shares, is that both are not definitely true in a 1+1=2 is true sense. As much as I would like to believe that creationism is definitely true in that sense, I cannot communicate it in a way that will persuade another person who does not share my belief, simply because it is not a 1+1=2 kind of belief. Neither is it a 'when you drop a rock, it will fall onto the ground' kind of belief. Same for evolution. It could be better corroborated by the academic world, simply because there are more evolutionists than creationists, and that evolution is more commonly accepted, but it is still not a 1+1=2 kind of true. That was what I meant by big T truth.

 

[Isambard]

I felt that the leap between micro and macro-evolution is a bit too much. It is akin to this analogy (to me): a snail can crawl 1 meter, and if it keeps going it can crawl about 1840 miles in its lifetime. But it can't crawl to Pluto by traditional means. That, to me, is how big a leap from organisms micro-evolving through natural selection and mutation, and simple organisms evolving into various, extremely different kinds of organisms.

Why? Ever see the variation in domesticated species? There is more distinct variation in those breeds then there are in closely related species.

Everything from new colouration, different bone structure, and even new organs have all been documented where none existed before. So why again is macro-evolution impossible?

I do agree with you, the evidence for evolution is really a whole avalanche of it. It is enough to convince most scientists and layman alike. But nonetheless, this does not make it conclusive as a fact.

Things evolve (changes in allele frequencies among populations over time), that is a fact. The implications of this and the reasons why are the theory part.

As a theory, yes, as far as a scientific theory of origins go, it is well supported. But how well supported can a theory of origins be?

ToE isn't a theory of origins, thats Abiogenisis which although well supported, isn't nearly as polished as ToE.

We are only able to theorize what happened in the past. Given the relatively short time that science has existed as part of the pursuits of the human race, it is only possible to observe micro-evolution.

We are also able to view the evolution of entirely new species. The boundaries between micro and macro evolution are arbitrary with the distinction being one of semantics.

Through fossil evidence, as well as corroborations with fields such as geology (correct me if I'm wrong), it is possible to predict with some accuracy the date of fossilization, and hence aim to establish evidence that may fill in the 'missing links' of evolution.

That is only one stream of evidence among many independent streams that corroborate ToE.

Nonetheless, I think it is a fact that not a single, undisputed chain of fossils exist that could prove, undeniably, that one of the simplest and oldest organisms many ages ago has evolved to one that is still living today. I understand that this is extremely difficult to prove due to the fact that fossilization does not occur so easily, and hence the presence of 'missing links'. But the presence of such a chain will end all disputes. It is as if, to use an analogy, we see Christ in His second coming. By then all disputes will be ended, because the proof (of evolution through the chain of fossils, or of God and the veracity of His word through the return of Christ) is before our very eyes.

Horse evolution
Whale evolution
Human evolution

Three near complete chains.

This is probably untrue. I would surmise that many theories in the natural sciences (that do not require the inference of how things used to be so far back in the past) are much stronger than the theory of evolution.

Name one.

As for creationism, it suffers almost the same problems, just that its closer relation to the physical world allows for peer-reviewed journals to be published, albeit ones that are not recognized by the scientists who believe in evolution. As I said, this is an issue with the academic world, not the theory of creationism itself. If you were a staunch evolutionist, and someone gave you a journal that those silly, delusion-believing creationists wrote, would you read it? And if it were true, would you endorse it? Now pardon me for my language earlier, but that is how some evolutionists view creationists. Because of bias, they would not read it. Those who do, may disregard the evidences that suggest a creationist account. This is due to inherent biases. There are some, who read it, and begin to see that creationism is also possible. That is why there are scientists, recognized by the academic field (just not overtly so as creationists), who are creationists. Nonetheless, I do not mean that all evidence published in creationists journals are acceptable. I do not know if you have looked at it yourself, but you might want to if you haven't.

Creation question

This link might explain what I was talking about.

False. The reason why Creationism isn't accepted academically is because it isn't falsifiable. There is no conspiracy to discredit creationism, it just fails to follow the scientific method.

 

[yeshua91]

What trips me out is the actual process of creation, Science does say that our solar system was thrown into orbit due to nuclear fusion creating our sun out of elements. Biblical reference would suggest that the lord spoke let there be light. Yet our human capacity is uncomprehending to the attributes of the heavens, trying to describe a life with god in heaven is like trying to describe internet to an ant, its not in there biological nature to understand divine.