Poll - Age Old Question Evolution or Creation

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by bvd
What we do know is that if there was some sort of intelligence that wrought the universe we come to know, it worked at least fifteen billion years before the story described in Genesis.

Why do you continue to argue against young-earth creationism and act like it means something, when I have gone to great lengths not only to distance myself from that nonsense, but have actually used the Bible itself to de-bunk it?

Quote me on this:

The universe is at least 18 billion years old.

The earth is at least 4.5 billion years old.

Real scientists, using real math and real science, have proven this beyond any doubt. Radio telescopes can pick up the background IR radiation that is the lingering echo of the massive series of explosions that began Creation.

Not one word of this does anything to support the ludicrous notion that life spontaneously generated itself. Further, all of the real scientific work done to try to support this silly idea has done the exact opposite.

Radiation experiments on fruit flies have shown that DNA repairs itself, even to the point of eradicating any mutations in the progeny of mutated parents, within a few generations.

Natural Selection can only be shown to cause variations within a species, and man has been unable, in approx 8,000 years of selective breeding, to turn a wolf(original stock of dog) into anything but another breed of dog. Ditto for all domesticated animals.

Non-drug-resistant microbes can be seen to die off, leaving their resistant strains behind, just as Natural Selection would have us expect. But the same microbes still cause the same diseases, eat the same foods, etc, and are, in point of fact, the same microbes. Nothing evolved, one breed went nearly extinct is all. The exact opposite of speciation is what happened there, a species got eliminated.

Paleo-anthropologists, with no oversight but each other, have 'found'(hoaxed, and created), theorized, and speculated their grant-money-fed behinds off, and produced nothing of substance, except for ream upon endless ream of papers praising each other's work, and a lot of holes in the ground.

In short sir, while the hard sciences (astrophysics, particle physics, higher math, chemistry) have done a fine job of presenting their cases, and offered actual proof, biology and geology have not.

Biology, specifically the subset of Paleo-anthropology, uses mummery and 'peer review' to make its claims. Geology bases it research on what the Evolutionists tell them to expect to find, and ignores data that are contrary to those expectations, or explains them away with amazingly shoddy work, and uses that wonderful tool called peer review to cover its tracks.

Peer review is a load of hooey. It is exactly the same thing as a bunch of criminals with mile-long histories of armed robbery telling the judge and jury that they saw the accused bank robbers at a soccer game at the time of the robbery, so it couldn't have been them. Grow up, wake up, and take a good hard look at what is going on, will you?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by CrayonX



You're right, it's not as black and white. Most arguments as based on preconceived biases that have little to do with the argument at hand....

Creationist: "I believe in Creationism because God..."
Evolutionist: (oh, right, GOD...) "Ha! Well I believe in Evolution because science has proven..."
Creationist: (oh right, PROOF) "Proof? Then why is it still called a THEORY? Those bones may have been from monkeys..."

Your heap of scorn is duly noted, and scorned by way of reply.:midfinger :midfinger

 

[Magnus]

Look again FL2, he (Vrylakas) answered you point for point. I think you have finally met your match!

He even tackled your biggest point - the fact that you say speciation does not occur - and he shows a study where it does.

 

[CrayonX]

FL2, fellow Creationist,

I don't know what's wrong with you, but if you actually read my post carefully, I'm just pointing out that C vs E arguments are typically pointless, because both sides will argue their point to death with no end. I also feel that both points are open to discussion witin the breadth of their discussions. I didn't mean any scorn, and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.

While I agree with you for some of the points you've made, I am disappointed by your attitude. I don't really know what you are trying to prove by the response you gave me which doesn't make any sense in light of the context of my post. It seems you're on a crusade to try to shut down the naysayers of your ideas, so much to the point that you don't even look at the context of what people post. And, as many have pointed out, some of what you've stated begs further discussion and proofs, and it sound more like you've joined a bandwagon movement than actually having a coherent point of view which is defined clearly and easily understandable by laypeople like me.

Respectfully,
CrayonX

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Knowltok 2


Dare anyone ask for your credentials as to hip bones, how they work and what noise if any they would make while functioning? I freely admit that apart from have two hips myself, and being able to operate them relatively noise free, I am no expert. So perhaps you could enlighten me as to why I should accept your statements as fact. Thank you.

Well, I'm smarter than the average bear, and I've seen many skeletons of many different creatures, and funny thing is, the ones with long narrow hip bones all tend to amble along on all fours. Of course Lucy, with no feet, doesn't really have to worry about how she manages to stand. The Establishment Scientists appear to have repealed the Law of Gravity for her, so she can float like some twisted Madonna of ES.

And nice touch, asking for my credentials. We all know that the only people allowed to make observations about fossils are those trained by ES, with sheepskins that telling the truth would render worthless. Kind of makes it easy to state their outrageous claims when noone else is allowed to contradict them, doesn't it?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by CrayonX
FL2, fellow Creationist,

I don't know what's wrong with you, but if you actually read my post carefully, I'm just pointing out that C vs E arguments are typically pointless, because both sides will argue their point to death with no end. I also feel that both points are open to discussion witin the breadth of their discussions. I didn't mean any scorn, and I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.

Re-read it, and tell me which of the two you make sound not only credible, but beset upon by the forces of ignorance. It sure looked like scorn to me. If such was not the case, then I apologize for not 'getting it'.

I do think it is worthwhile to discuss, because I enjoy shining the light of truth upon the lies that people passing themselves off as scientists tell.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Magnus
Look again FL2, he (Vrylakas) answered you point for point. I think you have finally met your match!

He even tackled your biggest point - the fact that you say speciation does not occur - and he shows a study where it does.

Go back and look at his last post. It rambles on and on about philosophy and such, and that's about all.

 

[Magnus]

(I can see why you try so hard to avoid it!)

Sorry about taking so long to reply - had friends over for the weekend. We hung out in NYC, Philly, and several points inbetween. Lotsa fun!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
2. The theory of evolution is a theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glad to hear someone admit it is not a proven fact...

Um, I don't think you fully read my post. The above statement is a common misconception held by many who believe in creationism, and I tried from the beginning to address this. Again:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written by Vrylakas: 2. The theory of evolution is a theory. I know in popular parlance the word "theory" describes something unsure or unproven, but in science the word theory refers to a hypothesis, a description of the most probable explanation for an observed phenomenon - regardless of what amount of evidence exists. This means that evolution will always be "just a theory". Another example is flight - the ability for humans to fly is also "just a theory", but humans send many hundreds of tons of metal and plastic into the sky every day. And guess what - we have more data relating to Evolution than we do to the theory of flight! (How does that make you feel for your next flight?) This is basic first-level science textbook stuff; what the hell do they teach in your schools nowadays?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To emphasize the point, let me quote from a standard English-language dictionary, in this case the American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition (1993):

"the-o-ry [...] - 1. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, principals and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of specified phenomena.

You'll note that your usage of theory, the colloquial usage, comes in at number 4 in the definitions:

"4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

The point is that there is a difference in usage that is critical to the meaning. When scientists refer to Evolution as a theory, they mean definition #1, while fundamentalists tend to confuse this with the colloquial definition of #4. The dimwitted Ronnie Reagan revealed his own weak understanding of basic science when he made his public gaffe to the effect that "Evolution is still just a theory". Of course it is - as it and everything else science studies can only ever be.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
3. Evolution is fact. It is not a matter of belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HUH?! Wha? You just said it was a THEORY!! You can't have it both ways!!

Read above. You've got to sort out the definitions before you can understand the point.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
There is a MASSIVE mountain of data pertaining to evolution that is overwhelming in its pointing towards evolution, not just about humans but about almost every species on the planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example? (That I haven't already invalidated, that is.) Now there is all kinds of evidence that Evolutionists claim supports their theory, but upon close examination, one can see that while this evidence supports some parts of the Darwinian Synthesis, it is only those parts that actually have nothing to do with speciation.

??? You're making some broad statements and I'm not sure what you specifically want. Speciation is the point reached when two separated gene pools diverge enough in development that they can no longer interbreed (and create offspring). This can happen through simple geographic separation (allopatric speciation), widespread territorialization that may cause isolated pools of divergant development (parapatric speciation) or through having particularly strong traits within a given population (sympatric speciation). I'm not sure what your point is.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
We (humans, that is) have actually had the opportunity to watch it in action right before our eyes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example? (That I haven't already invalidated, that is.) I am sure you are talking about Natural Selection, not Evolution. Natural Selection happens, Evolution does not. Variation within a species occurs, speciation does not.

But the two are related. That's Natural Selection. Natural Selection is when something in the environment changes and some members of a given species have a particular trait that allows them to survive the change. That's exactly why (according to the theory of evolution) species each create a plethora of individual variation. Evolution as a process does not attempt to save each and every member of any given species or population; the point is to save the population. (Humans, with their egos, find this part a bit difficult to understand and digest sometimes.) By creating as many variations within a population as possible, Evolution is tryng to guarantee that at least some members of the population will always survive. It's absurd to separate the two.

An example: In 1977 two biologists from Princeton University, Rosemary and Peter Grant (husband & wife team), went to the island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos Islands to do an unrelated study on ecology on the island, but a drought struck a few years into their study and radically altered the local environment. They became fascinated by the local finches (the same ones Darwin had studied in the 19th century in reference to speciation) because they noticed Natural Selection at work: the drought had wiped out much of the finches' food supply of seeds. Some large kernal seeds had managed to survive, and a select group within the finch population had beaks large enough to crack those large kernal shells and eat - and survive. Within a year, only finches with the large beaks were alive, and consequently this became a defining aspect of the surviving population. Now the finches on Daphne Major all have large beaks - because only the ones with those genes have survived that late 1970s drought. Sooner or later, over time, if the local resources warrent, then variation will set in again and a few finches with smaller beak genes will be born (gene mutation) and the population will become varied in this trait again - but if the drought is permanent, if it is a part of a larger process of desertification, then the large beak trait will become a permanent part of the finch trait kit.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
My majors in university were history and cultural anthropology, but they forced us to take physical anthro courses as well,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now why would they force you to take courses that indoctrinate you into the holy covenant of Establishment Science's Catechism?

You mean, why would I be trained to rely on the evidence of my senses to explore the world rather than suspect theological texts, distorted and tainted by politics, mythology and regional traditions...?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
and I spent months combing through the development of dental patterns in bipedal simians over millions of years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kind of like how the Jesuits have you pore over illuminated manuscripts in seminary... But Evolutionism definitely has no similarities to religion. Nope, nosirreeBob, none whatsoever.

First of all, I do not believe "Evolutionism" is a term in English or any other language. I imagine fundamentalists probably have invented this expression, with the suffix "-ism". this suffix denotes an ideology, and evolution was created using science. Secondly, Jesuits were great scholars who founded universities around the world, and indeed still run some institutions of higher learning today, despite Layola's order being officially disbanded long ago. The Jesuit's scholarship has contributed much to modern science, so it should be of no surprise to you that the modern Roman Catholic church - the entity that first commissioned the Jesuits in the 16th century - endorses the theory of Evolution. John Paul II has established a scientific think tank of sorts in the Vatican and has invited scientists from all over the world to study and lecture at the Vatican. (The opening to Stephen hawking's latest book has a bit about his embarrassment at almost having to admit to the Pope that he was an atheist when he lectured at the Vatican.) John Paul II's first action as Pope in 1978 was to reverse the church's 400 year old mistake in condemning Galileo for his celestial theories. John Paul II's concern with science is its moral impact, not whether every single contradictory dotted "i" and crossed "t" in the Bible fits the latest scientific findings... I learned much of my early English and science (including Evolution!) at the behest of Jesuits. Unlike some of the more radical Calvinist-inspired Protestant groups, the Jesuits did not shun scholarship or science, and they were able to understand the difference between their faith and their science.


__________________
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."

Last edited by Vrylakas on Jan 02, 2002 at 06:39 PM

 

[FearlessLeader2]

First off, thanks for digging it up. I thought you meant the last post he made, and that was clearly not this one. This message will be broken into two parts, as it is 15,700-odd characters long.

Originally posted by Magnus (I can see why you try so hard to avoid it!)

Just can't ever play nice, can you? Well this time it's not gonna work.[/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
2. The theory of evolution is a theory.

FL2
Glad to hear someone admit it is not a proven fact...

Vry
Um, I don't think you fully read my post. The above statement is a common misconception held by many who believe in creationism, and I tried from the beginning to address this. Again:

quote:
Vrylakas: 2. The theory of evolution is a theory. I know in popular parlance the word "theory" describes something unsure or unproven, but in science the word theory refers to a hypothesis, a description of the most probable explanation for an observed phenomenon - regardless of what amount of evidence exists. This means that evolution will always be "just a theory". Another example is flight - the ability for humans to fly is also "just a theory", but humans send many hundreds of tons of metal and plastic into the sky every day. And guess what - we have more data relating to Evolution than we do to the theory of flight! (How does that make you feel for your next flight?) This is basic first-level science textbook stuff; what the hell do they teach in your schools nowadays?

To emphasize the point, let me quote from a standard English-language dictionary, in this case the American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition (1993):

"the-o-ry [...] - 1. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, principals and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of specified phenomena.

You'll note that your usage of theory, the colloquial usage, comes in at number 4 in the definitions:

"4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

The point is that there is a difference in usage that is critical to the meaning. When scientists refer to Evolution as a theory, they mean definition #1, while fundamentalists tend to confuse this with the colloquial definition of #4. The dimwitted Ronnie Reagan revealed his own weak understanding of basic science when he made his public gaffe to the effect that "Evolution is still just a theory". Of course it is - as it and everything else science studies can only ever be.

quote: Originally posted by Vrylakas
3. Evolution is fact. It is not a matter of belief.

FL2
HUH?! Wha? You just said it was a THEORY!! You can't have it both ways!!

Vry
Read above. You've got to sort out the definitions before you can understand the point.

OK, fine. You say that evolution is a fact. Great. Wonderful. Now if only that were true, you and I could go our seperate ways. But you see, I have this problem, call it a psychological imabalance or whatever. Whenever someone says something that is blatantly untrue, and says it in a manner that brooks no dispute, as if they are bringing the Mountain to Mohammed, I get all twisted up in knots. You see, I'm allergic to willful ignorance.

At the risk of stating the obvious, you and I differ on this matter. I have come to accept the truth, that this universe and everything in it are the result of an intelligent Creator. You, for whatever reason (apparently it is either financial(you studied this in college, are you a paleobiologist?) or you were simply raised that way), have chosen to ignore this, and follow a fairy tale. I will expand on this below...

Originally posted by Vrylakas
There is a MASSIVE mountain of data pertaining to evolution that is overwhelming in its pointing towards evolution, not just about humans but about almost every species on the planet.

FL2
Example? (That I haven't already invalidated, that is.) Now there is all kinds of evidence that Evolutionists claim supports their theory, but upon close examination, one can see that while this evidence supports some parts of the Darwinian Synthesis, it is only those parts that actually have nothing to do with speciation.

Vry
??? You're making some broad statements and I'm not sure what you specifically want. Speciation is the point reached when two separated gene pools diverge enough in development that they can no longer interbreed (and create offspring). This can happen through simple geographic separation (allopatric speciation), widespread territorialization that may cause isolated pools of divergant development (parapatric speciation) or through having particularly strong traits within a given population (sympatric speciation).

You say 'this can happen', as if it has, and has been observed, but in point of fact, since populations have been studied, haven't they always been the species they currently are? No one has ever observed a single population diverging into two seperate populations, they have merely seen two populations of similar animals and, based on the starting point of 'evolution is a fact', have explained the similarities between these animals as coming from a common ancestor, even though there is no proof of that creature.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that evolution is just an athiest's version of ignorant superstition. A story to push back the darkness. Nothing more, nothing less. Only instead of dressing it up in the trappings of religious ceremony and pageantry, it is dressed up in peer review.

Originally posted by Vrylakas

We (humans, that is) have actually had the opportunity to watch it in action right before our eyes.

FL2
Example? (That I haven't already invalidated, that is.) I am sure you are talking about Natural Selection, not Evolution. Natural Selection happens, Evolution does not. Variation within a species occurs, speciation does not.

Vry
But the two are related. That's Natural Selection. Natural Selection is when something in the environment changes and some members of a given species have a particular trait that allows them to survive the change. That's exactly why (according to the theory of evolution) species each create a plethora of individual variation.

But this variation is not speciation. Huskies have thicker fur than Golden Retrievers, but they can still throw a litter of pups.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Evolution as a process does not attempt to save each and every member of any given species or population; the point is to save the population. (Humans, with their egos, find this part a bit difficult to understand and digest sometimes.) By creating as many variations within a population as possible, Evolution is tryng to guarantee that at least some members of the population will always survive. It's absurd to separate the two.

And here you personify a supposedly impartial natural force. Now we not only need an intelligence, we need a large, unweildly mechanism for it to use.

End of Part One

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Vrylakas
An example: In 1977 two biologists from Princeton University, Rosemary and Peter Grant (husband & wife team), went to the island of Daphne Major in the Galapagos Islands to do an unrelated study on ecology on the island, but a drought struck a few years into their study and radically altered the local environment. They became fascinated by the local finches (the same ones Darwin had studied in the 19th century in reference to speciation) because they noticed Natural Selection at work: the drought had wiped out much of the finches' food supply of seeds. Some large kernal seeds had managed to survive, and a select group within the finch population had beaks large enough to crack those large kernal shells and eat - and survive. Within a year, only finches with the large beaks were alive, and consequently this became a defining aspect of the surviving population. Now the finches on Daphne Major all have large beaks - because only the ones with those genes have survived that late 1970s drought. Sooner or later, over time, if the local resources warrent, then variation will set in again and a few finches with smaller beak genes will be born (gene mutation) and the population will become varied in this trait again - but if the drought is permanent, if it is a part of a larger process of desertification, then the large beak trait will become a permanent part of the finch trait kit.

Your point? I never once argued that NS doesn't happen. It can be seen in action. But it doesn't create, it exterminates. In this case, it obliterated probably a dozen varieties of finch. No new species have cropped up have they?

Originally posted by Vrylakas
My majors in university were history and cultural anthropology, but they forced us to take physical anthro courses as well,

FL2
Now why would they force you to take courses that indoctrinate you into the holy covenant of Establishment Science's Catechism?

Vry
You mean, why would I be trained to rely on the evidence of my senses to explore the world rather than suspect theological texts, distorted and tainted by politics, mythology and regional traditions...?

The evidence of your senses, eh? So in class, you personally observed speciation? No tainted, distorted texts, only 'peer reviewed' papers written by the prophets of ES, all pure and holy.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
and I spent months combing through the development of dental patterns in bipedal simians over millions of years.

FL2-
Kind of like how the Jesuits have you pore over illuminated manuscripts in seminary... But Evolutionism definitely has no similarities to religion. Nope, nosirreeBob, none whatsoever.

Vry-
First of all, I do not believe "Evolutionism" is a term in English or any other language. I imagine fundamentalists probably have invented this expression, with the suffix "-ism". this suffix denotes an ideology, and evolution was created using science.

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Evolution is every bit as much an ideology as Creation is. The ism fits, wear it. The funny thing is, you complain that Creationists believe based on faith, but you believe based on less than that. You have to actively decieve yourself, to avoid unpleasant questions like the ones I have raised time and again. You have to swallow the concept of peer review, no matter how bad the taste, no matter how strong the gag refelx. Without it, without this blind devotion to the words of those who lead your ideology, you would have to think about it for yourself.
I am 32 years old. In that time, I have been a Witness(birth-20), an Atheist(20-20.00001), and Agnostic(20.00001-31), and even, for a short time, a would-be Evolutionist(20-22). I studied Evolutionism, hoped that it was right, gave an atheist's prayer to the Great Unknown Cosmic Muffin that it was true, and believable, and in the end, found it to be what it always was, an insult to the intelligence of an open mind. I am, for lack of a better term, a Witness once again, albeit a decidely poor example of one. Why? Because in spite of WANTING to believe that there was no God, and that we were nothing but overly complexified mammals, I simply could not swallow the bilge that was offered as proof. Evolutionism does not hold water. That is why I call it the Leakey Theory.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Secondly, Jesuits were great scholars who founded universities around the world, and indeed still run some institutions of higher learning today, despite Layola's order being officially disbanded long ago. The Jesuit's scholarship has contributed much to modern science, so it should be of no surprise to you that the modern Roman Catholic church - the entity that first commissioned the Jesuits in the 16th century - endorses the theory of Evolution.

Indeed, the Jesuits are fine scholars, and I did them a disservice by impuning their scholarly ways as I did. The fact that they, with or without the blessing of their god the Pope, support evolution neither sanctifies it, nor condemns Catholicism any more than anything else that it is responsible for.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
John Paul II has established a scientific think tank of sorts in the Vatican and has invited scientists from all over the world to study and lecture at the Vatican. (The opening to Stephen Hawking's latest book has a bit about his embarrassment at almost having to admit to the Pope that he was an atheist when he lectured at the Vatican.) John Paul II's first action as Pope in 1978 was to reverse the church's 400 year old mistake in condemning Galileo for his celestial theories. John Paul II's concern with science is its moral impact, not whether every single contradictory dotted "i" and crossed "t" in the Bible fits the latest scientific findings...

Only Science contradicts the Bible, not science. The fact that the Catholic Church used its extensive political power (totally against Jesus' proclamation that '...my kingdom is no part of this earth...') to stifle scientific thought does not in any way impugn the Bible or its teachings, which any Catholic could tell you has nothing to do with Catholicism. Catholics aren't even supposed to read the Bible, it only confuses them by saying things that contradict what they are taught by their priests, abbots, fathers, monks, pontiffs, cardinals, bishops, archbishops, and of course, the Pope. Especially the parts where it says not to use titles.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
I learned much of my early English and science (including Evolution!) at the behest of Jesuits. Unlike some of the more radical Calvinist-inspired Protestant groups, the Jesuits did not shun scholarship or science, and they were able to understand the difference between their faith and their science.

No Christian shuns scholarship or science. There is complete harmony between the Bible and science, and none whatsoever between the Bible and Science. Is this because the Bible is part wrong and part right, or because Science is wrong, and and science and the Bible are right?
Well, science is based on observation, math, and repeatable experimentation. On the other hand, Science bases itself on the supposition that the ToE is correct, and warps its findings to fit that ideology, and uses nothing but peer review to do so.

Peer review, when used by scientists, shows that one scientist can duplicate the experimental processes used by another, and get the same results, thereby vindicating the first scientist's conclusions.

When used by Scientists, peer review shows that one Scientist agrees with another Scientist, and because the Scientists call this process peer review, they then say that the first Scientist's conclusions have been vindicated.

Science and science use two radically different processes called by the same name to validate their findings. In science, that which is proven, and can be demonstrated again and again, is true. In Science, that which the loud majority decrees is true. The Bible agrees with science, and disagrees with Science.

Draw from these truths what you may. I really feel that I have summed up my position very well.

 

[Vrylakas]

FearlessLeader2 wrote: Perhaps the last thing he said was a complete dodge that had nothing to do with the issue, and I didn't bother wasting my time? Perhaps you noticed that Vrylakas hasn't bothered to post one syllable since?

Glad to see you have respect for those who disagree with you Fearless. I'm a married man in the midst of a busy career so my free time is limited; you will often see large gaps between my posts. My apologies if it takes a couple days for me to get back to you. Since you hadn't answered any of three follow-ups posts, I assumed you never would.

FearlessLeader2 wrote: This message will be broken into two parts, as it is 15,700-odd characters long.

Brevity is not my strong point...

First off, thanks for digging it up. I thought you meant the last post he made, and that was clearly not this one. This message will be broken into two parts, as it is 15,700-odd characters long.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...] Mucho snippo

"the-o-ry [...] - 1. Systematically organized knowledge applicable in a wide variety of circumstances, esp. a system of assumptions, principals and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of specified phenomena.

You'll note that your usage of theory, the colloquial usage, comes in at number 4 in the definitions:

"4. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

The point is that there is a difference in usage that is critical to the meaning. When scientists refer to Evolution as a theory, they mean definition #1, while fundamentalists tend to confuse this with the colloquial definition of #4. The dimwitted Ronnie Reagan revealed his own weak understanding of basic science when he made his public gaffe to the effect that "Evolution is still just a theory". Of course it is - as it and everything else science studies can only ever be.

quote: Originally posted by Vrylakas
3. Evolution is fact. It is not a matter of belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, fine. You say that evolution is a fact. Great. Wonderful. Now if only that were true, you and I could go our seperate ways. But you see, I have this problem, call it a psychological imabalance or whatever. Whenever someone says something that is blatantly untrue, and says it in a manner that brooks no dispute, as if they are bringing the Mountain to Mohammed, I get all twisted up in knots. You see, I'm allergic to willful ignorance.

You have made a statement that requires clarification and evidence. The "blatantly untrue" requires this evidence. (Please note I am ignoring your condescending tone.)

At the risk of stating the obvious, you and I differ on this matter. I have come to accept the truth, that this universe and everything in it are the result of an intelligent Creator. You, for whatever reason (apparently it is either financial(you studied this in college, are you a paleobiologist?) or you were simply raised that way), have chosen to ignore this, and follow a fairy tale. I will expand on this below...

Yes, clearly we do differ. Glad to see you've found some meaning in your life, Fearless. I hope you aren't presuming to know what my religious leanings may be, as I haven't stated them in this forum. That actually wouldn't really have an impact on our topic in any reasonable discussion anyway.

As for my vocation, I spent a decade training as a historian, and currently work as the head of the North American research efforts for a fixed-income research firm. My education, which spans two continents, did indeed include a very sound grounding in the Sciences. As with most Catholics, I was raised with a fairly thorough religious education as well.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...] More snippo

Vry
??? You're making some broad statements and I'm not sure what you specifically want. Speciation is the point reached when two separated gene pools diverge enough in development that they can no longer interbreed (and create offspring). This can happen through simple geographic separation (allopatric speciation), widespread territorialization that may cause isolated pools of divergant development (parapatric speciation) or through having particularly strong traits within a given population (sympatric speciation).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say 'this can happen', as if it has, and has been observed, but in point of fact, since populations have been studied, haven't they always been the species they currently are? No one has ever observed a single population diverging into two seperate populations, they have merely seen two populations of similar animals and, based on the starting point of 'evolution is a fact', have explained the similarities between these animals as coming from a common ancestor, even though there is no proof of that creature.

Observation of speciation doesn't have to happen in front of your eyes. In fact, given the amount of time it takes for species to reach that point whereby they can no longer interbreed successfully - you are not going to see it happen in a single species right before your eyes. This is where the fossil record comes into play. It isn't simply a matter of scientists saying "Gosh, these two fossil samples sure do look alike. Must be derived from the same animal!" It's tracing specific characteristics that show up in the fossil record that can be definitively traced through species as they develop; things like reticulating spines (vertibraes), inter-locking molars, short-based balanced skulls in fully bipedal animals, etc. If your measure of verifiable data is limited to a single human's visual life, well that undermines all human efforts at learning just about anything about anything. It also reveals a deep misunderstanding of how science works.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
I'm not sure what your point is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point is that evolution is just an athiest's version of ignorant superstition. A story to push back the darkness. Nothing more, nothing less. Only instead of dressing it up in the trappings of religious ceremony and pageantry, it is dressed up in peer review.

Actually, in my academic career I met many scientists who were also devotedly religious (in their many faiths). That's really one of my main points, that you insist on believing the whole argument is between "Believers" and "Non-Believers"; but that's really irrelevant. I'm afraid Evolution is not an Atheist conspiracy. It is a free-standing theory created by scientists that has withstood 150 years of constant experimentation and review. Do you understand what peer review is? It's not a ceremony or a rite, but rather a professional critique of any given study or work, based on available resources and the researcher's original notes. The point is to force researchers' work to meet strict professional standards.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas

We (humans, that is) have actually had the opportunity to watch it in action right before our eyes.

FL2
Example? (That I haven't already invalidated, that is.) I am sure you are talking about Natural Selection, not Evolution. Natural Selection happens, Evolution does not. Variation within a species occurs, speciation does not.

Vry
But the two are related. That's Natural Selection. Natural Selection is when something in the environment changes and some members of a given species have a particular trait that allows them to survive the change. That's exactly why (according to the theory of evolution) species each create a plethora of individual variation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this variation is not speciation. Huskies have thicker fur than Golden Retrievers, but they can still throw a litter of pups.

You missed my point entirely. Variation is the route to speciation. Variation and Natural Selection are inseparable components of Evolution. In your original statement you said "Natural Selection happens, Evolution does not. Variation within a species occurs, speciation does not." - which is ridiculous. That's like saying I admit I pulled the trigger of the gun that was pointed at this person's head, killing them, but I did not commit murder." (Pardon the example.) Variation is a part of Natural Selection, and Natural Selection is the engine for Evolution. That, in a nutshell, is how Evolution works.

Have you ever actually read Darwin's On the Origin of Species, or any professional text related to Evolution? I ask because I'm getting the distinct impression you don't really understand how Evolution works, rather that you're tossing around some common catch-phrases. If so, how can you purport to refute something you don't understand?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Evolution as a process does not attempt to save each and every member of any given species or population; the point is to save the population. (Humans, with their egos, find this part a bit difficult to understand and digest sometimes.) By creating as many variations within a population as possible, Evolution is tryng to guarantee that at least some members of the population will always survive. It's absurd to separate the two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here you personify a supposedly impartial natural force. Now we not only need an intelligence, we need a large, unweildly mechanism for it to use.

Once again you've misunderstood me. I did not intend to personify Evolution, as again this is not a religion. When I wrote "Evolution as a process does not attempt..." above, I am refering to Evolution as a body of work composed of all the research and work done by scientists from all over the world for 150 years. That's why I included "...as a process...", hoping that would tip you off to my meaning. No need to get pedantic. I promise to watch my syntax from now on.

End of Part One

Yup.

 

[Vrylakas]

Part Two, in which Doris gets her oats

And a beer too, I hope!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
An example: In 1977 two biologists from Princeton University [...] More mucho snippo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your point? I never once argued that NS doesn't happen. It can be seen in action. But it doesn't create, it exterminates. In this case, it obliterated probably a dozen varieties of finch. No new species have cropped up have they?

Not yet. But again, Natural Selection (which is the process the Grants observed above) is the engine of Evolution. Take thousands or millions of years of minor incremental genetic alterations like the one described above and you will have a very different animal than what you started out with. Remember, you can't look at individuals - you're looking at the species. Only individuals within the group are "eliminated" (rather, they didn't survive), but Variation allowed some members of the group to survive - and therefore the species survives, albeit with slightly different physical characteristics. That's Natural Selection. Give Natural Selection enough time, and you end up with a different species. That's Evolution. This is the basic, first year science textbook intro to Evolution; why do I need to explain this to you if you already understand it well enough to refute it?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL2
Now why would they force you to take courses that indoctrinate you into the holy covenant of Establishment Science's Catechism?

Vry
You mean, why would I be trained to rely on the evidence of my senses to explore the world rather than suspect theological texts, distorted and tainted by politics, mythology and regional traditions...?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence of your senses, eh? So in class, you personally observed speciation? No tainted, distorted texts, only 'peer reviewed' papers written by the prophets of ES, all pure and holy.

In history class I also didn't witness personally King Sobieski riding down to engage the Ottoman Turks at Vienna in or Marc Antony fleeing the Battle of Actium, and I had to rely on expert presentations of the facts related to these two events. However, in history I did have to take several classes on the validation of source material and evidence, and how to evaluate it. That's a critical aspect of being a scientist (or a social scientist), and that's also why we have peer review to keep everyone honest, so to speak.

Science texts are certainly not holy; they are created by humans. Again - science does not require one to believe. On the contrary, it actually requires skepticism, a sort of "guilty-until-proven-innocent" approach that forces scientists to conclusively and demonstratably eliminate all possible explanations for any given phenomenon, not once but repeatedly. Peer review means that other scientists anywhere in the world must be able to re-create your experiments and reach similar conclusions, i.e., eliminate all possible explanations except the one you've reached. It's reductive. Occasionally new evidence surfaces later that affects a given theory's outcome, and that sparks a new round of experimentation. Again, science is not absolute and it does not claim to be as much.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
and I spent months combing through the development of dental patterns in bipedal simians over millions of years.

FL2-
Kind of like how the Jesuits have you pore over illuminated manuscripts in seminary... But Evolutionism definitely has no similarities to religion. Nope, nosirreeBob, none whatsoever.

Vry-
First of all, I do not believe "Evolutionism" is a term in English or any other language. I imagine fundamentalists probably have invented this expression, with the suffix "-ism". this suffix denotes an ideology, and evolution was created using science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You'd like to believe that, wouldn't you? Evolution is every bit as much an ideology as Creation is. The ism fits, wear it. The funny thing is, you complain that Creationists believe based on faith, but you believe based on less than that. You have to actively decieve yourself, to avoid unpleasant questions like the ones I have raised time and again. You have to swallow the concept of peer review, no matter how bad the taste, no matter how strong the gag refelx. Without it, without this blind devotion to the words of those who lead your ideology, you would have to think about it for yourself.

???? "Evolutionism" is not a term. I've checked dictionaries in English, Polish, Russian, Hungarian and German - and it isn't.

Secondly, again I don't think you fully understand how science works, for you to make a statement that Evolution is an ideology. Do you believe there were multiple killers of JFK? Do you believe the U.S. government harbors aliens at Roswell, NM? Calling Evolution an ideology seems to me to be along those same lines of credulity, seemingly tinged with some paranoia. *Sigh* Once again - I do not believe in Evolution, any more than I believe electro-magnetism can retain and record sound; both have been adequately demonstrated to me. Religion requires fath; Science requires demonstration.

I am 32 years old. In that time, I have been a Witness(birth-20), an Atheist(20-20.00001), and Agnostic(20.00001-31), and even, for a short time, a would-be Evolutionist(20-22). I studied Evolutionism, hoped that it was right, gave an atheist's prayer to the Great Unknown Cosmic Muffin that it was true, and believable, and in the end, found it to be what it always was, an insult to the intelligence of an open mind. I am, for lack of a better term, a Witness once again, albeit a decidely poor example of one. Why? Because in spite of WANTING to believe that there was no God, and that we were nothing but overly complexified mammals, I simply could not swallow the bilge that was offered as proof. Evolutionism does not hold water. That is why I call it the Leakey Theory.

I am 33 years old. Glad to see you've been exploring and expanding your horizons. I can't say I've had quite the same wide array of belief swings, though I have spent my life exploring and examining with an open mind. Sorry to say there isn't one final inescapable conclusion in life for everyone, or otherwise we probably would all have agreed on what religion is right and what morals are right and there'd be no more wars or for that matter, disagreements, anywhere. Again, I congratulate you on finding some meaning in your life.

However, I am concerned again that you seem to feel that Science and Religion are necessarily in conflict. I'm puzzled why you keep comparing the two. Was there a propulsive hand of some God behind the creation of the universe? That's a question Science by definition cannot answer, and does not try to. I recall one scientist - who studied Evolution - saying he was "just studying God's handiwork." You've made (again) some broad, sweeping statements above in which you dismiss Evolution, without offering a scientific explanation why.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
Secondly, Jesuits were great scholars who founded universities around the world, and indeed still run some institutions of higher learning today, despite Layola's order being officially disbanded long ago. The Jesuit's scholarship has contributed much to modern science, so it should be of no surprise to you that the modern Roman Catholic church - the entity that first commissioned the Jesuits in the 16th century - endorses the theory of Evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, the Jesuits are fine scholars, and I did them a disservice by impuning their scholarly ways as I did. The fact that they, with or without the blessing of their god the Pope, support evolution neither sanctifies it, nor condemns Catholicism any more than anything else that it is responsible for.

They did not develop the theory of Evolution, though their scholarship did make some contributions to the underlying premises. My simple point was that you were using the term "Jesuits" as if it stood for someone so devoted to religion that they rejected science altogether, and that is completely contrary to reality. Pope John Paul II's understanding of science, including Evolution, has derived from Jesuit scholarship and this is why he has taken such step as developing the Church's relationship with the world scientific community.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
John Paul II has established a scientific think tank of sorts in the Vatican and has invited scientists from all over the world to study and lecture at the Vatican. (The opening to Stephen Hawking's latest book has a bit about his embarrassment at almost having to admit to the Pope that he was an atheist when he lectured at the Vatican.) John Paul II's first action as Pope in 1978 was to reverse the church's 400 year old mistake in condemning Galileo for his celestial theories. John Paul II's concern with science is its moral impact, not whether every single contradictory dotted "i" and crossed "t" in the Bible fits the latest scientific findings...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only Science contradicts the Bible, not science.

??? I don't understand at all what you meant here. Please clarify.

The fact that the Catholic Church used its extensive political power (totally against Jesus' proclamation that '...my kingdom is no part of this earth...') to stifle scientific thought does not in any way impugn the Bible or its teachings, which any Catholic could tell you has nothing to do with Catholicism.

1. Yes, the early Renaissance Catholic church did indeed attempt to stifle Science, as it understood it little. (Oddly enough, again, it was the Jesuits who bucked this trend.) But so did many Protestant faiths; there was a sense of distrust that humans would attempt to understand the world through any means other than the Bible and the local priest/reverand/religious community.

2. Of course it has nothing to do with Catholicism - that's been my by-now very belabored point, that Science and Religion are separate!

Catholics aren't even supposed to read the Bible, it only confuses them by saying things that contradict what they are taught by their priests, abbots, fathers, monks, pontiffs, cardinals, bishops, archbishops, and of course, the Pope. Especially the parts where it says not to use titles.

You need to update your Catholic history a bit. Since Vatican II in the early 1960s, Catholics are taught to read and seek inspiration from the Bible themselves, seeking spiritual guidance from the priests as needed (and Sundays, of course). This is the Catholicism I grew up in. Pope John Paul II, the bishop of Krakow at the time, strongly encouraged the many reforms that came out of Vatican II. As for titles - well, that is indeed a valid criticism of the Catholic Church, that it has retained too many of its medieval social structure - but what can you expect of a 2000+ year old institution and its traditions?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
I learned much of my early English and science (including Evolution!) at the behest of Jesuits. Unlike some of the more radical Calvinist-inspired Protestant groups, the Jesuits did not shun scholarship or science, and they were able to understand the difference between their faith and their science.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Christian shuns scholarship or science.

Some do, though admittedly a small fraction. Never fully discount the fanatics though. It's good to hear you do not shun scholarship though.

here is complete harmony between the Bible and science, and none whatsoever between the Bible and Science. Is this because the Bible is part wrong and part right, or because Science is wrong, and and science and the Bible are right?
Well, science is based on observation, math, and repeatable experimentation. On the other hand, Science bases itself on the supposition that the ToE is correct, and warps its findings to fit that ideology, and uses nothing but peer review to do so.

What a bizarre statement. I really don't know how to react to this. Can you give me a credible example of science "warping its findings to fit an ideology", re: Evolution?

Peer review, when used by scientists, shows that one scientist can duplicate the experimental processes used by another, and get the same results, thereby vindicating the first scientist's conclusions.

Not only get the same results, but discount other possible explanations. Remember, science is reductive - that's important.

When used by Scientists, peer review shows that one Scientist agrees with another Scientist, and because the Scientists call this process peer review, they then say that the first Scientist's conclusions have been vindicated.

Sorry - that's a complete distortion. Can you give me an example - using names of professionals - where this has happened?

Science and science use two radically different processes called by the same name to validate their findings. In science, that which is proven, and can be demonstrated again and again, is true. In Science, that which the loud majority decrees is true. The Bible agrees with science, and disagrees with Science.

??? Did Christ rely on peer review to get his message across? What journal was he published in? Sorry to be facetious, but your statement above is ridiculous. Science does not go by "the loud majority"; it goes by verifiable evidence. There is no vote taken. And peer review is not a one-time thing, it is ongoing, sometimes for centuries. The Bible and Science have little to do with one another.

Draw from these truths what you may. I really feel that I have summed up my position very well.

Actually, your reasoning has some gaping holes in it that require much further elaboration. Give me some solid verifiable evidence of the several accusations you make. Otherwise, they come across as a wild "X-Files"-style conspiracy theory....

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You say 'this can happen', as if it has, and has been observed, but in point of fact, since populations have been studied, haven't they always been the species they currently are? No one has ever observed a single population diverging into two seperate populations, they have merely seen two populations of similar animals and, based on the starting point of 'evolution is a fact', have explained the similarities between these animals as coming from a common ancestor, even though there is no proof of that creature.

Consider the mule and the jenny, the result of crossbreeding horses and donkeys. The two species are still closely releted (crossbreeding will produce a live, healthy animal) but have diverged far enough that the result, a mule - or jenny - is sterile, so that DNA can no longer be exchanged between the parent species. If the "each according to his kind" statement is really true, then this kind of crossbreeding shouldn't happen at all.
What will happen of course is that when the proof for evolution is so strong that it can't possibly be denied, the creationists will just "reinterpret" the bible to show that evolution was there all the time, they had merely mis-read the relevant passages.

 

[Maj]

Forgive my ignorance but could someone please explain to me the difference between Science and science.

Thanks in advance,
- Maj

 

[Crazy Eddie]

That's just FL2's way of seperating science he agrees with and science he dosn't.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Crazy Eddie
That's just FL2's way of seperating science he agrees with and science he dosn't.

If you'd be so kind as to remove your hand from my buttocks, and let me speak for myself, I'll make the explanantions. Besides, everyone could see your lips moving.

By using the seperate terms, Science, and science, I am drawing the line between verifiable scientific research, and junk science. The former is easily observable in most cases, and at least repeatable and demonstable via math in the rest. The latter is supported only by the opinions of those who have a vested interest(namely it is their field of expertise, and if it were revealed to be a hoax, they would have worthless degrees fit only to line birdcages) in keeping the hoax alive.

Verifiable science includes many fields: Astronomy, Chemistry, Physics in its innumerable sub-specialties, and higher math. Junk science, based solely upon the supposations and 'peer review' of its proponents, includes various bits of nonsense and heavily corrupted avenuse of research. Evolution and geology are the two main culprits, with a smattering of other garbage behind them. Most geological work, that which is based solely on observations, is splendid work. Regrettably, many geologists persist in perpetuating the Ice Age theory, solely because Evolutionism tells them to. The Evolutionists, in their turn, take this work, based on the notion that they are right, and use it to 'prove' that they are right. Why has no one called them on this? Well, they've got such a large following now, they can make a big noise at anyone who tries.

(Vry- I'm at work, I'll get to you in a bit...)

 

[CrayonX]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2


Verifiable science includes many fields: Astronomy, Chemistry, Physics in its innumerable sub-specialties, and higher math. Junk science, based solely upon the supposations and 'peer review' of its proponents, includes various bits of nonsense and heavily corrupted avenuse of research. Evolution and geology are the two main culprits, with a smattering of other garbage behind them. Most geological work, that which is based solely on observations, is splendid work. Regrettably, many geologists persist in perpetuating the Ice Age theory, solely because Evolutionism tells them to. The Evolutionists, in their turn, take this work, based on the notion that they are right, and use it to 'prove' that they are right. Why has no one called them on this? Well, they've got such a large following now, they can make a big noise at anyone who tries.

Ok, I'm finally starting to figure out your POV. Sorry if I was being sarcasitic before. I agree with you to an extent about Evolutionists; many of them have latched on the idea and base all their research on the idea, but there are some evolutionists who are actually sincerely seeking the truth. And many of them have acknowledges that they can't explain certain things, so then become 'pseudo evolutionists'. And I agree about the geologists similarly, where presumptions often supercede fact. However I am curious about how you interpret stuff like 'strata', where conclusions are made based on layers of sediment, or with studies of Earth craters, some which are often 'presumed' to have wiped out the dinosaurs (ie Yucatan Peninsula crater). Since you don't agree with the 'young Earth' scenario, I suppose you could also find some truths in going backwards in time to figure out things that have happened without drawing broad conclusions like "the Ice Age did it!"?

 

[Maj]

By using the seperate terms, Science, and science, I am drawing the line between verifiable scientific research, and junk science. The former is easily observable in most cases, and at least repeatable and demonstable via math in the rest. The latter is supported only by the opinions of those who have a vested interest(namely it is their field of expertise, and if it were revealed to be a hoax, they would have worthless degrees fit only to line birdcages) in keeping the hoax alive.

So in other words, the social sciences are "junk" because corroboration is open to bias, prejudice and corruption? Or is it qualitative research you have a gripe with? Either way, do you have an alternate method by which the social sciences could be pursued or perhaps an entirely different method of research and understanding in mind?

On a side note, could you please drop the often sarcastic, condescending and/or flippant tone you've been conveying in your more recent posts? I harbour great respect for your argumentative abilities and intellect, yet when you mix those with the aforementioned tones, you bring enough raw emotion into an intellectual debate to make myself (and perhaps others) think twice about even trying to read and comprehend your points of view. In other words, you turn what could be a well-structured argument into an annoying (and to some, insulting) rant.

Please don't take this as a personal insult. I want to read what you have to say because judging from your previous posts it is obvious to myself that you are an intelligent fellow capable of presenting strong arguments. But when you bring scorn and anger to the table, I tend to lose my appetite.

- Maj

 

[knowltok3]

FL2, I would like to question you on the Ice Age thing. Are you saying you don't believe there was an Ice Age? I believe that the evidence for it comes from several sources. 1. would be the effect glaciers have had on the terrain in some areas. 2. would be samples taken of glaciers and at the poles of trapped air in the ice. This also includes the cores that are drilled as they can be analyzed like the strata of rock. 3. would be the discovery of species from that peroid. The Mastadon they found frozen in Siberia comes to mind, but as I understand it, there have been more.

Please elaborate on this if you care to. Thanks

 

[sumociv]

I'll take a shot at this one. I am a Christian with a masters in Theology, but I voted for other on this poll.

I would argue that there is definitly evidence for evolution, in fact Steve Jones in "Darwin's Ghost" points out that geneticists are having recent success in mathmatically proving the interrelatedness of species. See my review at amazon.com. Evolution has thus moved into the realm of definte verifiability.

Jones' argument is very compelling to me, since they are demonstrating that evolution happened, but that most evolutionist have been way off track in the details of how it happened. You would expect that Darwin (who didn't even know what a gene was) would be very wrong in the particulars of the theory that he put forth. Similarly, evolution via the study of similarity in structure should also be fairly unreliable due to the limits of the fossil record. Both approaches are being corrected by a new, genetic survey which has greatly clarified the details of the evolutionary tree, and thus is highly credible. Science that corrects previously held beliefs is generally an indicator that it is on the right track.

There also is evidence for creation, but the problem is that there are very few proponents of creation who are not christian fundamentalists who take a literal and anti-critical view of the Bible and are not able to really present a view which makes any sense to non-fundamentalists and evidently to most of the participants in this thread. I don't know any other christians who agree with me on this issue, although they are out there somewhere.......

I find the complexity of the genetic code and the ability of its programs to change over time into more adaptable creatures to be strong arguments for a programmer of that code. To argue that evolution is a self-generating system seems to me to be dishonest. You can't have it both ways: either evolution is by chance and therefore completly chaotic which should result in chaotic creatures or evolution is ingenius and thouroughly complex, resulting in beautiful and ingenius example of adaptibility and therefore is the result of composition by an intelligent force.

As a Christian Evangelical, I do not believe that a literal reading of the creation stories is appropriate. Genesis 1-3 was clearly written by someone who believed that God created the universe, however both the writer and the audience were not interested in the types of questions that we are asking today. Instead the creation story answers the questions that they were concerned with, like, "If there is only one God, then how did he make all these things, since we thought that there was a god of the sea, a god of the land, a god of the sky etc." Or more specifically, given the clearly Babylonian setting of the text, "What about Tiamat?" (the babylonian god of the chaotic sea whom Marduk defeats and uses her body to create land. This would have been the creationist assumptions of the audience of the Genesis text) You can see how the author of the text answers this question by only mentioning Tiamat (the central componant of babylonian creation) in passing in the first verse. "In the beginning, when god created the heavens and the earth, the earth was void and formless, and the spirit of God was hovering over the ___(hebrew "tiamat" or sea). In other words, "Forget Tiamat, she doesn't exist!"

Most Christians don't know how to approach the Bible correctly and objectively and therefore misuse the text to make it say what they want to hear. To use it to try to answer the post-modern questions of the 21st century believer or to refute scince is to severly misuse the text. You might as well quote the Koran to justify suicide plane rides since your hermeneutic is the same!

I checked other because I really believe in both evolution and creation. Both are rationally and scientifically compelling and they are not mutually exclusive. In fact the beauty of evolution to me is one of the truths which compels me to believe in an intelligent and caring creator.