Creationism?

[akaBruno]

How can anybody in their right mind believe in Creationism?

[Loseirdo]

How can anybody in their right mind believe in Creationism?

Whether you believe in Creationism, you believe in Intelligent Design, or you believe in pure Darwinian Evolution, they all still come down to a matter of faith. The fact that most evolutionary science is incomplete and largely inconclusive makes that belief system far more absurd than Creationism, so who are you to say that it's better?

[General Septem]

Whether you believe in Creationism, you believe in Intelligent Design, or you believe in pure Darwinian Evolution, they all still come down to a matter of faith. The fact that most evolutionary science is incomplete and largely inconclusive makes that belief system far more absurd than Creationism, so who are you to say that it's better?

You should study evolution with an open mind. You might find it interesting.

[Loseirdo]

You should study evolution with an open mind. You might find it interesting.

Gen, I don't have anything against evolution, and I do, in fact, find it interesting. My point is that it is far from proven, so believing that Darwinian Evolution holds all the answers is a bigger leap of faith than simply saying "God did it". Yes, it has more on the side of science, but it has less on the side of simple explanatory power. I definitely think it deserves further study, but I don't think we'll ever have an absolute answer for how life started or how it evolved into the life we have today, so you will have to excuse me if I remain somewhat skeptical.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

Gen, I don't have anything against evolution, and I do, in fact, find it interesting. My point is that it is far from proven, so believing that Darwinian Evolution holds all the answers is a bigger leap of faith than simply saying "God did it". Yes, it has more on the side of science, but it has less on the side of simple explanatory power. I definitely think it deserves further study, but I don't think we'll ever have an absolute answer for how life started or how it evolved into the life we have today, so you will have to excuse me if I remain somewhat skeptical.

If scientists concluded that they had an absolute answer for anything, they would be pseudoscientists. The truth should always be up for debate.

And very few people make the claim that Evolution holds all the answers, it's just the theory of how organisms adapt to their enviroment and change.

[Limbo]

How can anybody in their right mind believe in Creationism?

What do you consider to be "creationism". There are many forms of it. Young earth, old earth, Intelligent design, theistic evolution, etc.

Which were you referring to?

[Limbo]

You should study evolution with an open mind.

Studying anything with an open mind is desirable. Of course there are closed minds on both side of the debate, not just among creationists.

[Walter Weiss]

Studying anything with an open mind is desirable. Of course there are closed minds on both side of the debate, not just among creationists.

Open the mind. Yesssss!

If GOD created the Earth and everything in it, then GOD also created evolution and everything that happened with it.

Logic here might indicate that creation may have happened, and that evolution of any species was a part of that creation.

If you think Nature came from GOD, and you recognize the fact that Nature is ever adapting to it's environments....it is ever changing.....then you would have to recognize the fact that evolution is real, and creation is real.

[LedZap]

In the news about evolution : http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080104/sc_nm/evolution_usa_dc_4

[Loseirdo]

In the news about evolution : http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080104/sc_nm/evolution_usa_dc_4

Big surprise. These assholes need to learn how to accept criticism.

"...issued a spirited defense of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology".

What horse shit. How can an unfounded theory with little evidence be the "bedrock principle of modern biology"? These bozos are reaching for the moon, and with the idiots we have in congress today, they just might get it.

Damn.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

Big surprise. These assholes need to learn how to accept criticism.

"...issued a spirited defense of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology".

What horse shit. How can an unfounded theory with little evidence be the "bedrock principle of modern biology"? These bozos are reaching for the moon, and with the idiots we have in congress today, they just might get it.

Damn.

It kinda is the bedrock principle of modern biology. It's the only thing that would explain how animals can survive in a their enviroments now when the earth has been changing over millions of years.

[Loseirdo]

It kinda is the bedrock principle of modern biology. It's the only thing that would explain how animals can survive in a their enviroments now when the earth has been changing over millions of years.

Well, that doesn't say much for modern biology. I thought it was coming along nicely, but if evolution is the bedrock principle, I guess they don't actually know jack-shit.

My point is that evolution has the explanatory power, but it doesn't have the evidence. You can't base an entire scientific field on an ideal. That is very bad science.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

Well, that doesn't say much for modern biology. I thought it was coming along nicely, but if evolution is the bedrock principle, I guess they don't actually know jack-shit.

My point is that evolution has the explanatory power, but it doesn't have the evidence. You can't base an entire scientific field on an ideal. That is very bad science.

It's well supported by ERV's and many other sources of evidence. If it wasn't, why would they constantly claim it is?

[Loseirdo]

It's well supported by ERV's and many other sources of evidence. If it wasn't, why would they constantly claim it is?

No, no, you have it backwards. ERVs are used as evidence of evolution. That doesn't make evolution true, and it certainly doesn't mean that ERVs can't support any other theories.

What are all these "other sources of evidence"? I don't remember seeing any. I remember a lot of big talk and plenty of "maybe"s and "could be"s, but I don't remember much concrete evidence. Do we have any evidence of species transmutation? The best they can do is show some fossils that look like a mix between two different species (key words: look like). I hardly call that "evidence" and rather call it "a reason to be curious".

"If it wasn't, why would they constantly claim it is?" Elementary, my dear Watson. They've dug themselves into a hole. They got all excited about evolution back when they first started researching it and people like Dawkins saw it as a perfect way to replace religion, so they started making absurd claims to truth when they had no supporting evidence. Now, more evidence has been debunked than found, but if they admit that they've made a mistake, their egos will be damaged and people might recognize them for the hacks they actually are. These people aren't scientists, they're the Al Gores of Biology. It's sad.

[Limbo]

So the vice president of the National Academy of Sciences says,"We need a citizenry that's trained in real science."

I totally agree. Science isn't about dogmatically pushing a particular point of view, it is about going where the evidence leads us. Unfortunately we are not seeing this anymore among most Darwinists. Teaching intelligent design as a critique of Darwinism would be pure science.

[Loseirdo]

So the vice president of the National Academy of Sciences says,"We need a citizenry that's trained in real science."

I totally agree. Science isn't about dogmatically pushing a particular point of view, it is about going where the evidence leads us. Unfortunately we are not seeing this anymore among most Darwinists. Teaching intelligent design as a critique of Darwinism would be pure science.

Amen to that. :D

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

So the vice president of the National Academy of Sciences says,"We need a citizenry that's trained in real science."

I totally agree. Science isn't about dogmatically pushing a particular point of view, it is about going where the evidence leads us. Unfortunately we are not seeing this anymore among most Darwinists. Teaching intelligent design as a critique of Darwinism would be pure science.

But what is intelligent design then? I've never heard of the "Theory of Intelligent Design".

Better to teach them that science is where the evidence leads us.

[General Septem]

How can an unfounded theory with little evidence be the "bedrock principle of modern biology"?

The problem with giving equal weight to both theories is that you'd also have to give equal weight to those of all other religions, too, and teach them as if they were all working theories. Otherwise you're just discriminating.

How is just teaching evolution not discriminating? Because being the only scientific theory, it is the only one that actually belongs in school. I don't care how many creation scientists there are, there is absolutely no empirical way to prove that God created everything, you just have to take it on faith. And teaching faith in schools is bullshit.

[Limbo]

The problem with giving equal weight to both theories is that you'd also have to give equal weight to those of all other religions, too, and teach them as if they were all working theories. Otherwise you're just discriminating.

How is just teaching evolution not discriminating? Because being the only scientific theory, it is the only one that actually belongs in school. I don't care how many creation scientists there are, there is absolutely no empirical way to prove that God created everything, you just have to take it on faith. And teaching faith in schools is bullshit.

As for me personally, I am not talking about teaching creationism in schools, I am talking about teaching evolution in a realistic way. Critics, many of them in the I.D. movement, have been able to find some major problems with the science of orthodox Darwinism, and that is being suppressed by the powers that be in science education. That is what I think is wrong and dogmatic. The same kind of bullshit is happening with Global warming where any dissenting point of view is being suppressed. Let's not be naive. Where science and politics/religion cross paths, we are going to have this problem. We have to fight to make sure politics does not hijack science as we currently see happening.

[Loseirdo]

As for me personally, I am not talking about teaching creationism in schools, I am talking about teaching evolution in a realistic way. Critics, many of them in the I.D. movement, have been able to find some major problems with the science of orthodox Darwinism, and that is being suppressed by the powers that be in science education. That is what I think is wrong and dogmatic. The same kind of bullshit is happening with Global warming where any dissenting point of view is being suppressed. Let's not be naive. Where science and politics/religion cross paths, we are going to have this problem. We have to fight to make sure politics does not hijack science as we currently see happening.

Thank you, Limbo. You saved me a paragraph or two. :D

[Ope]

Since there is such a gray area for both sides of the argument, shouldn't evolution/creationism be left for the philosophy classroom. Where we came from theoretically does not have a place in science. Whether we were created by God or a big bang is pointless. We are here now, plain and simple.

[General Septem]

As for me personally, I am not talking about teaching creationism in schools, I am talking about teaching evolution in a realistic way. Critics, many of them in the I.D. movement, have been able to find some major problems with the science of orthodox Darwinism, and that is being suppressed by the powers that be in science education. That is what I think is wrong and dogmatic. The same kind of bullshit is happening with Global warming where any dissenting point of view is being suppressed. Let's not be naive. Where science and politics/religion cross paths, we are going to have this problem. We have to fight to make sure politics does not hijack science as we currently see happening.

I will agree with you in that the empirical method relies on skepticism in order to stay objective, but a few flaws in a theory that is already vague to begin with does in no way discredit the theory in whole or in part. Realistically speaking, evolution is the only explanation for our existence that anyone has come up with that doesn't involve an immeasurable, unprovable being.

[Limbo]

I will agree with you in that the empirical method relies on skepticism in order to stay objective, but a few flaws in a theory that is already vague to begin with does in no way discredit the theory in whole or in part. Realistically speaking, evolution is the only explanation for our existence that anyone has come up with that doesn't involve an immeasurable, unprovable being.

From my lay person's perspective, there are more than a few flaws. In any case, you are right though, some kind of blind evolution is the only "scientific" explanation possible, but it's warts should be shown to all. Why cover up it's flaws? That's not science. Would anyone care if a teacher or professor talked about an attempt to discredit a theory in physics or chemistry, whether it was successful or not? Of course not. It has become politically correct to muzzle any and all dissent in the field of evolution. That's my beef.

[Loseirdo]

From my lay person's perspective, there are more than a few flaws. In any case, you are right though, some kind of blind evolution is the only "scientific" explanation possible, but it's warts should be shown to all. Why cover up it's flaws? That's not science. Would anyone care if a teacher or professor talked about an attempt to discredit a theory in physics or chemistry, whether it was successful or not? Of course not. It has become politically correct to muzzle any and all dissent in the field of evolution. That's my beef.

I.D. is fairly scientific. You don't have to rely on God to understand that our evolution could have been programmed by a being (or beings) of higher intelligence.

[TheSpectacularSecularist]

From my lay person's perspective, there are more than a few flaws.

What are theese flaws then?

[Limbo]

What are theese flaws then?

Went over a lot of them in the evolution thread in the landfill section. Too busy to go over them again... maybe later.

[HeavyFr]

Friederich Nietzche is dead. - God
I think the name is Nietzsche.

[thememan]

Well, that doesn't say much for modern biology. I thought it was coming along nicely, but if evolution is the bedrock principle, I guess they don't actually know jack-shit.

My point is that evolution has the explanatory power, but it doesn't have the evidence. You can't base an entire scientific field on an ideal. That is very bad science.

Someone doesn't know what the Theory of Evolution actually is, methinks. For the actually theory in and of itself, there is plenty of evidence for it, both experimental and observational.

Now whether or not this correlates into us evolving from other primates is debatable, of course, but that's beside the point. That's really not the ToE.

There is a huge difference between the ToE, basically, and what many, such you, think it states.

[thememan]

Went over a lot of them in the evolution thread in the landfill section. Too busy to go over them again... maybe later.

Just be careful which ones you go with.

For instance, don't post anything from freak. He doesn't know two wits about a damn thing in terms of biology, physics, chemistry, or anything even remotely "science"-y. As long as you stay away from his idiotic ramblings, you should be fine.

[HeavyFr]

My point is that evolution has the explanatory power, but it doesn't have the evidence. You can't base an entire scientific field on an ideal. That is very bad science.

I think you must ask Einstein.

Pd:change the signature, his name is Nietzsche

[akeohane]

it dosent work because of the dinos and how they came before. us thats a huge hole in the whole adam and eve story

[tibore]

The adam and eve stroy is contradicted in the first two chapters of the bible, first god created adam and eve at the same time, then the next account says adam was created then eve from one of adam's ribs .... how can there be a big difference in the infalible book of god on the first page or 2? Bulshit alert going off!!!

Creationism (Inteligent design - w/e u want to call it) is just not science, and should not go bashing evolution which is science.

[hitekredneck]

The adam and eve stroy is contradicted in the first two chapters of the bible, first god created adam and eve at the same time, then the next account says adam was created then eve from one of adam's ribs .... how can there be a big difference in the infalible book of god on the first page or 2? Bulshit alert going off!!!

Creationism (Inteligent design - w/e u want to call it) is just not science, and should not go bashing evolution which is science.

intelligent design and evolution are both theories...hell, they're both possible, and not mutually exclusive

[ath_13]

i see ppl throwing theory around like that know what it means.....here's what scientific theory means...

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

so its fact based, not a hunch or speculation!


also you were talking about no evidence of evolution. what about bacteria thats evolved and we see everyday. They don't have a cure for the common cold because the bacteria is always evolving. Its evolution a much smaller scale but it's still evidence.

[Limbo]

i see ppl throwing theory around like that know what it means.....here's what scientific theory means...

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena

so its fact based, not a hunch or speculation!


Evolution remains the scientific theory of the day about where we came from because no other natural explanation is really possible, and since there is no better scientific theory to replace it, it remains, warts and all



also you were talking about no evidence of evolution. what about bacteria thats evolved and we see everyday. They don't have a cure for the common cold because the bacteria is always evolving. Its evolution a much smaller scale but it's still evidence.

No new genetic information is created, existing information is just getting reshuffled. That isn't really evolution.

[tibore]

intelligent design and evolution are both theories...hell, they're both possible, and not mutually exclusive

I never said that evolution was right, i just said it was science and creationism is not.

[WhiteRaven]

"The adam and eve stroy is contradicted in the first two chapters of the bible, first god created adam and eve at the same time, then the next account says adam was created then eve from one of adam's ribs ...."

the first is most likely a summary.

Now here's a question, how did god create light on the first day if there was no sun until the fourth, also, how could there be day and night without a sun?

[Ope]

"The adam and eve stroy is contradicted in the first two chapters of the bible, first god created adam and eve at the same time, then the next account says adam was created then eve from one of adam's ribs ...."

the first is most likely a summary.

Now here's a question, how did god create light on the first day if there was no sun until the fourth, also, how could there be day and night without a sun?

Not sure if you knew this but, the sun is not the only source of light, wr.

The second question is arbitrary. Asking how God does something is like asking a dog why he licks his ass.

[WhiteRaven]

"the sun is not the only source of light, wr."

Oh I see, so god turned the lamp off and created the sun to decrease his electric bill?

[Limbo]

"The adam and eve stroy is contradicted in the first two chapters of the bible, first god created adam and eve at the same time, then the next account says adam was created then eve from one of adam's ribs ...."

the first is most likely a summary.

Now here's a question, how did god create light on the first day if there was no sun until the fourth, also, how could there be day and night without a sun?

I wouldn't get too worked up into a lather over stuff like this. It's a problem with the English translation. Notice in verse 1 of Genesis 1, it says God "created" the heavens and the earth. In verse 14 it says God "made" the sun.The underlying Hebrew words are different and have different meanings. Create means made something out of nothing. The word translated into English "made" really means "had made". God had made two great lights is what the verse is saying.

If I say, I made a cake, it is past tense. I could have made it several days ago. In contrast, the word translated as create that we see in verse one means in Hebrew something done at that moment.

[General Septem]

"the sun is not the only source of light, wr."

Oh I see, so god turned the lamp off and created the sun to decrease his electric bill?

You do know that there are billions of stars like the sun, right? :D

[Limbo]

Just to keep things in perspective, lets have a look at some other accounts of how the universe and everything in it was created.

Here is the Norse story of creation:


Muspell
The first world to exist was Muspell, a place of light and heat whose flames are so hot that those who are not native to that land cannot endure it.

Surt sits at Muspell's border, guarding the land with a flaming sword. At the end of the world he will vanquish all the gods and burn the whole world with fire.

Ginnungagap and Niflheim
Beyond Muspell lay the great and yawning void named Ginnungagap, and beyond Ginnungagap lay the dark, cold realm of Niflheim.

Ice, frost, wind, rain and heavy cold emanated from Niflheim, meeting in Ginnungagap the soft air, heat, light, and soft air from Muspell.

Ymir
Where heat and cold met appeared thawing drops, and this running fluid grew into a giant frost ogre named Ymir.

Frost ogres
Ymir slept, falling into a sweat. Under his left arm there grew a man and a woman. And one of his legs begot a son with the other. This was the beginning of the frost ogres.

Audhumla
Thawing frost then became a cow called Audhumla. Four rivers of milk ran from her teats, and she fed Ymir. (ha ha, love the bit about frost becoming a cow:D)

Buri, Bor, and Bestla
The cow licked salty ice blocks. After one day of licking, she freed a man's hair from the ice. After two days, his head appeared. On the third day the whole man was there. His name was Buri, and he was tall, strong, and handsome.

Buri begot a son named Bor, and Bor married Bestla, the daughter of a giant.

Odin, Vili, and Vé
Bor and Bestla had three sons: Odin was the first, Vili the second, and Vé the third.

It is believed that Odin, in association with his brothers, is the ruler of heaven and earth. He is the greatest and most famous of all men.

The death of Ymir
Odin, Vili, and Vé killed the giant Ymir.

When Ymir fell, there issued from his wounds such a flood of blood, that all the frost ogres were drowned, except for the giant Bergelmir who escaped with his wife by climbing onto a lur [a hollowed-out tree trunk that could serve either as a boat or a coffin]. From them spring the families of frost ogres.

Earth, trees, and mountains
The sons of Bor then carried Ymir to the middle of Ginnungagap and made the world from him. From his blood they made the sea and the lakes; from his flesh the earth; from his hair the trees; and from his bones the mountains. They made rocks and pebbles from his teeth and jaws and those bones that were broken.

Dwarfs
Maggots appeared in Ymir's flesh and came to life. By the decree of the gods they acquired human understanding and the appearance of men, although they lived in the earth and in rocks.

Sky, clouds, and stars
From Ymir's skull the sons of Bor made the sky and set it over the earth with its four sides. Under each corner they put a dwarf, whose names are East, West, North, and South.

The sons of Bor flung Ymir's brains into the air, and they became the clouds.

Then they took the sparks and burning embers that were flying about after they had been blown out of Muspell, and placed them in the midst of Ginnungagap to give light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths.

The earth was surrounded by a deep sea. The sons of Bor gave lands near the sea to the families of giants for their settlements.

Midgard
To protect themselves from the hostile giants, the sons of Bor built for themselves an inland stonghold, using Ymir's eyebrows. This stonghold they named Midgard.

Ask and Embla
While walking along the sea shore the sons of Bor found two trees, and from them they created a man and a woman.

Odin gave the man and the woman spirit and life. Vili gave them understanding and the power of movement. Vé gave them clothing and names. The man was named Ask [Ash] and the woman Embla [Elm?]. From Ask and Embla have sprung the races of men who lived in Midgard.

Asgard
In the middle of the world the sons of Bor built for themselves a stronghold named Asgard, called Troy by later generations. The gods and their kindred lived in Asgard, and many memorable events have happened there.

In Asgard was a great hall named Hlidskjálf. Odin sat there on a high seat. From there he could look out over the whole world and see what everyone was doing. He understood everything that he saw.

Odin, Frigg, and the Æsir
Odin married Frigg, the daughter of Fjörgvin. From this family has come all the kindred that inhabited ancient Asgard and those kingdoms that belonged to it. Members of this family are called the Æsir, and they are all divinities. This must be the reason why Odin is called All-Father. He is the father of all the gods and men and of everything that he and his power created.

Thor
The earth was Odin's daughter and his wife as well. By her he had his first son, Thor. Might and strength were Thor's characteristics. By these he dominates every living creature.

Bifröst
As all informed people know, the gods built a bridge from earth to heaven called Bifröst. Some call it the rainbow. It has three colors and is very strong, made with more skill and cunning than other structures. But strong as it is, it will break when the sons of Muspell ride out over it. The gods are not to blame that this structure will then break. Bifröst is a good bridge, but there is nothing in this world that can be relied on when the sons of Muspell are on the warpath.

Yggdrasil
The chief sanctuary of the gods is by the ash tree Yggdrasil. There they hold their daily court. Yggdrasil is the best and greatest of all trees. Its branches spread out over the whole world and reach up over heaven.


Now the Greek creation story:


In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.

Uranus and Gaia had many children together and eventually they had grandchildren. Some of their children become afraid of the power of their children. Kronus, in an effort to protect himself, swallowed his children when they were still infants *snicker*:D. However, his wife Rhea hid their youngest child. She gave him a rock wrapped in baby clothes, which he swallowed, thinking it was his son.

Once the child, Zeus, had reached manhood his mother instructed him on how to trick his father to give up his brothers and sisters. Once this was accomplished the children fought a mighty war against their father. After much fighting the younger generation won. With Zeus as their leader, they began to furnish Gaia with life and Uranus with stars.

Soon the Earth lacked only two things: man and animals. Zeus summoned his sons Prometheus (fore-thought) and Epimetheus (after-thought). He told them to go to Earth and create men and animals and give them each a gift.

Prometheus set to work forming men in the image of the gods and Epimetheus worked on the animals. As Epimetheus worked he gave each animal he created one of the gifts. After Epimetheus had completed his work Prometheus finally finished making men. However when he went to see what gift to give man Epimetheus shamefacedly informed him that he had foolishly used all the gifts.

Distressed, Prometheus decided he had to give man fire, even though gods were the only ones meant to have access to it. As the sun god rode out into the world the next morning Prometheus took some of the fire and brought it back to man. He taught his creation how to take care of it and then left them.

When Zeus discovered Prometheus' deed he became furious. He ordered his son to be chained to a mountain and for a vulture to peck out his liver every day till eternity.:D Then he began to devise a punishment for mankind. Another of his sons created a woman of great beauty, Pandora. Each of the gods gave her a gift. Zeus' present was curiosity and a box which he ordered her never to open. Then he presented her to Epimetheus as a wife.

Pandora's life with Epimetheus was happy except for her intense longing to open the box. She was convinced that because the gods and goddesses had showered so many glorious gifts upon her that this one would also be wonderful. One day when Epimetheus was gone she opened the box.

Out of the box flew all of the horrors which plague the world today - pain, sickness, envy, greed. Upon hearing Pandora's screams Epimetheus rushed home and fastened the lid shut, but all of the evils had already escaped.

Later that night they heard a voice coming from the box saying,

"Let me out. I am hope."

Pandora and Epimetheus released her and she flew out into the world to give hope to humankind.


Compare these to the account in Genesis. What seems more reasonable and in line with modern science to you?

[General Septem]

Compare these to the account in Genesis. What seems more reasonable and in line with modern science to you?

Genesis, but even that is a big stretch. Humans beings made out of sand? That would work if we were silicon based, but we're carbon based. Out of dirt? Maybe, plants grow in the dirt and are eventually the bottom of any food chain.

So yeah, a lot of Genesis's claims are somewhat reasonable, but only by a stretch. And if you believe that the Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old, then it's not even reasonable by a stretch.

There's symbolism in all religion and this is where I believe that most have elements of truth.

[WhiteRaven]

"In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings."

Actually if it is taken symbolically, then it could work up to this point. Of course, after that it stops making sense.

Of course, it is possible that the greek "gods" are not gods at all, but simply personifications of forces in nature, if so, then we can assume that the whole account is symbolic, and we just don't really understand what the greeks were getting at. An interesting thought at any rate...

[vulcan]

Be a Evolutionist.

The same evolutionist are Creationist, again and again I read, such and such specie is a "living fossil" ex. Coelacanth (a fish), hoatzin ( a bird),(this are only two ex.) what makes a species of certain kind of animal to change into another?, and other species of animals remain the same? that was really never explained , they try explaining this part of the theory with statements like, how some animals are well adapted to the environment so they don't have to change but environment did change for millions of years?, and other animals changed and they were sharing the same environment? they contradict their own theory all the time, that's what Evolutionist are saying Ad Nauseum, and this is not a fact is a theory and they change it all the time. The insect Kingdom are the same since the beginning of life, if you see insect preserved in amber are the same insects we have in the back yard today, not similar are the same kind.
5 years ago they stop saying "mutation makes species of animals to change into another species of animals", when it was proved to them mutation makes the organism weaker, and not stronger, mutation make the animal less fit for competition in the real world. for example in humans beings, the Sickle cell anemia is a mutation to protect against Malaria F. falciparum a parasite. People suffering this mutations are weaker, and sicker than regular human being, Mutations are used by humans, for their own benefit, a cow without horns is a mutation but is weaker in the real world, has no protection against carnivorous animals, like wolves or lions etc. So the mutation is not beneficial, then when this was proved to them again and again they change the story.
Now they try to convince not scientist population that SPECIALIZATION is evolution, oh well, well. Here we have a theory changing again and again this goes against Science itself, for the scientist you develop a theory and you prove it or not You don't change the theory to prove it right, this goes against Science itself, and this is what evolutionist do all the time. Now they are trying to say Specialization is just the mechanisms used for certain animals to adjust to their environment, and to change into another species their famous Finches the birds used by Mr. Darwin in the Galapagos island, when I look at them I only see the same bird eating different food, which is what Specialization is and animal adjusting to another environment, the evolutionist see a bird changing into another species of bird or maybe into another specie all different but this is not happening really. as a matter of facts Mr. Darwing finces haven't change since he described them, hundred of years ago, not a bit. Nonsense. And I can keep writing about this for ever. I hope I made my point clear. If I go into molecular genetics the theory stands very poorly, and they know it. But they are using Hitler Motto, " If you say it long enough and often enough they are going to believe it".
Evolution is just a theory and they can't prove it, they change the theory all the time, so they don't fulfill Scientific Method itself so becomes a religious Theory so they changed this again and again protecting the theory against facts disproving it, evolution is a very dangerous theory, it was Used by Adolf Hiltler to convince the German People to destroy other "inferior" races, That's what they believed there is not an inferior human race or a superior as a matter of fact. THis theroy is use now to start modeling the future like DNA testing, Use regularly now in inmates before releasing them to the regular population, these DNA test are going to a permanent DNA bank, the Bank exist under FBI supervision and there is not ruglations in how this bank can be use, soon the regular American Population is going to be tested and genetically mapped so based in these tests are going to let you go and get certain jobs, and with time they are going to be allowed to reproduce or not, "Evolution" into a practice. This theory is never becoming a fact but is becoming a practice, they are using it already with animals and with Human. And we are all going to accept it, only pocket of religious groups are not going to allowed the stated to DNA test them. Until this becomes mandatory. After all who is going to be against knowing if the chap dating your daughter has mutant genes in his genetic codes, and you may end up with a Down Syndrome Grand child. This is the theory of evolution in practice, this is happening and is going to get worst, is going to be applied to "protect" the Human kind and to control the H.K. evolutionary pattern. We keep talking...

[thememan]

Be a Evolutionist.

The same evolutionist are Creationist, again and again I read, such and such specie is a "living fossil" ex. Coelacanth (a fish), hoatzin ( a bird),(this are only two ex.) what makes a species of certain kind of animal to change into another?, and other species of animals remain the same?

Slight changes in the genome in the overall population of a given distinct population of animals eventually creates genetic material which is incompatible(I.E. cannot reproduce) with other populations descended from a common ancestor population. This has been observed. Many times. Over a "large"(relatively speaking) period of times, these genetic differences will add up, and after many generations, a very different organism will be the result. As has been observed.

Now, the thing is, Evolution is not a race, nor is there any driving force that says things "have" to evolve. However, generally speaking, they *do*, as it is prudent they do so for the survival of the population. With the Coelacanth, it is a "living fossil" in the sense that it appears to be morphologically unchanged for millions of years. However, that does not mean evolution did not take place, as it could have genetically changed significantly, providing various genetic advantage. However, beyond the genetic advantages, it is possible that it is very well adapted, physically, to the environment it lives in, and that various changes in morphology either did not provide enough of an advantage to change it morphologically, or had added problems associated with them, thus negating the benefits.

Another entirely different possibility is that there is very low genetic variability within the population. This would not necessarily stop the evolutionary process, however it would slow it, and coupled with other factors, would mean that it simply does not appear to have evolved at all(Although it very well may have-the modern Ceolocanth could be a very different species entirely, on the genetic level, however appears to be almost identical to it's ancestors, as I would suspect to be true.)



that was really never explained ,

Just did.



they try explaining this part of the theory with statements like, how some animals are well adapted to the environment so they don't have to change but environment did change for millions of years?, and other animals changed and they were sharing the same environment? they contradict their own theory all the time, that's what Evolutionist are saying Ad Nauseum, and this is not a fact is a theory and they change it all the time.

Yes, environments do change. However, not all environments change very drastically. Partically deep water environments... but that's beside the point. In actually, those animals which are more well suited to a specific environment are less likely to survive small shifts in change than those that are generally well adapted to an environment. Take Humans, for example. We are physically best suited for warm climates, similar to the Savanah. Everything in our bodies is pretty much meant for that reason. However, we are perfectly capable of surviving in many places of the world, in Jungles, in the Tundra, in the Desert, etc and so forth. We are generally adapted to survive in Savanah climates, however we are perfectly capable of surviving in other climates as well. However, the problem arises when something is adapted to only a specific climate, and when it changes, it is dead. Take the Mammoth, for example. The Mammoth was adapted to survive, basically, on the very fringes of the Glaciers, where was cold enough that they wouldn't overheat(Due to masses of thick hair), but food was relatively plentiful. When things got MUCH warmer, they couldn't adapt quickly enough to a climate becoming much hotter, much faster(Due largely to their long gestation period and rates of maturity, if modern Elephants are a good comparison). Thus, they died out very, very quickly, because they were far to well adapted to a specific climate.


I'll get to the rest later, I'm a bit bored with this, as I've said basically the same thing over and over again in the past.

[WhiteRaven]

You do know that there are billions of stars like the sun, right? :D

They aren't close enough to give us a useful amount of light.