Would someone please prove that creationism is not a crock,

[shinbits]

In a way. Pearl harbor sold the war to the people but it also showed that if Europe fell to Germany that we would be fighting a war on both the west cost and the east cost.

Also it conveniently got us out of the depression. So no we diden't just save Europe out of kindness as you suggest. we did it to save our own butts.

There's no evidence that the U.S. would have gotten involved without Pearl Harbor. Either way, the U.S. saved England's sorry butt, while fighting the Nazi's and Japan at the same time.

I am also willing to bet that you diden't know that the president Knew that pearl harbor would be attacked, but we let it happen to anger the people into accepting a war in a time of local peace. I can think of an event not to long ago that is remarkably similar.

Seems that times dont change do they?

wars are still fought under false pretenses.

the president knew about a surpise attack? hmm. and the president planned to go to war by letting our most important naval fleet get destroyed? hmm.

 

[tanzanos]

first of all, where in the American school system is creationism taught?

second, you do realize that the U.S. has been a pioneer of using science to make the world a better place for the entire 20th century, right? From the automobile, to the airplane, the telephone, television, light bulb, sending a man to the moon, etc., the U.S. has led the world out the stone age into the modern age.

the fact that the U.S. has a religious history hasn't been a problem at all.

What good will all that it do when America relegates herself to a theocratic Christian Taliban country? Most Americans dismiss Evolution! This alone is enough to compare American society to that of some Taliban village in the highlands of Afghanistan! (yes I am overdoing it a little but think of the consequences involved should the Theocrats have their way)?
Alabama

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted a textbook sticker that was a disclaimer about evolution. It has since been revised and moderated.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-13

Kansas

On August 11, 1999, by a 6–4 vote the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science education standards to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe", so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in state-wide standardized tests and "it was left to the 305 local school districts in Kansas whether or not to teach it.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-AGI-14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-20

Kentucky

In October 1999, the Kentucky Department of Education replaced the word "evolution" with "change over time" in state school standards.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-21

Ohio

In 2002, proponents of intelligent design asked the Ohio Board of Education to adopt intelligent design as part of its standard biology curriculum, in line with the guidelines of the Edwards v. Aguillard holding. In December 2002, the Board adopted a proposal that permitted, but did not require, the teaching of intelligent design.


Georgia

In 2002, six parents in Cobb County, Georgia in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District sued to have the following sticker removed from public school textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
In 2004 the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board voted that a statement must be read to students of 9th grade biology mentioning Intelligent Design.

Virginia

Despite proponents urging that intelligent design should be included in the school system's science curriculum the school board of Chesterfield County Public Schools in Virginia decided on May 23, 2007, to approve science textbooks for middle and high schools which do not include the idea of intelligent design. However, during the board meeting a statement was made that their aim was self-directed learning which "occurs only when alternative views are explored and discussed", and directed that professionals supporting curriculum development and implementation are to be required "to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning" of the theory of evolution, "along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion." During the week before the meeting, one of the intelligent design proponents claimed that "Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom", and presented "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-30

Texas

On November 7, 2007 the Texas Education Agency director of science curriculum Christine Comer was forced to resign over an e-mail she had sent announcing a talk given by an anti-Intelligent Design author. In a memo obtained under the Texas Freedom of Information act, TEA officials wrote "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-31 In response over 100 biology professors from Texas universities signed a letter to the state education commissioner denouncing the requirement to be neutral on the subject of Intelligent Design.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education#cite_note-32

 

[MoonLancer]

There's no evidence that the U.S. would have gotten involved without Pearl Harbor. Either way, the U.S. saved England's sorry butt, while fighting the Nazi's and Japan at the same time.

True. The people would never have gone along with it. Your right. Thus it needed to happen in order for it to become the peoples will rather then the governments.

the president knew about a surpise attack? hmm. and the president planned to go to war by letting our most important naval fleet get destroyed? hmm.

you don't play chess do you? sometimes you need to sacrifice the queen in order to take the opponents king.

 

[shinbits]

What good will all that it do when America relegates herself to a theocratic Christian Taliban country? Most Americans dismiss Evolution! This alone is enough to compare American society to that of some Taliban village in the highlands of Afghanistan! (yes I am overdoing it a little but think of the consequences involved should the Theocrats have their way)?

the U.S. has been a religious nation since it's creation. none of the "consequences" you mentioned have yet happened. The U.S. is still a world leader in science. Always has been, always will be.

Alabama

In 1996, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted a textbook sticker that was a disclaimer about evolution. It has since been revised and moderated.



Kansas

On August 11, 1999, by a 6–4 vote the Kansas State Board of Education changed their science education standards to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe", so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in state-wide standardized tests and "it was left to the 305 local school districts in Kansas whether or not to teach it.

Kentucky

In October 1999, the Kentucky Department of Education replaced the word "evolution" with "change over time" in state school standards.

Ohio

In 2002, proponents of intelligent design asked the Ohio Board of Education to adopt intelligent design as part of its standard biology curriculum, in line with the guidelines of the Edwards v. Aguillard holding. In December 2002, the Board adopted a proposal that permitted, but did not require, the teaching of intelligent design.


Georgia

In 2002, six parents in Cobb County, Georgia in the case Selman v. Cobb County School District sued to have the following sticker removed from public school textbooks: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
In 2004 the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board voted that a statement must be read to students of 9th grade biology mentioning Intelligent Design.

Virginia

Despite proponents urging that intelligent design should be included in the school system's science curriculum the school board of Chesterfield County Public Schools in Virginia decided on May 23, 2007, to approve science textbooks for middle and high schools which do not include the idea of intelligent design. However, during the board meeting a statement was made that their aim was self-directed learning which "occurs only when alternative views are explored and discussed", and directed that professionals supporting curriculum development and implementation are to be required "to investigate and develop processes that encompass a comprehensive approach to the teaching and learning" of the theory of evolution, "along with all other topics that raise differences of thought and opinion." During the week before the meeting, one of the intelligent design proponents claimed that "Students are being excluded from scientific debate. It's time to bring this debate into the classroom", and presented "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism".

Texas

On November 7, 2007 the Texas Education Agency director of science curriculum Christine Comer was forced to resign over an e-mail she had sent announcing a talk given by an anti-Intelligent Design author. In a memo obtained under the Texas Freedom of Information act, TEA officials wrote "Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.". In response over 100 biology professors from Texas universities signed a letter to the state education commissioner denouncing the requirement to be neutral on the subject of Intelligent Design.

so?

 

[MoonLancer]

and i must say, we won ww2 mostly because of Germany backstabbing and attacking Russia then anything else.

 

[shinbits]

True. The people would never have gone along with it. Your right. Thus it needed to happen in order for it to become the peoples will rather then the governments.





you don't play chess do you? sometimes you need to sacrifice the queen in order to take the opponents king.

yes. but you don't see chess players agreeing to give up a row of pawns prior to starting the game, do you?

 

[MoonLancer]

you can read more about it here.

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[shinbits]

and i must say, we won ww2 mostly because of Germany backstabbing and attacking Russia then anything else.

that didn't happen until after strong military pressure from the Allied Forces.

 

[shinbits]

you can read more about it here.

Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thank you.

 

[MoonLancer]

yes. but you don't see chess players agreeing to give up a row of pawns prior to starting the game, do you?

we gave them the opening move, but diden't think they had the capability of taking the whole row.

we offered japan a flesh wound and they went for an organ and we basically underestimated them, so pearl harbor ended up being a much worse atrocity then was expected.

This is due to japan sending almost its entire fleet, flying the whole way to pearl harbor without any naval support. They also had bombs set to go off at given distance, so instead of using torpedoes, they dropped bombs that went off inside the hull of the ships.

*edit* they also used a type of torpedo called Thunder Fish, that floated. Pearl harbor was a shallow bay and thought to be impervious to torpedo attacks. *

oh they caught us with our pants down for sure, but we still knew something was going to happen and counted on it to enter the war.

its like letting someone punch you in the arm and instead they punch you in the face or the stomic. You knew they would punch. in fact you wanted them too, they just did it a way that you diden't account for.

 

[Hespera]

Pearl harbor was attacked, and something like 6 hours later, they bombed the air force base in the Philippines. The Japanese base was shut down by heavy fog, and the Americans could have been there to bomb them while they sat on the ground. When the fog lifted, they took off, and here, under the command of the great general mcarthur, sat all the american planes lined up to be destroyed.

You can spin all the conspracy theories you want but the obvious thing is that it was just total incompetence. Americans like to think they are the greatest but they dont always show that side to the world.

 

[atomweaver]

The reason that i do not believe in both is because of the anatomy of the eyeball.

The creationist eyeball canard was addressed decades ago...

The sense of sight could not have evolved over time, it had to happen all at once,

This is an assertion. Assertions beg for evidence...

so I truly think that whe GOD made it all the first time, it hasstayedhat way since.

The fossil record (which some also call God's creation) says otherwise.

yes, i'm sure there were. but for many that claimed otherwise the LORD aready le us know in the word. Job 26:10



that is my point, how much tweaking do we have to do withhe word of GOD? none.

Then please explain this article to me. Christians are historically unrelenting tweakers of the Bible...

It is true and unchanging just as HE IS.

True, perhaps... Unchanging? Not remotely. Evolutionary theory has a solid 1500 years to go before it acquires the same history of revision as the Bible. Do the theory the same time frame for revision as was given to the Bibles, and we'll see you in AD 3509 for a re-evaluation of where each stands, hmmm?

I will not put any faith in evolution,

Dear me, no. Evolution doesn't want your faith... at most, it wants your comprehension, which you clearly haven't achieved. Leave your faith for your God.

thank you for your point. Like you point out, I also feel a need in pointing out what I do not believe in, and I do know a bit about evolution,

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

Meaning
A small amount of knowledge can cause people to think they are more expert than they really are.
Origin

First used by Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) in An Essay on Criticism, 1709:

"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."​

Happy 200th anniversary, Mr. Pope. Your words are as true today as they ever were...

 

[LndShrk88]

I know I'm new here, but I would like to point out the fact that Thomas is operating on what seem, to me, to be very different definitions of the words faith, evidence, fact, theory, and perhaps religion. I think it would be very helpful if we would make it clear to him what we, and in most cases the dictionary, would define these terms in the case of science. I think it is hard to come to any understanding if both sides SEEM to be using the same words, but in fact mean two very different things. It has been pointed out in some other threads that the "street" definitions of theory, for instance, are very different from the definition science actually asserts.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Welcome to the forums LS88.

I don't know how familiar you are with creationism, but one of the earmarks is that they like to make their own definitions regarding science. So it is important to distinguish which operational term is being discussed, the real terminology, or the made up one.

Hope this helps. Looking forward to hear what you have to say.

 

[LndShrk88]

Thank you for the warm welcome.

The point I am making is that if Creationist cannot at least conceed the proper definition, then there is no point in arguing. I think it might be wise to set out what mean when you use a word that is crucial to the argument.

As pointed out, Creationist clearly must have a different idea of either faith or evidence if they are to claim that understanding the model of Evolution constitutes faith. I know this might be asking to much, but I think that if someone disagrees with how you characterize their "beliefs" then it is the job of the characterizer to explain what they mean, and then the job of the "believer" to explain why they do or do not agree with the characterization.

I think that the main issue is the over simplification/classification of groups which causes both sides to make assumptions which stunt the conversation.

I feel I must also point out the importance of the idea of truth. I think that this is the key to understanding the major disconnect from Creationist to all other religious believers and non-believers. In my opinion, if you can assert that something is true (to the greatest possible degree) then you must have a method in which you determine what is true and what is not. If it is an accurate method then you should be able to apply this method to all cases, in order to make rational and logical decisions.

Sorry for the long post, and I'm sure some of that was a waste of my time but hopefully it will be some help.

 

[Thomas Anderson]

I actually only came back to post this site for Cabal and I see some are still trying to force there theory on others as if it is “so matter of fact” I will post this one and this will certainly be my last one here at this thread.
Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?
"godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife" I cant post links yet but the sites called "evidence for God from science"
Cabal you have to check this site out. Search around the whole site.Its huge and very informational. These people know there science as well as any. Hespera might enjoy it as well. But weaver and lttf and others take one look at the name of the site and say “what could they possible know?” Seriously though Cabal search around this site and I would recommend to you the book “More than a theory” by Hugh Ross. It just might give you a different perspective on things..At this site weaver there is a link to another site that offers over a million dollars to prove evolution. However the link will take you to hopeful believers in the ToE not creationists. I sense once agian desperation.

The Halibut has two eyes on the same side of the head. If you look around you can see variety, the halibut is part of the variety. One of the funniest things I have seen lately is Richard Dawkins video on u-tube about the evolution of the halibut’s eyes. Teaching kids the explanation on how this came about by the ToE. He wasn’t there to witness it but was able to explain with confidence how it happened, so matter of fact like. But as I viewed it and listened to him explain ToE’s theory on this I could not help but notice how foolish it was, even the kids looked confused. If one concludes that’s how the halibut’s eyes ended up that way, then without a doubt it takes faith to believe it. The one eye sort of worked its way around the head over thousands or millions of years and parked itself beside the other one?. . Let me guess, you have a few transitionals on this as well? Or possibly the answer is as simple as “ it started out that way.” The eye working itself around the head is accepted in the ToE’ists hole in head only.

For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything. G.K. Chesterton

Quote
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.” Nature science writer Henry Gee doesn't doubt Darwinian evolution, but he candidly admits that we cannot infer it from fossils. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate,” he wrote in 1999. We call new fossil discoveries missing links “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
So what does the fossil record really show us? It shows that the earth was once populated by now-extinct creatures, and that the history of life has passed through several stages. But the fossil record lacks the innumerable transitional links demanded by Darwin’s theory, and even the few intermediate forms it contains cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships. If the only two possibilities (as Darwin argued) were either independent acts of creation or gradual descent with modification, then many features of the fossil record (like much of the evidence from biogeography) would be more consistent with the former than the latter.
End Quote

It all depends on what story you tell. If you find a fossil that is complete, what is it to say that that’s not how it has always been? Who decides it’s transitional? Because it’s similar but less complex? If 99% of all creatures are extinct and we supposedly all evolved then I totally understand the desperation to make most all fossils you find transitional. 99% extinct, that tells me there were quite a vast variety of creatures. Spanning from those strictly water, to those water and land, to those strictly land, to those land and air. That’s quite a span. So why is the tiktaalik a transitional? With the variety of species why not one more creature in the” water and land” species? Even hundreds of thousands of middle school students could design (draw) a species similar to that of a tiktaalik. Is the fossil complete? The platypus has a duck like bill, webbed feet and lays eggs. Yet no one calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks. QUOTE“Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series”. END Quote. It all depends on the story you tell. So many huge gaps. Things just appear. Genetic information just suddenly changes and appears out of random processes.. No God need be involved. Take it on trust. And if we are having trouble with the gaps, let’s just invent a thing called punctuated equilibrium, and the story goes on and on.
Even if monkeys had the exact same DNA as us, I could still see a difference. We are without a doubt more unique in so many ways, and the only conclusion to draw from this is a different purpose for our being. Even in a trillion years, yes a trillion years the only way a monkey is ever going to get to the moon is if we strap them in a rocket ship and send them there ourselves. A trillion years might be an exaggeration; I don’t think the second law of thermodynamics, plus a certain Person, will let us get that far. “Someone once said that if you set a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.” Peter Kreef.
It’s true we have similarities in our DNA to monkeys, but also in pigs and mice as well. Why then could we not pick up a similar virus? Avian, swine etc.


I do believe reading on one site that ToE at one time had a list of over a hundred vestigial organs . Now it has dropped considerably. ToE believers talk so much about poor design as if they are searching for something, somewhere, anywhere, please, just to somehow prove God does not exist. .In there search for poor design, have they noticed anything remarkable, magnificent, awesome even?. One person even went so far as to say ”There are hundreds of thousands of middle school students who could devise a better design for a penguin wing in a weekend, and without access to either omnipotence or omniscience...” Great Caesar’s Ghost!!! Hundreds of thousands???!!?!!!!! Gosh, that is a big number. Really big. Arbitrarily big. You made it up big... ..Hopefully you meant in design, as to draw? Not actually make a fully functional penguin wing with a
a remarkable capacity to regulate their body temperature despite the extreme external temperatures. With unique overlapping feathers that are highly specialized, providing good insulation, waterproofing, and wind resistance .Also including the peculiar structure of the feathers which provide extra thickness, and the complex network of blood vessels in their wings which also helps the birds thermo regulate. Wait a second, if the penguin cant fly and it use too. Isn’t that devolution?. In conclusion, to call it poor design only means lack of understanding. For there is NO searching the Creators understanding, Even in your study of ToE you have to without a doubt see some amazingly, mind blowing and awesome complexity in most everything you study. Maybe even some design and purpose? And if one believes that it all happened just by chance eons in the past without a director, guider or creator, without any meaning or purpose using only the little evidence you have, then that’s where I see lays your faith. Now I really don’t want to bring this up again but it must also just baffle ToE believers as well. Think for a moment the vastness of all creatures. From a small gentle beautifully colored butterfly to the amazingly agile powerful and awesome creature the lion. Now consider if you can ALL the creatures in-between. Now according to the theory of ToE ALL these creatures were not as we see them today, Seemingly so complete and perfect (at the same time yet) and fearfully and wonderfully made Not to mention the diversity.. Somewhere in the distant past ALL of these creatures were only partially formed. So in the ToEist’s hole in the head we had all these creatures running (or squirming) around the earth resembling mutated like creatures half formed with limited functions . It would resemble what you would see in a science horror movie. They were not completely formed, wow, I am stumped. I can’t even imagine what they were like. Its impossible to even draw a picture. Now we are talking every creature right? Oh yah , punctuated equilibrium. Sorry, I just can’t buy that. When I consider the theory of ToE and with this in mind I have to say I am really curious as to how you picture the world we live in back when all creatures were not yet completely formed. especially us? Even with your wildest explanations you must admit that it takes FAITH to come to any conclusion in this area. Because “YOU WERE NOT THERE”. Oh I am sure , like everything else (eyes, brain ect) you have your theories (faith) on how this all transpired.. Psalm 14: 1 “The fool says in his heart there is no God.” Romans 1:20 ”For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what was made, so that men are without excuse” .

An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at OhioStateUniversity, the WexnerCenter for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” Its white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?
The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. Ravi Zacharias

“If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions….Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.” Douglas Wilson.





It is true, one does get tired of listening to the atheistical fizz, which I know will pour out after this post. If this is what brings fullfilment to your (what must seem meaningless) life, then have at it.Hespera said "I honestly feel sorry for all the victims who have been fooled by all the false religions all around the world." On the contray I feel sorry for anybody who can go through life and NEVER experience God. One of the main reasons for that is pride. I have air to breath, food to eat, work and a home...Who needs God? Well I am off to enjoy my life as intended. With a peace that passes all understanding, a joy unspeakable and an abundant life at that. Just like God said it would be.I know christians who have been christians for over 40 years and you can still see the joy, peace and love in their lives. If there was NOTHING there..What keeps them going? They are not only still serving God, they keep getting stronger.

 

[tanzanos]

I actually only came back to post this site for Cabal and I see some are still trying to force there theory on others as if it is “so matter of fact” I will post this one and this will certainly be my last one here at this thread.
Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?
"godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife" I cant post links yet but the sites called "evidence for God from science"
Cabal you have to check this site out. Search around the whole site.Its huge and very informational. These people know there science as well as any. Hespera might enjoy it as well. But weaver and lttf and others take one look at the name of the site and say “what could they possible know?” Seriously though Cabal search around this site and I would recommend to you the book “More than a theory” by Hugh Ross. It just might give you a different perspective on things..At this site weaver there is a link to another site that offers over a million dollars to prove evolution. However the link will take you to hopeful believers in the ToE not creationists. I sense once agian desperation.

The Halibut has two eyes on the same side of the head. If you look around you can see variety, the halibut is part of the variety. One of the funniest things I have seen lately is Richard Dawkins video on u-tube about the evolution of the halibut’s eyes. Teaching kids the explanation on how this came about by the ToE. He wasn’t there to witness it but was able to explain with confidence how it happened, so matter of fact like. But as I viewed it and listened to him explain ToE’s theory on this I could not help but notice how foolish it was, even the kids looked confused. If one concludes that’s how the halibut’s eyes ended up that way, then without a doubt it takes faith to believe it. The one eye sort of worked its way around the head over thousands or millions of years and parked itself beside the other one?. . Let me guess, you have a few transitionals on this as well? Or possibly the answer is as simple as “ it started out that way.” The eye working itself around the head is accepted in the ToE’ists hole in head only.

For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything. G.K. Chesterton

Quote
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.” Nature science writer Henry Gee doesn't doubt Darwinian evolution, but he candidly admits that we cannot infer it from fossils. “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate,” he wrote in 1999. We call new fossil discoveries missing links “as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.” Gee concluded: “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
So what does the fossil record really show us? It shows that the earth was once populated by now-extinct creatures, and that the history of life has passed through several stages. But the fossil record lacks the innumerable transitional links demanded by Darwin’s theory, and even the few intermediate forms it contains cannot establish ancestor-descendant relationships. If the only two possibilities (as Darwin argued) were either independent acts of creation or gradual descent with modification, then many features of the fossil record (like much of the evidence from biogeography) would be more consistent with the former than the latter.
End Quote

It all depends on what story you tell. If you find a fossil that is complete, what is it to say that that’s not how it has always been? Who decides it’s transitional? Because it’s similar but less complex? If 99% of all creatures are extinct and we supposedly all evolved then I totally understand the desperation to make most all fossils you find transitional. 99% extinct, that tells me there were quite a vast variety of creatures. Spanning from those strictly water, to those water and land, to those strictly land, to those land and air. That’s quite a span. So why is the tiktaalik a transitional? With the variety of species why not one more creature in the” water and land” species? Even hundreds of thousands of middle school students could design (draw) a species similar to that of a tiktaalik. Is the fossil complete? The platypus has a duck like bill, webbed feet and lays eggs. Yet no one calls it a transitional creature between mammals and ducks. QUOTE“Archaeopteryx has long been held up as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. That is also the case for the other birds in the evolutionary tree. Evolutionists just placed some of the many living and extinct species next to each other to make the bird series”. END Quote. It all depends on the story you tell. So many huge gaps. Things just appear. Genetic information just suddenly changes and appears out of random processes.. No God need be involved. Take it on trust. And if we are having trouble with the gaps, let’s just invent a thing called punctuated equilibrium, and the story goes on and on.
Even if monkeys had the exact same DNA as us, I could still see a difference. We are without a doubt more unique in so many ways, and the only conclusion to draw from this is a different purpose for our being. Even in a trillion years, yes a trillion years the only way a monkey is ever going to get to the moon is if we strap them in a rocket ship and send them there ourselves. A trillion years might be an exaggeration; I don’t think the second law of thermodynamics, plus a certain Person, will let us get that far. “Someone once said that if you set a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find text of Hamlet, we don’t wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe.” Peter Kreef.
It’s true we have similarities in our DNA to monkeys, but also in pigs and mice as well. Why then could we not pick up a similar virus? Avian, swine etc.


I do believe reading on one site that ToE at one time had a list of over a hundred vestigial organs . Now it has dropped considerably. ToE believers talk so much about poor design as if they are searching for something, somewhere, anywhere, please, just to somehow prove God does not exist. .In there search for poor design, have they noticed anything remarkable, magnificent, awesome even?. One person even went so far as to say ”There are hundreds of thousands of middle school students who could devise a better design for a penguin wing in a weekend, and without access to either omnipotence or omniscience...” Great Caesar’s Ghost!!! Hundreds of thousands???!!?!!!!! Gosh, that is a big number. Really big. Arbitrarily big. You made it up big... ..Hopefully you meant in design, as to draw? Not actually make a fully functional penguin wing with a
a remarkable capacity to regulate their body temperature despite the extreme external temperatures. With unique overlapping feathers that are highly specialized, providing good insulation, waterproofing, and wind resistance .Also including the peculiar structure of the feathers which provide extra thickness, and the complex network of blood vessels in their wings which also helps the birds thermo regulate. Wait a second, if the penguin cant fly and it use too. Isn’t that devolution?. In conclusion, to call it poor design only means lack of understanding. For there is NO searching the Creators understanding, Even in your study of ToE you have to without a doubt see some amazingly, mind blowing and awesome complexity in most everything you study. Maybe even some design and purpose? And if one believes that it all happened just by chance eons in the past without a director, guider or creator, without any meaning or purpose using only the little evidence you have, then that’s where I see lays your faith. Now I really don’t want to bring this up again but it must also just baffle ToE believers as well. Think for a moment the vastness of all creatures. From a small gentle beautifully colored butterfly to the amazingly agile powerful and awesome creature the lion. Now consider if you can ALL the creatures in-between. Now according to the theory of ToE ALL these creatures were not as we see them today, Seemingly so complete and perfect (at the same time yet) and fearfully and wonderfully made Not to mention the diversity.. Somewhere in the distant past ALL of these creatures were only partially formed. So in the ToEist’s hole in the head we had all these creatures running (or squirming) around the earth resembling mutated like creatures half formed with limited functions . It would resemble what you would see in a science horror movie. They were not completely formed, wow, I am stumped. I can’t even imagine what they were like. Its impossible to even draw a picture. Now we are talking every creature right? Oh yah , punctuated equilibrium. Sorry, I just can’t buy that. When I consider the theory of ToE and with this in mind I have to say I am really curious as to how you picture the world we live in back when all creatures were not yet completely formed. especially us? Even with your wildest explanations you must admit that it takes FAITH to come to any conclusion in this area. Because “YOU WERE NOT THERE”. Oh I am sure , like everything else (eyes, brain ect) you have your theories (faith) on how this all transpired.. Psalm 14: 1 “The fool says in his heart there is no God.” Romans 1:20 ”For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what was made, so that men are without excuse” .

An utterly fascinating illustration of this duping of ourselves is the latest arts building opened at OhioStateUniversity, the WexnerCenter for the Performing Arts, another one of our chimerical exploits in the name of intellectual advance. Newsweek branded this building “America’s first deconstructionist building.” Its white scaffolding, red brick turrets, and Colorado grass pods evoke a double take. But puzzlement only intensifies when you enter the building, for inside you encounter stairways that go nowhere, pillars that hang from the ceiling without purpose, and angled surfaces configured to create a sense of vertigo. The architect, we are duly informed, designed this building to reflect life itself-senseless and incoherent-and the “capriciousness of the rules that organize the built world.” When the rationale was explained to me, I had one question: Did he do the same with the foundation?
The laughter in response to my question unmasked the double standard our deconstructionists espouse. And that is precisely the double standard of atheism! It is possible to dress up and romanticize our bizarre experiments in social restructuring while disavowing truth or absolutes. But one dares not play such deadly games with the foundations of good thinking. Ravi Zacharias

“If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions….Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.” Douglas Wilson.





It is true, one does get tired of listening to the atheistical fizz, which I know will pour out after this post. If this is what brings fullfilment to your (what must seem meaningless) life, then have at it.Hespera said "I honestly feel sorry for all the victims who have been fooled by all the false religions all around the world." On the contray I feel sorry for anybody who can go through life and NEVER experience God. One of the main reasons for that is pride. I have air to breath, food to eat, work and a home...Who needs God? Well I am off to enjoy my life as intended. With a peace that passes all understanding, a joy unspeakable and an abundant life at that. Just like God said it would be.I know christians who have been christians for over 40 years and you can still see the joy, peace and love in their lives. If there was NOTHING there..What keeps them going? They are not only still serving God, they keep getting stronger.

And I though it was antiChristian to purposely LIE and twist and warp the facts! You know as much about Biology and Evolution as a Gecko knows about the second law of thermodynamics.
I challenge you to publicly announce that you abide by God's commands to the letter and I shall prove you a Hypocrite!

 

[LndShrk88]

Ok, I'm not going to quote that post because frankly it is to long. I'm not saying you did this on purpose, but I wouldn't be suprised to have you bring up points people don't address when you are refuted, but I digress.

On Dawkin's explaination of the halibuts eyes, I'm curious to why creationist think say things like, "Dawkin's wasn't there, how can he know!?" when this logic(I know this is a scary word) is applied you could say "You weren't their for all the events in the Bible so how do you know they are true?" The point is that sure we could both think this way but it gets neither of us any closer to the truth.

Another issue is that most of these quotes offer no actual evidence, mere speculation at best. See the thing is that you make lots and lots of claims, but then do NO research or testing to see if your hypothesis is actually true or possible , but I must conceed that alot of claims that creationist make are untestable. Without tests there is no reason for anyone that doesn't already agree with you to change their mind.

By the logic, or lack there of, that you prescribe to we can come to believe anything. If all I need is a book and lots of unsupported ideas anything goes because I can't prove 100% that somewhere something, like the simple idea of life outside of this planet, is absolutely impossible.

 

[tanzanos]

Ok, I'm not going to quote that post because frankly it is to long. I'm not saying you did this on purpose, but I wouldn't be suprised to have you bring up points people don't address when you are refuted, but I digress.

On Dawkin's explaination of the halibuts eyes, I'm curious to why creationist think say things like, "Dawkin's wasn't there, how can he know!?" when this logic(I know this is a scary word) is applied you could say "You weren't their for all the events in the Bible so how do you know they are true?" The point is that sure we could both think this way but it gets neither of us any closer to the truth.

Another issue is that most of these quotes offer no actual evidence, mere speculation at best. See the thing is that you make lots and lots of claims, but then do NO research or testing to see if your hypothesis is actually true or possible , but I must conceed that alot of claims that creationist make are untestable. Without tests there is no reason for anyone that doesn't already agree with you to change their mind.

By the logic, or lack there of, that you prescribe to we can come to believe anything. If all I need is a book and lots of unsupported ideas anything goes because I can't prove 100% that somewhere something, like the simple idea of life outside of this planet, is absolutely impossible.

Welcome to the forum LS88

 

[LndShrk88]

Thank you, I appreciate the welcome.