Evidence FOR Creationism

[Stapel]

Even if the ToE is 100% scientifically disproven this day, there still is no scientifical evidence for creationism.
There simply is not. It a 100% faith thing, or to put it in my own words, a 100% made-up fairy tail.

I can only take serious any evidence for the theory of creation, when it comes from an unbiased, thus non-religious scientist. Not gonna happen huh? Think about that!

Maybe that is the biggest difference. Scientists dedicating their life to finding out our origins, that start from a clean sheet, appear to adopt the ToE. Those who try to disprove it, usually do so, because they have faith it cannot be true.
In contrary to what some creationist seem to think, ToE scientist do not seek to disprove the existance of any posible deities. They simply couldn't care less.

 

[romelus]

Like wise I am annoyed when evolutionist make claims about how "proven" evolution is when, at its very base, evolution is unprovable except over such rediculous amounts of time, that by the point the test was completed, no doubt the documentation of the test beginning could be questioned. This makes it inherently untestable as a whole.

And creationism, is based on the idea that creation occured all at once and is no longer occuring from our knowledge, and thus is equally untestable.

In my opinion this means that both fall into the realm of faith. Faith in the proper and correct view of the scientific facts.

i don't think anyone has said evolution is "proven". there is just more scientific evidence to support it. even the official name is "theory of evolution". contrary to creationism, i'd hardly call theory of evolution in the realm of faith

 

[CenturionV]

Even if the ToE is 100% scientifically disproven this day, there still is no scientifical evidence for creationism.
There simply is not. It a 100% faith thing, or to put it in my own words, a 100% made-up fairy tail.

I can only take serious any evidence for the theory of creation, when it comes from an unbiased, thus non-religious scientist. Not gonna happen huh? Think about that!

Maybe that is the biggest difference. Scientists dedicating their life to finding out our origins, that start from a clean sheet, appear to adopt the ToE. Those who try to disprove it, usually do so, because they have faith it cannot be true.
In contrary to what some creationist seem to think, ToE scientist do not seek to disprove the existance of any posible deities. They simply couldn't care less.

Likewise I will not accept so called "evidence" of the theory of evolution from non-christians scientist who know doubt have everything to gain from trying to disproving creation, if creationism was proven right, they would almost all be unfit for a job as scientists, the whole feild of geology would be destroyed right off the bat (a global flood would knock out all current systems of though about rock formation, layers etc)

Not to mention a scientific blunder of this magnitude would cause a total loss of faith in modern science.

Almost eerily similar to the way the catholic church supressed some science during the middle ages, any massive change in current scientific views would likely be totally repressed, simply because it would cost thousands of people there jobs and credibility, not going to happen in our modern society, scientist simply are not that moral, they do what they do to make money, just like everyone else, if it threatens there job, they can be expected to "bend" the truth like anyone else.

 

[Stapel]

Likewise I will not accept so called "evidence" of the theory of evolution from non-christians scientist who know doubt have everything to gain from trying to disproving creation, if creationism was proven right, they would almost all be unfit for a job as scientists, the whole feild of geology would be destroyed right off the bat (a global flood would knock out all current systems of though about rock formation, layers etc)
.

No, you are wrong here. You cannot let go the ridiculous idea that scientists see disproval of creation, or the existance of any deities, as a goal.
This is a typical thing for people that believe in creation. Many think scienstist having other opinions are there to disprove their believes.

Apart from that, there are 1000s of christian scientists thinking the Toe is right.

The idea that you think a non-christian scientist is not neutral, strikes me as quite moronic.

 

[CenturionV]

No, you are wrong here. You cannot let go the ridiculous idea that scientists see disproval of creation, or the existance of any deities, as a goal.
This is a typical thing for people that believe in creation. Many think scienstist having other opinions are there to disprove their believes.

Apart from that, there are 1000s of christian scientists thinking the Toe is right.

The idea that you think a non-christian scientist is not neutral, strikes me as quite moronic.

I don't think ANY scientist are neutral. Thats my point, you have you biased scientist, I have my biased scientists, and one of ours believes the truth, proved evolution automatically disproves true creation (six real days, total global flood, etc) thus any scientist attempting to prove evolution, is attacking creation, and vise versa.

I doubt most evolutionist scientists are there prove/disprove any belief, they're there to make money, get recognition, etc

This is a major reason why I distrust them. A creationist scientist has no such insentive, he in fact will most likely be rejected by classic scientist simply because of his belief in creationism.

Evolutionist see the making of limiting discoveries which increase there grant money, pay, etc as there goal, no doubt many of them are good people, with a real thirst for knowledge, but this does not stop them from seeing what they want when they look at the evidence, if they have unconclusive evidence, for both ToE and creationism, they are trained to take the ToE based evidence before creationism, and there is no benefit for them to reveal evidence for creationism anyway, it carries no grants, or raises, just ridicule by others in the scientific community.

I believe this could be one major reason for the lack of huge breakthroughs in the science department, thinking in science now is nearly as ingrained as the middle ages, certain theories are treated as fact, used for the basis of whole scientific arguments or to test evidence. Rocking the boat or providing outlandish ideas is discouraged. Students are taught ToE from kindergarden, by the time they finish university, evolution is so ingrained in them that they would no doubt do anything to keep it from being exposed as a total fraud.

When people have been taught some thing for longer than they have known how to count, they just are not going to question it, evidence that is found that does not support it will just be discarded, because "it does not line up with science" (science being ToE)

I'm not saying there is some grand mass conspiracy to ignore obvious facts, I'm saying there is mass indoctrination, to the point where the average scientist cannot be expected to properly examine the facts. They have been intellectually compromised by long term "education" under 1 system, and are almost incapable of seeing any other system no matter how huge.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/rr1993/r&r9303a.htm

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/defdocs.htm

 

[yoshi74]

@Sword of Geddon

While there are some hints that show that there was such a thing as the great flood (though for imo completely other reasons), the noah part of the story is still its weakest link.
You bring in the first part of your proofs page that the fossils are actually from much less species than should be, and not enough to create the current number of species.
But then: Who in all world could noah as a mortal man build a wooden ship which could hold all the species. He would be challenged by the inhabitens of a normal zoological garden. When we for a moment assume that god created all animals, and there is no evolotion, than this could only mean that noah had to have a pair of EACH species we know (and some we still don't know) on this planet on his ship.
Can someone calculate the size this thing must have been. I bet the titanic was a toy boat compared to this leviathan.
Sorry, bible guys. You're creation theory is disproven by the bible itself. The whole noah part makes this completely silly.

Btw: two exemplares of a species are generally not a suffcient number for survival. The in-breeding would mess up the genes within few generations.

 

[Masquerouge]

I believe this could be one major reason for the lack of huge breakthroughs in the science department, thinking in science now is nearly as ingrained as the middle ages,

Yeah, like believing in Creation is not a medieval thing.

certain theories are treated as fact, used for the basis of whole scientific arguments or to test evidence. Rocking the boat or providing outlandish ideas is discouraged.

Not at all. The ToE is a THEORY, and is pretty much evolving every year. Just because apparently some fossils were mixed up does not mean ToE suddenly becomes complete rubbish and kaboom, Creation becomes right, it simply means ToE need more work, and everyone agrees on that.

Students are taught ToE from kindergarden, by the time they finish university, evolution is so ingrained in them that they would no doubt do anything to keep it from being exposed as a total fraud.

Evolution is taught in kindergarten because it's a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious thing, and I don't want kids in public schools to be taught religious stuff.

 

[yoshi74]

@CenturionV

Your remarks about scientists hold some truth. Many do it for fame, and many hold on theories which are disproven (or could be disproven, when they would actually really look). Its commen that some scientist which made some theories stick to them, and seldom say at the end of their life that all this was errorgous stuff. Would dismantle their entire work of life (actually to show that something does NOT work in this way is also a gain for human knowledge, because others don't have to make the same failures. But still most don't like this).
BUT while all this is true and happens every day in scientific intercourse, the same happens in the churches too. They hold on their theories, even harder than the scientist. Because the bible stuff can't be replaced as easily with new theories.
Actually the church (and their 'scientiests') hold much longer on disproven theories.
Just think at which time the pope accepted the fact that earth is not the center of our solar system. Several centuries later than the fact was first proven. Where was the divine knowledge from god and the bible? How can you still trust after this?

 

[CenturionV]

Your remarks about scientists hold some truth. Many do it for fame, and many hold on theories which are disproven (or could be disproven, when they would actually really look). Its commen that some scientist which made some theories stick to them, and seldom say at the end of their life that all this was errorgous stuff. Would dismantle their entire work of life (actually to show that something does NOT work in this way is also a gain for human knowledge, because others don't have to make the same failures. But still most don't like this).
BUT while all this is true and happens every day in scientific intercourse, the same happens in the churches too. They hold on their theories, even harder than the scientist. Because the bible stuff can't be replaced as easily with new theories.
Actually the church (and their 'scientiests') hold much longer on disproven theories.
Just think at which time the pope accepted the fact that earth is not the center of our solar system. Several centuries later than the fact was first proven. Where was the divine knowledge from god and the bible? How can you still trust after this?

How can you still trust scientists after what you just said? Creationism IS NOT a religion only thing any more than the ToE, in fact we could just as easily refer to creationism as ToC or the theory of creationism, sure as christians we can believe it as part of our religion, but just because it can be excepted by our religion does not make it any less or more scientific than ToE

ToE has a large body of evidence accumulated for it (which may or may not be true)
ToE most easily conforms to a single philosophical viewpoint, atheism, when using ToE as a basis the logical conclusion is atheism.
ToE is a totaly scientifically untestable theory by its very nature, and thus requires faith to believe in.

Creationism has a large body of evidence accumulated for it (which may or may not be true)
Creationism most easily conforms to a single philosophical viewpoint, theism, largely christianity and islam.
Creationism is a totaly scientifically untestable theory by its very nature, and thus requires faith to believe in.

Neither being taught in a church, nor being held by some as religious belief or being held as true by any majority classifies ToE or ToC as true, and neither are scientifically testable, due to there very nature.

The reason why the creationism vs evolutionism conflict has considered so long is because neither can be proven OR disproven via the scientific method, you can try and provide evidence, but your evidence could be misinterpreted (in the middle ages people believed maggots were created by rotting meat, there observations supported this, of course now we consider this foolish, but only because a better way of testing it was developed) or influenced by preconcieved notions.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

From Encyclopedia Britannica

Impact and acceptance of evolutionary theory
The theory of evolution makes statements about three different, though related, issues: (1) the fact of evolution; that is, that organisms are related by common descent; (2) evolutionary history—the details of when lineages split from one another and of the changes that occurred in each lineage; and (3) the mechanisms or processes by which evolutionary change occurs.
The first issue is the most fundamental and the one established with utmost certainty. Darwin gathered much evidence in its support, but the evidence has accumulated continuously ever since, derived from all biological disciplines. The evolutionary origin of organisms is today a scientific conclusion established with the kind of certainty attributable to such scientific concepts as the roundness of the Earth, the motions of the planets, and the molecular composition of matter. This degree of certainty beyond reasonable doubt is what is implied when biologists say that evolution is a “fact”; the evolutionary origin of organisms is accepted by virtually every biologist.
But the theory of evolution goes much beyond this first issue, the general affirmation that organisms evolve. The second and third issues involve seeking to ascertain the evolutionary relationships between particular organisms and the events of evolutionary history, as well as to explain how and why evolution takes place. These are matters of active scientific investigation. Some conclusions are well established; for example, that the chimpanzee and gorilla are more closely related to humans than is any of those three species to the baboon or other monkeys; or that natural selection, the process postulated by Darwin, explains the adaptive configuration of such features as the human eye and the wings of birds. Many matters are less certain, others are conjectural, and still others—such as the characteristics of the first living things and when they came about—remain completely unknown.
Since Darwin, the theory of evolution has gradually extended its influence to other biological disciplines, from physiology to ecology and from biochemistry to systematics. All biological knowledge now includes the phenomenon of evolution. In the words of Dobzhansky, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
The term evolution and the concept of change through time have also become incorporated into scientific language well beyond biology, and even into common language. Astrophysicists speak of the evolution of the solar system or of the universe; geologists, of the evolution of the Earth's mantle; psychologists, of the evolution of the mind; anthropologists, of the evolution of cultures; art historians, of the evolution of architectural styles; and couturiers, of the evolution of fashion. These and other disciplines share only the slightest commonality of meaning: the notion of gradual, and perhaps directional, change over the course of time.
Darwin's notion of natural selection has also been extended to other areas of human discourse, particularly in the fields of sociopolitical theory and economics. The extension can only be metaphorical, because in Darwin's intended meaning natural selection applies only to hereditary variations in entities endowed with biological reproduction, that is, to living organisms. That natural selection is anatural process in the living world has been taken by some as a justification for ruthless competition and for “survival of the fittest” in the struggle for economic advantage or for political hegemony. Social Darwinism was an influential social philosophy in some circles through the late 19th and early 20th centuries. At the other end of the political spectrum, Marxist theorists have resorted to evolution by natural selection as an explanation for mankind's political history.
These uses and abuses of the terms evolution and natural selection have in turn stimulated resistance against biological evolution and natural selection. In addition, the theory of evolution has been seen by some people as incompatible with religious beliefs, particularly those of Christianity. The first chapters of the book of Genesis describe God's creation of the world, the plants, the animals, and man. A literal interpretation of Genesis seems incompatible with the gradual evolution of humans and other organisms by natural processes. Independently of the biblical narrative, the Christian beliefs in the immortality of the soul and in man as “created in the image of God” have appeared to many as contrary to the evolutionary origin of man from nonhuman animals.
Religiously motivated attacks started during Darwin's lifetime. In 1874 Charles Hodge, an American Protestant theologian, published What Is Darwinism?, one of the most articulate assaults on evolutionism. Hodge perceived Darwin's theory as “the most thoroughly naturalistic that can be imagined and far more atheistic than that of his predecessor Lamarck.” He argued that the design of the human eye evinces that “it has been planned by the Creator, like the design of a watch evinces a watchmaker.” He concluded that “the denial of design in nature is actually the denial of God.”
Other Protestant theologians saw a solution to the difficulty in the idea that God operates through intermediate causes. The origin and motion of the planets could be explained by the law of gravity and other natural processes without denying God's creation and providence. Similarly, evolution could be seen as the natural process through which God brought living beings into existence and developed them according to his plan. Thus, A.H. Strong, the president of Rochester (N.Y.) Theological Seminary, wrote in his Systematic Theology (1885): “We grant the principle of evolution, but we regard it as only the method of divine intelligence.” The brutish ancestry of man was not incompatible with his excelling status as a creature in the image of God. Strong drew an analogy with Christ's miraculous conversion of water into wine: “The wine in the miracle was not water because water had been used in the making of it, nor is man a brute because the brute has made some contributions to its creation.”
Arguments for and against Darwin's theory came from Roman Catholic theologians as well. Gradually, well into the 20th century, evolution by natural selection came to be accepted by the majority of Christian writers. Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis (1950; “Of the Human Race”) acknowledged that biological evolution was compatible with the Christian faith, although he argued that God's intervention was necessary for the creation of the human soul. In 1981 Pope John Paul II stated in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences:

The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. . . . Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how the heavens were made but how one goes to heaven.

The Pope's point was that it would be a blunder to mistake the Bible for an elementary book of astronomy, geology, and biology. The argument was clearly directed against Christian Fundamentalists who see in Genesis a literal description of how the world was created by God.

 

[bigfatron]

How can you still trust scientists after what you just said? Creationism IS NOT a religion only thing any more than the ToE, in fact we could just as easily refer to creationism as ToC or the theory of creationism, sure as christians we can believe it as part of our religion, but just because it can be excepted by our religion does not make it any less or more scientific than ToE

Fair enough - now to be a scientific theory the ToC has to give rise to some testable predictions about which we do not yet know the answer, and then we have to test them to establish that they are true, about - say - the genetic makeup of animals (e.g. based on the assumption of a Creator making repetitive use of effective body structures in differing species), eruption of new diseases (if they are not evolved how do they come about and when/how can we expect them to develop?), silt deposition in desert areas (what would Creatiosts expect to be under the sand?), rates of igneous rock formation (what caused the chage in rate of igneous rock creation if the world is only 6,000 years old, what rate of vulcanism do we expect going forward?) etc, etc.

I'm sure amongst all the members of the creationist scientific community there is SOMEONE able to come up with a few testable predictions?

ToE has a large body of evidence accumulated for it (which may or may not be true)
ToE most easily conforms to a single philosophical viewpoint, atheism, when using ToE as a basis the logical conclusion is atheism.
ToE is a totaly scientifically untestable theory by its very nature, and thus requires faith to believe in.

You keep saying that ToE is untestable, but this is simply WRONG. Numerous posters have given links to - and long explanations of - tests that have been applied to the ToE which it has passed. Please stop saying things which are manifestly untrue.

I don't agree that ToE leads inexorably to Atheism, although it does lead inexorably (as do many fields of scientific study) to the conclusion that no religious text is 100% accurate and infallible. I can understand why this conclusion makes you uncomfortable, but that is because you choose a particular brand of faith which requires absolute adherence to a historical text in the face of the physical evidence. That is not science's problem, it is your problem.

IMHO many scientists are happy that their religious beliefs and scientific studies coexist. The logical conclusion of any analysis of the matter is that science CANNOT comment on the underlying reason, cause or creation of the universe - these issues are a matter of FAITH, a topic on which the scientific method, if properly followed, is totally silent.

Creationism has a large body of evidence accumulated for it (which may or may not be true)
Creationism most easily conforms to a single philosophical viewpoint, theism, largely christianity and islam.
Creationism is a totaly scientifically untestable theory by its very nature, and thus requires faith to believe in.

Nope - ToC can make predictions about expected outcomes, just as ToE can. For instance, I guess ToC would have propounded that short-lived species placed in high-stress conditions would not mutate into a new species.

All ToC supporters need to do is make predictions BEFORE experiments take place, these can be considered along with the ToE prediction, and let's see what happens....

Neither being taught in a church, nor being held by some as religious belief or being held as true by any majority classifies ToE or ToC as true, and neither are scientifically testable, due to there very nature.

The reason why the creationism vs evolutionism conflict has considered so long is because neither can be proven OR disproven via the scientific method, you can try and provide evidence, but your evidence could be misinterpreted (in the middle ages people believed maggots were created by rotting meat, there observations supported this, of course now we consider this foolish, but only because a better way of testing it was developed) or influenced by preconcieved notions.

But no theory (outside pure mathematics) can EVER be proven 100%. And the fact that evidence is always subjective is true for every theory and every observation. Neither is a good reason not to attempt to reach a conclusion about the best explanations available for the phenomena we observe. So far ToE stands up pretty well, and ToC has yet to produce a single testable conclusion that has been proved correct - if there is one, please let us know.

Until then, everyone outside the indoctrinated world of the fundamentalist church will continue to employ ToE as the best expanation of the reality that exists around them....

 

[Perfection]

Likewise I will not accept so called "evidence" of the theory of evolution from non-christians scientist

There's plenty of evidence, see the first post in the link in my sig for a small tidbit. As per non-christian scientists might I remind you that people of many faiths believe evolution.

who know doubt have everything to gain from trying to disproving creation, if creationism was proven right, they would almost all be unfit for a job as scientists, the whole feild of geology would be destroyed right off the bat (a global flood would knock out all current systems of though about rock formation, layers etc)

Perhaps that's a deomonstration of the impluasibility of creationism rather then the scientists fualt that creationism is so contrary to the truth

Not to mention a scientific blunder of this magnitude would cause a total loss of faith in modern science.

Total, doubt it, you're sorrounded in technology, that's gotta amount to something

Almost eerily similar to the way the catholic church supressed some science during the middle ages, any massive change in current scientific views would likely be totally repressed, simply because it would cost thousands of people there jobs and credibility,not going to happen in our modern society, scientist simply are not that moral, they do what they do to make money, just like everyone else, if it threatens there job, they can be expected to "bend" the truth like anyone else.

First off, scientists are not only in it for the money, but curiosity, second it's not repressing ideas, it may combat them with evidence, but few scientists advocate the system of censorship of the middle age catholic church. And it's not like Christians are much more moral either

I don't think ANY scientist are neutral. Thats my point, you have you biased scientist, I have my biased scientists, and one of ours believes the truth, proved evolution automatically disproves true creation (six real days, total global flood, etc) thus any scientist attempting to prove evolution, is attacking creation, and vise versa.

Can't argue the facts, so you just say were indoctrinated, you too seem to have a vested interest in creationism considering your faith lies in it. First give some substance to creationism before attacking scientists.

I doubt most evolutionist scientists are there prove/disprove any belief, they're there to make money, get recognition, etc

Yes, I'm in it for the money Stephen Jay Gould didn't write a the 1000 page "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" while battling cancer with little hope of getting it published because of the money, he did it because he has a true fascination in the way life's processes work.

This is a major reason why I distrust them. A creationist scientist has no such insentive, he in fact will most likely be rejected by classic scientist simply because of his belief in creationism.

Selling books to the mass media and right wing donations are certainly an incentive. Fringe ideas can make money too!

Evolutionist see the making of limiting discoveries which increase there grant money, pay, etc as there goal, no doubt many of them are good people, with a real thirst for knowledge, but this does not stop them from seeing what they want when they look at the evidence, if they have unconclusive evidence, for both ToE and creationism, they are trained to take the ToE based evidence before creationism, and there is no benefit for them to reveal evidence for creationism anyway, it carries no grants, or raises, just ridicule by others in the scientific community.

That's assuming there is evidence for creationism.... And Like I said there's tons of evidence for evolution.

I believe this could be one major reason for the lack of huge breakthroughs in the science department, thinking in science now is nearly as ingrained as the middle ages, certain theories are treated as fact, used for the basis of whole scientific arguments or to test evidence. Rocking the boat or providing outlandish ideas is discouraged.

That's not completly correct, many scientists encourage rocking the boat, that's what makes for great scientists, surely Einstien rocked the boat with relativity!

Students are taught ToE from kindergarden, by the time they finish university, evolution is so ingrained in them that they would no doubt do anything to keep it from being exposed as a total fraud.

Students are taught Creationism from Pre-School, by the time they finish university, creationism so ingrained in them that they would no doubt do anything to keep it from being exposed as a total fraud. It works both ways buddy! Except, I have given evidence!

When people have been taught some thing for longer than they have known how to count, they just are not going to question it, evidence that is found that does not support it will just be discarded, because "it does not line up with science" (science being ToE)

What evidence?

I'm not saying there is some grand mass conspiracy to ignore obvious facts, I'm saying there is mass indoctrination, to the point where the average scientist cannot be expected to properly examine the facts. They have been intellectually compromised by long term "education" under 1 system, and are almost incapable of seeing any other system no matter how huge.

I could say the same about creationists. Let's examine the evidence first.

Oh and, just for the record, I've shared my school career with a number of creationists, the system didn't "indoctrinate" them.

I gotta go, will debunk more later.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Students are taught ToE from kindergarden, by the time they finish university, evolution is so ingrained in them that they would no doubt do anything to keep it from being exposed as a total fraud.

Some more from Britannica

Biblical Fundamentalists make up a minority of Christians, but they have periodically gained considerable public and political influence in the United States. During the decade of the 1920s, more than 20 state legislatures were influenced by them to debate antievolution laws, and four states—Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee—prohibited the teaching of evolution in their public schools. A spokesman for the antievolutionists was William Jennings Bryan, three times the unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the presidency, who said in 1922, “We will drive Darwinism from our schools.” In 1925 Bryan took part in the prosecution of John T. Scopes, a high school teacher in Dayton, Tenn., who had admittedly violated the state's law forbidding the teaching of evolution.
In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States declared unconstitutional any law banning the teaching of evolution in public schools. Since that time Christian Fundamentalists have introduced bills in a number of state legislatures ordering that the teaching of “evolution-science” be balanced by allocating equal time to “creation-science.” Creation-science maintains that all kinds of organisms abruptly came into existence at the Creation, that the world is only a few thousand years old, and that the Noachian Flood was an actual event which only one pair of each animal species survived. In the 1980s Arkansas and Louisiana passed acts requiring the balanced treatment of evolution-science and creation-science in the schools, but opponents successfully challenged the acts as violations of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

 

[Steph]

ToE most easily conforms to a single philosophical viewpoint, atheism, when using ToE as a basis the logical conclusion is atheism.

Why? I know many christians who believe in ToE. They didn't become atheist. Does it mean they are illogical beings?

 

[SolarKnight]

You do realise that its not just christians who can be scientists centurionv, christians acount for only 1 billion people here on earth, and there are 6 or 7 billion people on earth, making christians a minority, are you saying you wouldn't trust the other 5 - 6 billion people to tell you that evolution is true and creationism is false?

Once again, you say that creationism can only be true if evolution is false, complete rubbish.

 

[carlosMM]

funny, not ONE of your precious 'evidences FOR creation' is that or evidence against evolution. not a sinlge. one.

I especially liek the Ötzi thing - what nonsense to interpret that to mean that stone age people then were more advanced than stone age people today! Go to New Guinea and check out the stone age people there - they also use the optimum material for their tools - except for steel, which makes better tools usually - and they sadly lack it. funny, so did Ötzi

 

[thestonesfan]

Could someone explain me how Noah has found the time to get in Australia enough fast during the storm to bring with him Kangurus, Koalas, Platypus and Kiwis ?

Hey! That's MY Noah-shattering question!

It amazes me that people are still dumb enough to believe that a flood covered the entire earth and that some cump named Noah rode it out in a giant boat for 40 days.

What's the use of having a brain if you people don't use it?? That "evidence" for creationism is utterlay laughable. The Ice-Man used tools?? HOLY FREAKING CRAP.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Why? I know many christians who believe in ToE. They didn't become atheist. Does it mean they are illogical beings?

This is true. Most people believing in God also considers the theory of Evolution as right. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

By the way, The stonesfan is right. I still don't know how Noah managed to get in Australia to take Kangurus and Koalas with him. I still wait for the answer.

 

[Steph]

Simple Marla. What makes you think the Kangourous and Koalas lived in Austriala 4500 years ago, at the time of the Flood?

Everybody knows all the animal species were living together in peace and harmony in Eden garden. So Noah simply had to go there, and take one male and female of each here.

We know for sure where Kangourous and Koalas were after the Flood. But Noah could very well have gone there AFTER the flood to depose them... Hmm... Doesn't work, the Arch crashed on Mt Ararat before that... Perhaps they used life boats?

 

[thestonesfan]

Well, in all fairness, it can explained with one word - "Magic".

Magic is pretty handy, and science has no good way to counter it. Magic also explains how Noah built an Ark of physically impossible dimensions, and how water covered the entire earth when there isn't that much water on the earth to begin with.

Lets not forget that magic also explains how Santa can squeeze down chimneys when there are no chimneys to squeeze down.

Yeah, the biblical flood is about as believable as Santa Claus.

A word of warning, Marla, if you bring up the "Australia Question" with FearlessLeader2, he will put you on ignore.