A Case for Theism

[Ariovistus Maximus]

OK this post is from another thread, but I thought I'd put it on it's own thread.

EDIT: I'd like to thank all the guys who've posted so far for their attitudes here. I came into this expect lots of flame, but truly this is not the case. You do credit to your views by presenting them with civility.

Thanks guys!

Also I must clarify that this is HARDLY an exhaustive exercise in apologetics. It is simply a summary of my arguments on various topics I've seen on the TWC.

Also, "Thiesm" may be a bit broad, because I'm not defending Pantheism, Animism, Polytheism, or the vast majority of Monotheism, actually. It's more like a case for Creationism, but I'd rather not use the term due to it's implications in the community... i.e. to use it you must be mentally infirm.

I've always thought that putting a sentence here and a sentence there is not an effective form of debate, so here is my case for Theism.

I don't know that I'll be able to spend a lot of time on here, and I KNOW I won't be able to answer/debate all your points! Some help from fellow theists would be nice, since I'm likely to be flamed shortly with way more stuff than I have time for (I really want to spend time on my ancient weapons study and my Pontic AAR )

Also, as the good Book says, "In the multitude of words there is no lack of sin (in this case, error)."

So I'm bound to mess up somewhere. But here are my thoughts. I hope I don't come across as hostile to anybody; I don't want to make trouble.

Anyways, here it is. Enjoy:

VERY IMPORTANT are a few questions which I asked earlier, which have still not been answered!!! Please check them out, near the bottom.

Respects to Tankbuster and Tigrul, who have shown themselves to be quite knowledgeable and reasonable debaters. Thanks, guys.

Anyways, since I'm basically just summing up my arguments that I've already made, I'm not going to continue debating them.

Of course, I prefer that you not carry various prejudices against me into other threads and forums.

And as always you should follow TWC guidelines.

And before you call me an idiot, please read the whole thing.

Also, I'd encourage everybody here to check out other discussion areas (as in other than gaming forums). Knowledgeable creationists don't routinely hang out @ the TWC. And, quite frankly, this forum is rather an "Atheist's Old Boy's Club," if you will.

Considering that even if I was wrong and atheism was "the Truth," I wouldn't go to Hell (since there wouldn't be one in that case), I see no reason that my oppinion should bother atheists so much. It's not as if you're concerned about my soul. I mean, if this is all there is, then does it matter if we're right or wrong? We'll be dead all the same... and if it made us happy while we were here...

Anyways, I just don't see why all the atheists on the forum get so worked up about this that they feel obligated to bring my sanity and intelligence into question. I hope that this is just a result of the anonymity of the internet, and that you don't treat people this way in RL for disagreeing with you.

Ok enough of that. On to other stuff:

First of all, on the reason for my debate.

Essentially, I see no reason to buy the idea that evolution and theism can coexist. In fact, here is a quote from a prominent 18th Century (I think) evolutionist:

"The theory of evolution is a theory universally accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur . . or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." ~D.M.S. Watson

Now of course you will argue that there has been credible evidence since then. I'm not using this quote to suggest that evolution has no evidence, I'm placing emphasis on the reality that evolutionism is essentially the atheist's method to rationalize God out of the picture.

Why? Because the concept that I will have to give account of my actions to a supreme Being one day might make me uncomfortable, so I'd rather not believe in Him.

OK, so if evolution is the polar opposite of Theism, then obviously I have issues with it.

________________________________

"Creationists/Theists are anti-science."

Not in the least. Now, you must note two things:

Creationists always make the point that evolution is not science.

Evolutionists always make the point that it is science.

Thus, a favorite way that atheists will rebuff Creationism is to suggest that the Creationist opposes all science. He makes the comparison that evolution is a theory on the same tier as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity.

Now, considering this point, I would like to mention that many great scientists were devout Christians. Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, spent a great deal of time defending Creationism.

Does this mean that ALL creationists are good scientists? No; I'm not making that comparison. I'm saying that there is no reason to brand creationists as mystical hermits who consider science to be witchcraft.

I think this is a pretty inconsistant comparison. Since the theory of evolution essentially calls the very existence of God into question, it obviously deals with a lot more than gravity etc.

__________________________________________

"God does not exist because He cannot be proven."

No; God cannot be proven. Since He cannot be proven, to believe in Him requires one to take a few things on faith.

However, this is hardly unreasonable. God is infinite; He cannot be discovered or completely known. If we could know God entirely, if we could understand Him completely, what would be so Godlike about Him? He'd just be one of us.

So the atheist takes the idea of God, which is an abstract concept, and demands that He be explained solely with logic.

The atheist requires that the intangible be made tangible, in order to prove that it was intangible in the first place.

So I suggest to the atheist that he explain to me (scientifically) the concepts of love, hope, and peace.
Or perhaps you can logically tell me how to determine that something is beautiful.

So that is why we don't NEED proof, and why we're not retarded for not needing it.

As to evidence for God (and AGAIN it's not proof; simply evidence, evidence that you might use for something else entirely):

Simply that abstract concepts such as love exist tells us that there is an element of us that is not explained by science. So if we are the result of pure science, where did all that extra baggage come from?

Also, Creation is an evidence of God.

Which is of course why we debate evolution vs. creation, because the evolutionist will not accept this.

And another evidence is personal; what God has done for me. Of course, that is different for everybody and outside the realm of logic, so I can't present it as evidence.

_____________________________________

"Evolution and Abiogenesis"

Well, this is exciting.

To begin with, I assure you guys (so that you don't feel obligated to tell me 10 more times) that abiogenesis is how life began and evolution is completely unrelated.

OK, let's do this step-by-step, employing indirect logic.

Abiogenesis --> Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

OK, so if abiogenesis is false (which I will explain shortly),

Abiogenesis --> Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

So obviously, if abiogenesis never occurred, then there would be no life for evolution to work with.

Therefore:

Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

Well, this leads to a contradiction, because in this equation there is no life. And obviously, there is life.

So the evolutionist will tell me, "Well, duh you're stupid because we know that there is life here today, therefore evolution is still true."

Well, obviously since evolution eliminates God (even if there was a god in this case, there would be no reason to worship him b/c he's never done anything for us or with us), the evolutionist who makes this statement is saying that evolution is the only possible explanation. He will not even consider that God could have created everything, because that contradicts his theory.

So, essentially, we replace abiogenesis with:

(Well, we know evolution is true so we don't need to understand how life began) -->
Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

So evolution is proof of itself? Circular reasoning.

____________________________________________________

So, why is abiogenesis silly?

Well, essentially you have to accept the idea of spontaneous generation, which real science HAS to reject.

One day... NOTHING happened! And from that nothing we have everything we see around us today.

If there is no God, then NOTHING could have created anything, which means that matter did not exist.

But abiogenesis begins with a tiny particle that housed all the ingredients for life, or a primordial soup, or something like that.

Where did the particle come from? Where did the soup come from?

_____________________________________________________________

Now, as to evolution:

I can't prove evolution wrong either!

Why? Because it's proponents have cleverly set evolution up as a process that takes 10000000000s of years old. Obviously, I will never live long enough to prove that it DIDN'T happen. So all the evolutionist has to do is place the burden of proof on me!

So I point to the fact that one species has never been OBSERVED to change to another.

Well, all the evolutionist has to do is say that we haven't waited enough yet blahblahblah and that it MAKES SENSE.

Last I heard, TRUE SCIENCE was that which can be proven by observable, testable, and demonstrable evidence.

But the evolutionist tells me it makes sense, and then turns around and presents it as IRREFUTABLE FACT in the classroom, and never presents the other side.

I would hasten to remind you all that, a few centuries ago, a lot of very smart people said that IT MAKES SENSE that big rocks fall faster than small ones.

But still I often see people mocking me because I'm not a bobblehead that automatically agrees with "all the scientists."

Yeah, scientists have a great record. Consider how many flukes evolutionists have created!!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY "FINDS" OF THE "MISSING LINK" WERE DELIBERATE, FRAUDULENT PLANTS?!?

One "scientist" planted chunks of pig teeth in England, and "dug it up" later and presented it as evidence. Great legacy you guys have. Real authentic science, yessir.

Obviously, there have been scores of religious counterfeits as well. But they aren't the ones I'm putting my faith in, for a variety of reasons including the ones listed above.

Well, just because it made sense to their limited perspective hardly made it so. Lo and behold, big rocks and little rocks fall at the same speeds.

So what's left is a load of circumstantial evidence, such as monkey skulls. Ironically, the evolutionist accuses me of being naeive for my beliefs, while he chooses to believe in monkey skulls and drawings of dinosaurs with feathers.

________________________________________________

So when I criticize evolution, the evolutionist will run behind REAL science such as genetics, and tell me that I'm insane for not accepting genetics!!!

This is why evolutionists accuse creationists of being unscientific clowns.

When we question the notion that men are apes, the evolutionist makes fun of us by saying that we don't believe that genetic mutations occur!

Anybody can see that genetic mutations occur! Creationists aren't anti-science; they're against the anti-science parts of evolution!!!

So some guys have shown me a list of HELPFUL mutations. Well, that really is cool, and I didn't know about them. However, there are a whole lot more NEGATIVE mutations!!!

Now, good ol' mathematics tells me that it is more reasonable to think that if there are MORE negatives than positives, the negatives will overwhelm the positives. Thus, the gene pool is always shrinking!!! And if it is shrinking, then we are DEVOLVING, not EVOLVING.

Again, when we argue against evolution, evolutionists often put words in our mouths to suggest that we are arguing against established science.

_________________________________________________________

This ties into a statement that I made earlier to the effect that the evolutionist tends to come up with evidence to support his theory, rather than form a theory based on evidence.

Why do I say this?

Well, awhile ago I asked a question:

In science, when a molecule disentegrates into particles, these particles will spin in the same direction as the parent molecule. If this is so, why do two of the planets in our system spin different ways???

Well, someone told me that Venus was flipped over by a meteor or flipped upside-down by the sun's gravity, and that's why it spins in another direction.

Well, Occam's Razor seems to indicate that this answer is coming up with a lot of conjectures to salvage the precious theory.

HOWEVER, even if the conjectures about Venus were correct, how about this?

WHY ARE WHOLE GALAXIES SPINNING DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS???

Again, the atheist will dismiss this question because he's already decided that his theory is correct. This is the very opposite of what science is supposed to be.

The scientist is supposed to be willing to question anything that has not been established as natural law. That's not what I'm seeing.

This is an example of refusing to accept that the theory could be wrong. You can find that attitude in many areas.

Now, I'm not saying that clinging to a core principle is necessarily wrong!!! What I AM saying it's NOT SCIENCE! The atheist clings to his FAITH just as religiously as I do; only he (being very clever) has set his faith up as "science." That way, he can get it into the schools.

________________________________________________________________

OK, just a couple points left.

This one directly concerns evolution.

I asked 3 questions earlier, and one of them was the one about planets and galaxies spinning the wrong way. Here are the others and one more:

1. The U.S. lunar lander had enormous landing pads. This was to keep the lander from sinking in the dust that accumulated on the moon over time. Now, our scientists determined that (since the earth and moon 100000000s of years old) there would be feet and feet of dust on the moon, so the lander had to have great big pads.

When they arrived, the astronauts only found centimeters and centimeters of dust. So, if the planets are that old, why isn't there more dust? Obviously, if there is no explanation, this discredits the basic principle of evolution that the earth is extremely old.

2. Hydrogen (I said Helium earlier oops) is produced by the decay of various molecules in the atmosphere. Thus, the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere is increasing constantly. So if the earth is so old, why aren't we just saturated in hydrogen??? "Oh, it all combined with oxygen to become water."

THEN WHY AREN'T WE OXYGEN-STARVED AND DROWNING IN WATER?!?!?!?!

3. The sun, in producing such enormous quantities of energy, is eating itself up. Now, REAL scientists have calculated the speed of the sun's shrinkage. If the universe is SOOOO old, the sun would be practically gone by now, and all the planets in the system would be flying around and out of control!

"Well, the sun was bigger back then."

Guess what? If we go back as far as evolution says, the sun would be so big that life on Earth would be impossible!!! The planet would be like charcoal.

_________________________________________________________

Alright, thanks for your patience. This is the last issue.

Moving away from science for a moment, let's look at history for a bit.

Let's look at what humanism, which is fueled by evolutionism, produces. Note that without explaining God away with evolution, humanism has nowhere to go.

Let's look at Germany. The Germans in 1930-45 really took "survival of the fittest" to heart. How?

Well, they figured that if the only thing keeping man from evolving into a god was bad genes, they would just breed out all the bad genes.

So they imprisoned, sterilized, and murdered people with infirmities both mental and physical. And now the Nazis are universally hated and despised for their "scientific" methods, and even to salute in the Nazi fashion is a crime in Germany today.

I'd encourage you to check out where humanism takes us.

Now, obviously, religion has pulled some doozies in the past too. Some sick ones.

Therefore, YOU MUST BE EXTREMELY careful WHICH GOD YOU CHOOSE. Yes, you do have to choose the God that you will believe in. And only one will do what He's promised. The others, as history shows, will get you into all kinds of trouble.

So let me tell you about mine.

First of all, He says that He is the only One. That is key.

He also says that man is evil; that man will naturally do bad things.

Next, He says that He loves us. Now, without getting too complicated, God does NOT send people to hell. God gives man all the chances He can; if man doesn't take those chances (and man really blew it in the beginning), God's perfection means that He will not accept sin into Heaven, so sinful man must be punished.

Therefore, all men are headed for punishment. But God doesn't want that; He is most glorified when we choose to trust in Him. So He sent His son, Jesus Christ, who is perfect. Being perfect, He is qualified to take ALL of our sins, because He has none of His own.

Thus, if we will accept Christ's payment (this is a conscious decision you make for yourself), He will give us salvation, that is, allow us into Heaven because we are now sinless.

Now, we will sin afterwards because we still have a sinful nature, but Jesus paid for all sins, including future ones. And we will not lose this salvation.

At any rate, there you have it. You can take it or you can choose not to take it. Actually, doing nothing is the same as choosing not to.

Also, if you are interested, PM me for additional info etc.

And of course if you can't do that, I encourage you to get your hands on the Holy Bible and read through the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament.

Especially John 3, Romans 3-6, and Ephesians 2.

I hope I haven't broken any length rules; sorry.

Adios!

[Old_Scratch]

I don't have time give a full response but I will give this quick answer to the "There's no proof of god" argument. Not only is there no proof of god, there is absolutely no evidence of god whatsoever. Now, if a strange force intervened in human affairs on a regular basis, like saving a man falling from a building by catching him and gently setting him down, then one could speculate that this force could be god. But there is absolutely no verifiable evidence for anything supernatural, never mind proof.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The evidence for God is no more circumstantial than monkey skulls, my friend.

But you accept monkey skulls readily enough.

And actually (another point I forgot), there is evidence:

The Bible.

Of course, you refuse to treat the Bible as you would any other record. You say it must be impossible because it says things you don't understand.

You say it's not credible because there are miracles in it, and miracles are not scientific.

Well, that's the very definition of a miracle. Yeah; we can't explain it. But if God created the laws of science, He's more than capable of passing them over when He wants.

You can't say that miracles are false just because they're not scientific; that's the definition of a miracle.

But you can't make the argument that God exists and yet He can't perform miracles. If you put God in the equation, you have to allow that He can do what He wants.

[Old_Scratch]

The evidence for God is no more circumstantial than monkey skulls, my friend.



But you accept monkey skulls readily enough.

Is this a jab at evolution? If it is you may want to open a few books and examine the mountain of evidence that supports evolution.

And actually (another point I forgot), there is evidence:

The Bible.

I started writing a response, but for the sake of time I'll sum it up. .

You can't say that miracles are false just because they're not scientific; that's the definition of a miracle.

Just because something can't be explained doesn't mean that we should embrace the absurd. Invoke god to perform miracles, record the results and submit them for scientific peer review. Then I might consider it.

[Phier]

There is so much wrong with your post on the evolution side that it makes my brain hurt. I assume you have never studied biology behind say basic highschool?

I don't say this to belittle you, but because before you formulate strong opinions on a subject you should have better than a basic understanding of it.

Let me just address this just partially.

Now, as to evolution:

I can't prove evolution wrong either!

Why? Because it's proponents have cleverly set evolution up as a process that takes 10000000000s of years old. Obviously, I will never live long enough to prove that it DIDN'T happen. So all the evolutionist has to do is place the burden of proof on me!

So I point to the fact that one species has never been OBSERVED to change to another.

You can see evolution in a week using bacteria cultures. The reason being their generation time is so fast. While humans take decades, bacteria take minutes.

You can see evolution in action in several living species, from salamanders to birds, to elephants. All due to selection pressures, and geographic isolation.

But lets get to the meat of it.....

So I point to the fact that one species has never been OBSERVED to change to another.

It doesn't work that way. I tried to spell this out in another thread, but I'll do it here again, only without my MSpaint picture.

Imagine this. You have a time machine that can go back 5000 years at a time. Now imagine that you start at today and you kidnap a a man or woman, doesn't matter which, and go back in time 5000 years. That kidnap victim from today could mate and have children with anyone from 5000 years ago. Now 5000 years in the past, lets kidnap a local, and go back another 5000 years. That local could breed with anyone from 10,000 years ago. Now lets imagine you take another local and go back another 5000 years, YOU are now 15000 years in the past, and that local is 5000 years from their past, but could still successfully interbreed. Now lets keep doing this. 20000, 25000, 30000, 35000, 50000, 100000, 1500000, 1000000 years into the past. Each time you take a 'human' from the local time and go back 5000 years, over and over and over. Sooner or later you will go past what is human, you will be homo egaster or one of the others in our line. You would not be able to take that local and shoot forward 2 million years and interbreed with modern man, yet the chain was unbroken of breeding.

This is because evolution is not discontinuous. At no point is a child a different species than its parent. You, right now see SEVERAL new species, the problem is you can't tell it yet. You may well be in the founding line the next homo species will come from.

There are real examples of this with 'ring species' where a species slowly changes over distance, and when the ring meets geographically its effectively two seperate species.

I can get into that more if you need more.

[basics]

" You can see evolution in a week using bacteria cultures. The reason being their generation time is so fast. While humans take decades, bacteria take minutes."

Phier,

But you don't see new species. What you see are adaptations of the same species. That is not evolution, nor can it be since what is happening in the lab is not a natural process. Yet if you evolutionists consider that it is, at the hands of scientists, then declare the difference on creation at the hands of God?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

But you don't see new species. What you see are adaptations of the same species.

Total garbage, as usual. You can read detailed information about observed incidences of speciation here . It's interesting that whenever I bother to poke my nose into these threads I provide the Creationists with links like that and never see the slightest indication that they even read them. They don't care about the evidence, they just want to keep blindly believing "the truth". That's why they parrot Creationist crap that has been refuted, in vast detail, thousands of times.

That is not evolution, nor can it be since what is happening in the lab is not a natural process.

Since it's been observed out of the lab, that's irrelevant. And the process observed in the lab is precisely the same as the one in the wild, so your objection is also meaningless.

Yet if you evolutionists consider that it is, at the hands of scientists, then declare the difference on creation at the hands of God?

The process is a natural one, which can be observed in the lab but is precisely the same in nature. It can and has also been observed in nature. Speciation is a fact. Therefore evolution is a fact. End of story.

[Phier]

But you don't see new species. What you see are adaptations of the same species. That is not evolution, nor can it be since what is happening in the lab is not a natural process.

Bacteria are simply the most obvious example. Also the concept of species is rather vague in bacteria due to the fact they dont' really breed.

Normally evolution is seen in time, something thats hard to explain to the discontinuous mind but sometimes its in geography.

Let me give perhaps the best example I know of.

This is the herring gull in the UK

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This is the lessor black backed gull

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The two don't interbreed even though they live in close proximity. They are two different species, Largus argentatus and Largus Fuscus. Yet if you follow the herring gulls they go into north america, around to siberia, and back to Europe. As you move these herring gulls start to look more and more like black backed gulls, until the ring finally connects again in Western Europe. Along the way at every stage, they can interbreed, until they reach the end of the ring. The herring gull and lessor black backed gull NEVER interbreed even though they are linked by interbreeding around the globe.

You don't need time to see evolution in action, but you do need to look.

Yet if you evolutionists consider that it is, at the hands of scientists, then declare the difference on creation at the hands of God?

Poetry, but not germane to the topic.

[black-dragon]

Argh, this is just a rehash of his overly long post in the God Paradox thread. He seems to have opened up another can of ignorance to add to this uninformed rant, though..-sigh- I already refuted half of it over there...

[black-dragon]

I think it's been made quite clear that you're wrong, that you have been wrong and that any future posts you make on this topic will be wrong. But in the interest of making sure that other people aren't taken in by your nonsense on stilts, I present a response..

"Creationists/Theists are anti-science."

Not in the least. Now, you must note two things:

Creationists always make the point that evolution is not science.

Evolutionists always make the point that it is science.

Evolution is science. It has been, and is, investigated using the scientific method, is backed by mountains of evidence and is crucial in our understanding of biology. Evolution that took place in the past has been researched no differently than anything else in historical science. Not that it matters, evolution can be seen around us today. Whether or not you accept this is determined by your level of understanding of the subject.

Thus, a favorite way that atheists will rebuff Creationism is to suggest that the Creationist opposes all science. He makes the comparison that evolution is a theory on the same tier as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity.

Many arguments that creationists use are basically leveled at science at a whole. There's the "you take science on faith" argument and the "you've never actually seen it happen!" argument, but these are only the ones that I can remember off the top of my head. If we were to apply the standard of proof that creationists want for evolution to every other field of science, we'd be left with very little. How do we know that gravity existed in the past? How do we know that all matter is made of atoms?

Now, considering this point, I would like to mention that many great scientists were devout Christians. Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, spent a great deal of time defending Creationism.

Yeah, how many years ago was this? Did he live at a time where we had any idea about the theory of evolution? Well, I'm guessing that you're not going to reply, so I'll answer those for you. He died 1727. Evolution only started to be taken seriously in the scientific community after Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859. I'm sure that your appeal to authority is making Newton spin in his grave and that if he were alive today that he'd be ashamed of his defense of an absurd pseudo-science.

Many scientists are Christians and defend the theory of evolution.

Does this mean that ALL creationists are good scientists? No; I'm not making that comparison. I'm saying that there is no reason to brand creationists as mystical hermits who consider science to be witchcraft.

There's no reason to do that to historical figures who didn't have the scientific knowledge of modern times. Modern creationists like Kent Hovind and Harun Yahya do have this scientific knowledge, or are at least able to access it, so they are "mystical hermits who consider science to be witchcraft", among other things..

I think this is a pretty inconsistant comparison. Since the theory of evolution essentially calls the very existence of God into question, it obviously deals with a lot more than gravity etc.

What the are you on about? The theory of evolution doesn't deal with gravity or the existence of God.

"God does not exist because He cannot be proven."

Wow, I agree with this statement, though I'm not going to bother with where it's going.

Also, Creation is an evidence of God.

No it's not. Maybe we're just a computer simulation. Maybe we were created by beings from another universe.

Which is of course why we debate evolution vs. creation, because the evolutionist will not accept this.

Yes, you're right. If you're a scientist or a rational person, you can't accept creationism.

Well, obviously since evolution eliminates God (even if there was a god in this case, there would be no reason to worship him b/c he's never done anything for us or with us), the evolutionist who makes this statement is saying that evolution is the only possible explanation. He will not even consider that God could have created everything, because that contradicts his theory.

No it doesn't. As stated previously, evolution does not eliminate God and many evolutionists are Christians. Francis Collins, for example. It's posts like yours that make me wish that the TOS didn't forbid insults.

(Well, we know evolution is true so we don't need to understand how life began) -->
Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

So evolution is proof of itself? Circular reasoning.

Okay, the crux of your arugment was false, but I thought that this statement was especially stupid. How in the hell is that circular reasoning? And we don't need to know how life began to know that evolution is true. For all we know God created life and left it to evolve.

So, why is abiogenesis silly?

Abiogenesis deals with the emergence of amino acids out of inanimate matter. Do you know what amino acids are made of? Carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen. it hardly comes from nothing.

Proof of abiogenesis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment

Now, as to evolution:

I can't prove evolution wrong either!

Yes you can. Show me rabbit fossils from the pre-cambrian and evolution has been falsified.

Why? Because it's proponents have cleverly set evolution up as a process that takes 10000000000s of years old. Obviously, I will never live long enough to prove that it DIDN'T happen. So all the evolutionist has to do is place the burden of proof on me!

No. Fossil evidence and DNA evidence proves it. It's up to you to refute these proofs if you deny it.

So I point to the fact that one species has never been OBSERVED to change to another.

Yes it has. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html These are just a few examples.

Well, all the evolutionist has to do is say that we haven't waited enough yet blahblahblah and that it MAKES SENSE.

Last I heard, TRUE SCIENCE was that which can be proven by observable, testable, and demonstrable evidence.

Stop listening to creationist radio then. Do some study on what you're talking about.

But the evolutionist tells me it makes sense, and then turns around and presents it as IRREFUTABLE FACT in the classroom, and never presents the other side.

The "other side" being pseudo-science that is guilty of everything you're accusing evolution of; lack of proof and ad hoc hypotheses.

I would hasten to remind you all that, a few centuries ago, a lot of very smart people said that IT MAKES SENSE that big rocks fall faster than small ones.

The difference is that they had no proof. We have loads. Pick up a book on evolutionary science.

But still I often see people mocking me because I'm not a bobblehead that automatically agrees with "all the scientists."

Give me an example of somebody who agrees with both phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Or even soomebody who agrees with the conflicting opinions of scientists on the same "side". People mock you because you think you know what you're talking about.

Yeah, scientists have a great record. Consider how many flukes evolutionists have created!!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY "FINDS" OF THE "MISSING LINK" WERE DELIBERATE, FRAUDULENT PLANTS?!?

May I ask who discovered these frauds? Was it other scientists? Of course it was, because science corrects itself. Now, lets examine creationism. Strawman arguments. Check. Outright lies about science and scientists bordering and often crossing into defamation. Check. Presentation of supposed fossil proof of creation (fraud). Check. Did creationists correct themselves? No.

One "scientist" planted chunks of pig teeth in England, and "dug it up" later and presented it as evidence. Great legacy you guys have. Real authentic science, yessir.

Again, individual scientists can be the most horrible, deceitfull people ever. But science finds and corrects faults within itself. That's why you even know about these frauds in the first place.

Obviously, there have been scores of religious counterfeits as well. But they aren't the ones I'm putting my faith in, for a variety of reasons including the ones listed above.

You got all your creationist tripe from someone. That person is religious and that person is a fraud.

Well, just because it made sense to their limited perspective hardly made it so. Lo and behold, big rocks and little rocks fall at the same speeds.

Because science did investigations and gathered data. Not God, not religion. Science. And the same has been done for evolution.

So what's left is a load of circumstantial evidence, such as monkey skulls. Ironically, the evolutionist accuses me of being naeive for my beliefs, while he chooses to believe in monkey skulls and drawings of dinosaurs with feathers.

Err, do you even know what circumstantial evidence is? That statement just looks downright foolish.

[black-dragon]

Actually, reading through the rest of it, he's just restating the crap he's posted elsewhere. It's all been refuted. Either he's too ignorant to realize it or he does and he's being dishonest about it.

[Playfishpaste]

OK this post is from another thread, but I thought I'd put it on it's own thread.

I've always thought that putting a sentence here and a sentence there is not an effective form of debate, so here is my case for Theism.

First off, this is not a case for theism, the thesis here is to argue that evolution is contradictory to theism. At least that's what you made it sound like and that's what it seems to argue for. It doesn't outline a defense of theism anywhere that I can see.

So I'm bound to mess up somewhere. But here are my thoughts. I hope I don't come across as hostile to anybody; I don't want to make trouble.

The only things that ever really present any hostility are ad hominems, so just avoid those and you're good.

Also, I'd encourage everybody here to check out other discussion areas (as in other than gaming forums). Knowledgeable creationists don't routinely hang out @ the TWC. And, quite frankly, this forum is rather an "Atheist's Old Boy's Club," if you will.

I'd disagree, there are some very clever theists on here.

Considering that even if I was wrong and atheism was "the Truth," I wouldn't go to Hell (since there wouldn't be one in that case), I see no reason that my oppinion should bother atheists so much. It's not as if you're concerned about my soul. I mean, if this is all there is, then does it matter if we're right or wrong? We'll be dead all the same... and if it made us happy while we were here...

Why do you think it bothers anyone? And if it does, visibly, you should avoid those people, they're rather dumb.

"The theory of evolution is a theory universally accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur . . or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." ~D.M.S. Watson

I'm placing emphasis on the reality that evolutionism is essentially the atheist's method to rationalize God out of the picture.

This is a quote from some guy. I'm afraid some guy in the 18th century does not represent everyone who believes in evolution, especially not modern evolutionary biology.

Why? Because the concept that I will have to give account of my actions to a supreme Being one day might make me uncomfortable, so I'd rather not believe in Him.

OK, so if evolution is the polar opposite of Theism, then obviously I have issues with it.

You haven't explained why it's a polar opposite. In fact, the two are rather unrelated. You can be a practicing muslim and consider evolutionary theory true. The catholic church considers evolutionary theory true, as does the C of E if I remember correctly. Theism is not limited to your specific sect of christianity. God could very well have made evolution.

Now, considering this point, I would like to mention that many great scientists were devout Christians. Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, spent a great deal of time defending Creationism.

Argument from popularity, a logical fallacy. This point is completely invalid and irrelevant.

Does this mean that ALL creationists are good scientists? No; I'm not making that comparison. I'm saying that there is no reason to brand creationists as mystical hermits who consider science to be witchcraft.

Newton was a good physicist, but he was a particularly bad evolutionary biologist, considering he knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it as he was born several hundred years before it's conception. Therefore his opinion on things regarding evolutionary science aren't very relevant at all.

I think this is a pretty inconsistant comparison. Since the theory of evolution essentially calls the very existence of God into question, it obviously deals with a lot more than gravity etc.

The theory of gravity calls the existence of god into question just as much as the theory of evolution, if not more so. Depending on what we discover about gravity in the coming months, it could call into question how the UNIVERSE was formed, a question which deals much more with god then evolution.

No; God cannot be proven. Since He cannot be proven, to believe in Him requires one to take a few things on faith.

However, this is hardly unreasonable. God is infinite; He cannot be discovered or completely known. If we could know God entirely, if we could understand Him completely, what would be so Godlike about Him? He'd just be one of us.

So the atheist takes the idea of God, which is an abstract concept, and demands that He be explained solely with logic.

Making assumptions here. First off, it is not necessarily true that god cannot be proven, as standards of proof are subjective. If you mean scientifically speaking, then you are right, he cannot be proven. However, no one is asking you to justify your faith. Faith is faith. However, if you want your faith to affect anything in reality, or government, IE what is taught in schools about how life came to be, then you need scientific evidence.

The atheist requires that the intangible be made tangible, in order to prove that it was intangible in the first place.

So I suggest to the atheist that he explain to me (scientifically) the concepts of love, hope, and peace.
Or perhaps you can logically tell me how to determine that something is beautiful.

Could I send you the explanations in the form of a PM? I'm afraid they are rather extensive, but I can summarize them here. I'm not exactly an atheist, but nonetheless here ya go:

Love is an electrochemical process based mostly in the central nervous system, it's function is to alleviate sociological and physical stressors associated with raising a family or establishing familial bonds, as well as with long periods of physical activity (IE, if you're homeless for a long time). various kinds of neuropeptides are involved in the different variations of love there are. In platonic love, dopamine and seratonin are usually involved over residual periods, often long lasting and enduring for the purposes of keeping efficient friends. In romantic love N4 receptors and Oxytocin are involved, and much more spastic emotional reactions occur. Much of the frontal lobe is dedicated to processes regarding attraction between people due to the amount of thought and consideration that must go into a romantic or even platonic relationship. The neurological processes that occur intermittenly between those who are smitten and those who enjoy each others company go through highs and lows over time, and shift as the relationship changes psychologically. This has been proven emperically, and it is why there are certain "hot spots" for relationships to break off or become stronger (the seven year mark, the three year mark).

Hope is also an electrochemical process, though it is much less reliant on neuropeptides and emotional responses and has more to do with psychological stimuli. It's function is the same as the fight or flight mechanism as well as the reserves of adreanaline kept for the muscles. Due to it's cognitive nature it is not a particularly stable reaction and can cause a wide variety of chemical responses ranging from complex mental disorders to standard mood changes or satisfaction (due to seratonin as in platonic relationships).

Peace has several definitions. If you mean the state at which there is no warfare between societies, it is a sociological phenomenon caused usually by economic factors. It tends to be finite and varies most heavily depending on geopolitical factors and cultural effects. During peacetime a society may experience economic prosperity and psychological content, or it may cause lenience and depression depending upon the particular region or country.

You can determine that something is beautiful based on your neurological response to it. If you experience pupil dilation and an increased level of dopamine or an endorphin rush upon seeing someone or something, it is likely you find that someone or something beautiful. If however you have the inclination to look away due to fight or flight responses or fear or discontent it is likely you are repulsed by that someone or something.

Simply that abstract concepts such as love exist tells us that there is an element of us that is not explained by science. So if we are the result of pure science, where did all that extra baggage come from?

First you need to explain to me what you mean by "abstract concepts", you also need to explain what "pure science" is. Your sentence is very confusing to me. Whoever said we were created by science? How can anything be created by a method of studying things? Also, I just scientifically explained love.

Also, Creation is an evidence of God.

Which is of course why we debate evolution vs. creation, because the evolutionist will not accept this.

Both can be evidence of a being like god. Both could also be argued to not be evidence of a being like god. See aquinas and russell.

And another evidence is personal; what God has done for me. Of course, that is different for everybody and outside the realm of logic, so I can't present it as evidence.

That is called unverifiable personal gnosis, and it is in fact the only valid evidence for god logically and empirically. Of course as ya brought up, it's not usable in a debate due to it's personal nature.

OK, let's do this step-by-step, employing indirect logic.

Abiogenesis --> Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

OK, so if abiogenesis is false (which I will explain shortly),

Abiogenesis --> Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

So obviously, if abiogenesis never occurred, then there would be no life for evolution to work with.

Therefore:

Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

Well, this leads to a contradiction, because in this equation there is no life. And obviously, there is life.

That last progression is wrong, it should be:

Unexplained generation of life that is not the commonly accepted theory of abiogenesis ---->Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

If you rule out abiogenesis you still have an unexplained method of generating life. Even if you were to prove that god created it you still wouldn't be disproving evolution, it would become:

God creates the first life---->Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

Well, obviously since evolution eliminates God (even if there was a god in this case, there would be no reason to worship him b/c he's never done anything for us or with us), the evolutionist who makes this statement is saying that evolution is the only possible explanation. He will not even consider that God could have created everything, because that contradicts his theory.

I'm not that evolutionist, and I'd say he/she's pretty stupid.

So, essentially, we replace abiogenesis with:

(Well, we know evolution is true so we don't need to understand how life began) -->
Evolution --> More Evolution --> and here we are today!!!

So evolution is proof of itself? Circular reasoning.

We do need to understand how life began. If it didn't begin with the current abiogenesis theory, we look for how it did begin. Either way that doesn't refute evolution, which is about what happened AFTER life got here. Even if you proved god made it, as I said, that would still not refute evolution.

So, why is abiogenesis silly?

Well, essentially you have to accept the idea of spontaneous generation, which real science HAS to reject.

K, why?

One day... NOTHING happened! And from that nothing we have everything we see around us today.

Not true at all, and I have pmed you before about exactly what happened at the time of abiogenesis.

If there is no God, then NOTHING could have created anything, which means that matter did not exist.

Wait, what? Explain that please. Why is god necessarily the only thing that could have been before the universe? What about a non-deity?

But abiogenesis begins with a tiny particle that housed all the ingredients for life, or a primordial soup, or something like that.

I explained it to you, it begins with nucleotides.

Where did the particle come from? Where did the soup come from?

Hydrogen and carbon, on the earth circa 3.5 billion years.

Now, as to evolution:

I can't prove evolution wrong either!

Why? Because it's proponents have cleverly set evolution up as a process that takes 10000000000s of years old. Obviously, I will never live long enough to prove that it DIDN'T happen. So all the evolutionist has to do is place the burden of proof on me!

Actually it doesn't take that long at all for fruit flies, or bacteria. In fact, you know that anti-bacterial soap that you used in the 80's? It doesn't work anymore. Guess why.

So I point to the fact that one species has never been OBSERVED to change to another.

Yes it has. Do you want a list?

Well, all the evolutionist has to do is say that we haven't waited enough yet blahblahblah and that it MAKES SENSE.

Or I could just show you photographs, or mail you some petri dishes.

Last I heard, TRUE SCIENCE was that which can be proven by observable, testable, and demonstrable evidence.

But the evolutionist tells me it makes sense, and then turns around and presents it as IRREFUTABLE FACT in the classroom, and never presents the other side.

What is the other side? Please explain the other scientific theory about how life changes over time in the way it does? What is it if not evolution? Does god make all the new species?

I would hasten to remind you all that, a few centuries ago, a lot of very smart people said that IT MAKES SENSE that big rocks fall faster than small ones.

But still I often see people mocking me because I'm not a bobblehead that automatically agrees with "all the scientists."

Those people had no evidence to say that it makes sense. Evolutionary biologists do.

Yeah, scientists have a great record. Consider how many flukes evolutionists have created!!! DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY "FINDS" OF THE "MISSING LINK" WERE DELIBERATE, FRAUDULENT PLANTS?!?

Please explain a fluke in evolutionary theory. Explain what part of it is wrong or conflicts with the evidence.

One "scientist" planted chunks of pig teeth in England, and "dug it up" later and presented it as evidence. Great legacy you guys have. Real authentic science, yessir.

Wow, so nameless person who plants teeth in england is now a scientist? And also now represents scores or credible and prestigious scholars and biologists who have given you anti-viral drugs and advanced anti-biotics?

Obviously, there have been scores of religious counterfeits as well. But they aren't the ones I'm putting my faith in, for a variety of reasons including the ones listed above.

Well, just because it made sense to their limited perspective hardly made it so. Lo and behold, big rocks and little rocks fall at the same speeds.

Yeah, they dropped them from a tower. They tested it, and we tested evolution too, and it works just fine. That's why you don't have strep throat right now.

So what's left is a load of circumstantial evidence, such as monkey skulls. Ironically, the evolutionist accuses me of being naeive for my beliefs, while he chooses to believe in monkey skulls and drawings of dinosaurs with feathers.

What monkey skulls and what drawings of dinosaurs with feathers?

Anybody can see that genetic mutations occur! Creationists aren't anti-science; they're against the anti-science parts of evolution!!!

So some guys have shown me a list of HELPFUL mutations. Well, that really is cool, and I didn't know about them. However, there are a whole lot more NEGATIVE mutations!!!

Now, good ol' mathematics tells me that it is more reasonable to think that if there are MORE negatives than positives, the negatives will overwhelm the positives. Thus, the gene pool is always shrinking!!! And if it is shrinking, then we are DEVOLVING, not EVOLVING.

Please explain what a negative mutation is, please also explain how we are devolving. I don't even know what that means. I'm pretty sure you just made up the word. Humans are becoming smarter as well as healthier then our earlier cousins.

In science, when a molecule disentegrates into particles, these particles will spin in the same direction as the parent molecule. If this is so, why do two of the planets in our system spin different ways???

Please explain what you mean by "particles"? Do you mean atoms? If so, their spin relies on a wide variety of forces and effects, and it's an important part of quantum mechanics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

A particle's spin actually defines it's characteristics, it's not something that's easily affected by physical forces.

Well, someone told me that Venus was flipped over by a meteor or flipped upside-down by the sun's gravity, and that's why it spins in another direction.

mechanical spin is not the same as the spin of atomic particles which I described above. They are in fact completely different physically. But anyway, venus spins in a retrograde manner due to the effect of the sun's pull as well as forces from sattelites and near-terrestrial objects. It took a while to get that way. What that has to do with conservation of spin which I assume is what you were getting at (it's a classic kent hovind argument, one of my favorites for how silly it is) I don't know, seeing as conservation of momentum isn't violated in an open-system.

Well, Occam's Razor seems to indicate that this answer is coming up with a lot of conjectures to salvage the precious theory.

None of this even has anything to do with evolution, it's about planetary rotation, that has nothing to do with the "precious theory".

HOWEVER, even if the conjectures about Venus were correct, how about this?

WHY ARE WHOLE GALAXIES SPINNING DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS???

Because whole galaxies exist in chaotic systems and fluid dynamics are affected by a wide variety of things. The gravitational mechanics involved are quite complicated, for instance, try unloading a bag of marbles onto a table top and see if they all spin in the same direction. Now make all of those marbles magnetic.

Again, the atheist will dismiss this question because he's already decided that his theory is correct. This is the very opposite of what science is supposed to be.

Okay, this is wrong on two counts. First even if I accepted your weird argument for theism, it wouldn't prove evolution wrong. Second, this ENTIRE thing had nothing to do with evolution, it was about planets. I don't see how you went from something about biological divergence to planets.

The scientist is supposed to be willing to question anything that has not been established as natural law. That's not what I'm seeing.

This is an example of refusing to accept that the theory could be wrong. You can find that attitude in many areas.

SHOW HOW EVOLUTION IS WRONG (I hate typing in caps but I'm afraid you're being very redundant here).

Now, I'm not saying that clinging to a core principle is necessarily wrong!!! What I AM saying it's NOT SCIENCE! The atheist clings to his FAITH just as religiously as I do; only he (being very clever) has set his faith up as "science." That way, he can get it into the schools.

Evolution has nothing to do with scientifically baseless faith.

1. The U.S. lunar lander had enormous landing pads. This was to keep the lander from sinking in the dust that accumulated on the moon over time. Now, our scientists determined that (since the earth and moon 100000000s of years old) there would be feet and feet of dust on the moon, so the lander had to have great big pads.

When they arrived, the astronauts only found centimeters and centimeters of dust. So, if the planets are that old, why isn't there more dust? Obviously, if there is no explanation, this discredits the basic principle of evolution that the earth is extremely old.

Let's assume you're right about it (which you aren't). That would not only discredit evolution, but all of modern geology and most of newtonian mechanics and climatology and astrophysics and biochemistry and geochemistry and nuclear physics as that is how we have concluded the age of the earth.

Second, have you heard of the solar wind? It's actually a pretty awe-inspiring thing. Godly, some might call it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind

2. Hydrogen (I said Helium earlier oops) is produced by the decay of various molecules in the atmosphere. Thus, the amount of hydrogen in the atmosphere is increasing constantly. So if the earth is so old, why aren't we just saturated in hydrogen??? "Oh, it all combined with oxygen to become water."

Hydrogen is a gas. It is lighter then atmospheric air. That's why when you fill a balloon with hydrogen, it floats. That's also why it goes into interplanetary space when emitted on earth. This happens on other planets as well, it's one of the reasons hydrogen is the most abundant element in space.

3. The sun, in producing such enormous quantities of energy, is eating itself up. Now, REAL scientists have calculated the speed of earth's shrinkage. If the universe is SOOOO old, the sun would be practically gone by now, and all the planets in the system would be flying around and out of control!

first, how is the earth shrinking? Second, we know the exact time the sun will die, five billion years from now, as a red giant. It will have been around for a total of about ten billion years. Most medium sized stars live this long. If you care to do any research.

"Well, the sun was bigger back then."

Guess what? If we go back as far as evolution says, the sun would be so big that life on Earth would be impossible!!! The planet would be like charcoal.

the sun is just about the same size as it was when it was born, 1.3 million earth volumes. Please explain where you got the idea that it would have been massive at the time of abiogenesis?

Alright, thanks for your patience. This is the last issue.

Moving away from science for a moment, let's look at history for a bit.

Let's look at what humanism, which is fueled by evolutionism, produces. Note that without explaining God away with evolution, humanism has nowhere to go.

Humanism is a philosophy that focuses on people, a subset of which, transhumanism, is actually a core part of many religions, including buddhism. It also is responsible for futirism and interest in biological sciences. Humanism was never fueled by evolutionary biology, it is as old as religion, considering the early civilizations had proto-humanist philosophies.

Let's look at Germany. The Germans in 1930-45 really took "survival of the fittest" to heart. How?

Well, they figured that if the only thing keeping man from evolving into a god was bad genes, they would just breed out all the bad genes.

That would be eugenics, has absolutely nothing to do with humanism, it's actually more related to animism, a type of polytheism

So they imprisoned, sterilized, and murdered people with infirmities both mental and physical. And now the Nazis are universally hated and despised for their "scientific" methods, and even to salute in the Nazi fashion is a crime in Germany today.

Actually they're hated because they committed immoral acts, they didn't really do anything scientific in terms of eugenics.

I'd encourage you to check out where humanism takes us.

Now, obviously, religion has pulled some doozies in the past too. Some sick ones.

Therefore, YOU MUST BE EXTREMELY careful WHICH GOD YOU CHOOSE. Yes, you do have to choose the God that you will believe in. And only one will do what He's promised. The others, as history shows, will get you into all kinds of trouble.

Because people should believe you.

So let me tell you about mine.

First of all, He says that He is the only One. That is key.

He also says that man is evil; that man will naturally do bad things.

Next, He says that He loves us. Now, without getting too complicated, God does NOT send people to hell. God gives man all the chances He can; if man doesn't take those chances (and man really blew it in the beginning), God's perfection means that He will not accept sin into Heaven, so sinful man must be punished.

Does god like raspberry iced tea?

Therefore, all men are headed for punishment. But God doesn't want that; He is most glorified when we choose to trust in Him. So He sent His son, Jesus Christ, who is perfect. Being perfect, He is qualified to take ALL of our sins, because He has none of His own.

Did he tell you all this? Or did ya read it in a book?

Thus, if we will accept Christ's payment (this is a conscious decision you make for yourself), He will give us salvation, that is, allow us into Heaven because we are now sinless.

Now, we will sin afterwards because we still have a sinful nature, but Jesus paid for all sins, including future ones. And we will not lose this salvation.

At any rate, there you have it. You can take it or you can choose not to take it. Actually, doing nothing is the same as choosing not to.

Also, if you are interested, PM me for additional info etc.

And of course if you can't do that, I encourage you to get your hands on the Holy Bible and read through the Gospels, the first 4 books of the New Testament.

Especially John 3, Romans 3-6, and Ephesians 2.

And for all of you who think that is superstitious hodge-podge, you may content yourselves with flaming the other stuff.

I hope I haven't broken any length rules; sorry.

Adios!

Would the koran not suffice? I thought that was god's word as well? They are the same god after all.

[Oldgamer]

@Ariovistus Maximus

You said:

He also says that man is evil; that man will naturally do bad things.

This is dangerously close to Manichaeism, which is an ancient heresy going back to the 3rd Century AD. You should look it up on your favorite search engine, and look at it very carefully. I would avoid Wikepedia, and go to the website of a college or university.

You should note that I am a theist, before you react to the above. My reason for pointing this out to you is that ... if you are going to make a coherent case for theism ... you should know where theism has been and where it is, now. There is no substitute for learning theology in a reasoned way, in a formal educational setting.

This is not to say that you can't get to heaven without a theological education. The Bible is all that is needed, in my estimation. In its pages, you find the keys which will unlock salvation, my friend.

However, in these forums are some of the most formidable debaters in favor of atheism that I've ever encountered. They will absolutely tear you to pieces, if your case for theism is not coherent or rational.

A word to the wise should be sufficient.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Thank you sir.

I guess I might have titled my essay a bit differently. It's hardly intended to cover all the concepts of theology.

And theism is really too broad a term. I should say it is a case for Creationism; I was rather hesitant to do so, though, for obvious reasons.

So you can all take note that I'm not defending Polytheism, Pantheism, or many Monotheistic religions either. I'll make a note of it.

But, Oldgamer, what did you think overall?

[Oldgamer]

But, Oldgamer, what did you think overall?

I think that your natural intelligence has to grow and mature. I noticed your age in your profile, and as Christ said, I would never "despise your youth".

Part of the maturing process is education. If you're going to make a case for Creationism, then you should be at least in the upper division of undergraduate biology, and better yet, a graduate student. Even better yet, a PhD in Biology would help.

I've had two courses in biology, and they were both a long time ago. You were handed a wonderful chance to respond ... as I said earlier, coherently ... to the statements made about the "evolution" of bacteria. Even with my limited knowledge of the subject, I would have said, "Is this really evolution, or simply adaptation?"

You've made a valiant try, based upon your age and educational level. Keep the faith, hold the banner high, and get a good education.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

OK, to avoid the appearance of running away from the veritable bomb I have dropped, I will respond to Playfishpaste.

First off, this is not a case for theism, the thesis here is to argue that evolution is contradictory to theism. At least that's what you made it sound like and that's what it seems to argue for. It doesn't outline a defense of theism anywhere that I can see.

The only things that ever really present any hostility are ad hominems, so just avoid those and you're good.

Yes, the title is less than accurate. As I've explained, it's more a case for creationism.

And yes, arguing against evolution in no way proves Theism. I'm not making that point at all.

I'd disagree, there are some very clever theists on here.

Why do you think it bothers anyone? And if it does, visibly, you should avoid those people, they're rather dumb.

This is a quote from some guy. I'm afraid some guy in the 18th century does not represent everyone who believes in evolution, especially not modern evolutionary biology.

I aspire to be one someday.

I think it bothers people because I've been likened to rocks and mentally handicapped people and other things quite a bit on this forum.

BD, for instance, comes across as quite upset at me for disagreeing. It was to circumvent flaming and such like content that I wrote that little preamble.

You haven't explained why it's a polar opposite. In fact, the two are rather unrelated. You can be a practicing muslim and consider evolutionary theory true. The catholic church considers evolutionary theory true, as does the C of E if I remember correctly. Theism is not limited to your specific sect of christianity. God could very well have made evolution.

OK, the problem is that you are coming from a different standpoint, and I rather failed to make mine perfectly clear.

I am not defending Theism, I am actually defending the Holy Bible and Biblical Creation.

Therefore, if evolution is true, then it contradicts what my Bible says. Then my Bible is a lie, so my religion is a lie.

Thus, evolution is opposite my religion.

Argument from popularity, a logical fallacy. This point is completely invalid and irrelevant.

Newton was a good physicist, but he was a particularly bad evolutionary biologist, considering he knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it as he was born several hundred years before it's conception. Therefore his opinion on things regarding evolutionary science aren't very relevant at all.

Yes I am well aware that Newton was born before the advent of evolutionism. I should say that he engaged in apologetics.

And no, this doesn't validate my oppinion. That's not where I was going with this statement.

Making assumptions here. First off, it is not necessarily true that god cannot be proven, as standards of proof are subjective. If you mean scientifically speaking, then you are right, he cannot be proven. However, no one is asking you to justify your faith. Faith is faith. However, if you want your faith to affect anything in reality, or government, IE what is taught in schools about how life came to be, then you need scientific evidence.

Yes, I meant scientifically, because that is the basis of the debate.

Right; I can't validate my faith scientifically in order to affect goverment etc. So instead the Creationist tries to show that evolution requires faith also, because it is hardly the rock-solid fact it is often touted to be.

Could I send you the explanations in the form of a PM? I'm afraid they are rather extensive, but I can summarize them here. I'm not exactly an atheist, but nonetheless here ya go:

Of course, I haven't the knowledge to discuss neurological impulses.

The point is that God, you might say, is an abstract concept from our perspective, an intangible.

Thus He cannot be scientifically observed.

First you need to explain to me what you mean by "abstract concepts", you also need to explain what "pure science" is. Your sentence is very confusing to me. Whoever said we were created by science? How can anything be created by a method of studying things? Also, I just scientifically explained love.

If we are a product of chemical compounds that evolved over billions of years, then we are a product of science.

I should clarify that, and say that we are not the product of the study of science, but rather a product of the information studied.

See what I mean?

We do need to understand how life began. If it didn't begin with the current abiogenesis theory, we look for how it did begin. Either way that doesn't refute evolution, which is about what happened AFTER life got here. Even if you proved god made it, as I said, that would still not refute evolution.

Again, I'm not discussing the concept of God exactly, but rather One God.

Anyways, without abiogenesis, there is of course not (yet) an explanation of how matter appeared other than Creation.

K, why?

Not true at all, and I have pmed you before about exactly what happened at the time of abiogenesis.

Wait, what? Explain that please. Why is god necessarily the only thing that could have been before the universe? What about a non-deity?

I explained it to you, it begins with nucleotides.

Hydrogen and carbon, on the earth circa 3.5 billion years.

Yes, you explained how all these minerals combined and diversified. That sounds great if you start with the minerals in the water etc.

But where do you get the minerals? I want to know where all this stuff generated. And matter cannot be created or destroyed, so...

Actually it doesn't take that long at all for fruit flies, or bacteria. In fact, you know that anti-bacterial soap that you used in the 80's? It doesn't work anymore. Guess why.

Yes it has. Do you want a list?

Or I could just show you photographs, or mail you some petri dishes.

What is the other side? Please explain the other scientific theory about how life changes over time in the way it does? What is it if not evolution? Does god make all the new species?

Those people had no evidence to say that it makes sense. Evolutionary biologists do.

Again, the creationist is not against the concept that matter evolves. Obviously, bacteria and all other things diversify. But the bacteria has not been seen to become anything but bacteria.

Please explain a fluke in evolutionary theory. Explain what part of it is wrong or conflicts with the evidence.

That's what the essay was about. And AGAIN, I don't have immense technical knowledge, I have admitted already. But anyone can wonder where the original matter came from, and when a bacterium has turned into lizard.

Wow, so nameless person who plants teeth in england is now a scientist? And also now represents scores or credible and prestigious scholars and biologists who have given you anti-viral drugs and advanced anti-biotics?

I knew I should have put a reference for this. Lemme find it.

There we go. The Piltdown Man. Check it out on Wikipedia.

Charles Dawson found a "missing link" that consisted of a human skull, the lower jaw of an orangutang and chimpanzee fossil teeth.

The teeth were filed down to give them a more accurate appearance to what the discoverer wanted it to be.

And this find was vaunted as proof of evolution for 40 years. It wasn't just some random guy.

And no, he doesn't represent all science. But, as you can see, it happens.


Yeah, they dropped them from a tower. They tested it, and we tested evolution too, and it works just fine. That's why you don't have strep throat right now.

Please explain what a negative mutation is, please also explain how we are devolving. I don't even know what that means. I'm pretty sure you just made up the word. Humans are becoming smarter as well as healthier then our earlier cousins.

A negative mutation is, of course, a mutation that causes harm. Maybe I did come up with "devolve." It makes perfect sense etymologically.

Ah yes; here it is from dictionary.com.

Biology. degeneration.

That's the idea.

Humans are becoming smater and healthier because of education and medicine.

However, for instance, if my granpa had diabetes, and my dad has diabetes, then I will probably have diabetes.

Thus, we all carry harmful mutations. I, for instance, have a weak vertebrae in my neck that goes out of place every so often. It's a genetic problem, so my kids might have it too.

Please explain what you mean by "particles"? Do you mean atoms? If so, their spin relies on a wide variety of forces and effects, and it's an important part of quantum mechanics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)

A particle's spin actually defines it's characteristics, it's not something that's easily affected by physical forces.

mechanical spin is not the same as the spin of atomic particles which I described above. They are in fact completely different physically. But anyway, venus spins in a retrograde manner due to the effect of the sun's pull as well as forces from sattelites and near-terrestrial objects. It took a while to get that way. What that has to do with conservation of spin which I assume is what you were getting at (it's a classic kent hovind argument, one of my favorites for how silly it is) I don't know, seeing as conservation of momentum isn't violated in an open-system.


None of this even has anything to do with evolution, it's about planetary rotation, that has nothing to do with the "precious theory".

It actually has to do with abiogenesis, yes. The big bang, to be exact. Of course, even if the big bang is wrong, you will come up with another theory.

There is no end to making theories. So the debate will never end. If either of us has insufficient evidence, we will rely on future scientific discovery to vindicate us.

SHOW HOW EVOLUTION IS WRONG (I hate typing in caps but I'm afraid you're being very redundant here).

Again, I can't prove it because even though we've never seen bacteria become fish, you will tell me that it will happen eventually.

And since it takes 1000000000s of years, I won't be around to gloat when it doesn't happen.

Variation doesn't prove that we are apes. It proves that apes vary. Forgive my oversimplification.

first, how is the earth shrinking? Second, we know the exact time the sun will die, five billion years from now, as a red giant. It will have been around for a total of about ten billion years. Most medium sized stars live this long. If you care to do any research.

the sun is just about the same size as it was when it was born, 1.3 million earth volumes. Please explain where you got the idea that it would have been massive at the time of abiogenesis?

Humanism is a philosophy that focuses on people, a subset of which, transhumanism, is actually a core part of many religions, including buddhism. It also is responsible for futirism and interest in biological sciences. Humanism was never fueled by evolutionary biology, it is as old as religion, considering the early civilizations had proto-humanist philosophies.

The theory (and yes, it is a theory woohoo) is that the sun shrinks about 5 feet per day. Thus, if you rewind billions of years ago at that rate, then the earth is in the sun.

Here are creationist and secular sites respectively:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=165

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/590/1/567

Does god like raspberry iced tea?

Hmmmm; I'm not sure.

Did Darwin pick his nose?

Hehe its nice to take a break and have fun.

Did he tell you all this? Or did ya read it in a book?

Yes I did.

Would the koran not suffice? I thought that was god's word as well? They are the same god after all

No it wouldn't and they're not. Sorry.

Well, semantically speaking they are the same. But in practice they are extremely different.

Yes, Allah simply means God. But Allah and I AM do things quite differently, thus they are worshipped by different religions.

Thanks Playfishpaste, and truly you know your stuff!

[Manco]

Yes, the title is less than accurate. As I've explained, it's more a case for creationism.

And yes, arguing against evolution in no way proves Theism. I'm not making that point at all.

But you're also not proving creationism, which means your post can hardly be thought of as a case for creationism

OK, the problem is that you are coming from a different standpoint, and I rather failed to make mine perfectly clear.

I am not defending Theism, I am actually defending the Holy Bible and Biblical Creation.

Therefore, if evolution is true, then it contradicts what my Bible says. Then my Bible is a lie, so my religion is a lie.

Thus, evolution is opposite my religion.

Oh my, I'd say scriptural literalism is an untenable position.
Do you believe in a young Earth for example? Humans who become up to 800 years old? Which of the Creation stories is the right one since they conflict at times? How come the Egyptians didn't leave a single trace of this Jewish exodus? Why did they travel for 40 years from Egypt to Canaan when it's perfectly doable in 4 weeks and you can hardly get lost?

Or you're not a literalist, which would mean they are allegories and evolution doesn't contradict at all.

Yes I am well aware that Newton was born before the advent of evolutionism. I should say that he engaged in apologetics.

And no, this doesn't validate my oppinion. That's not where I was going with this statement.

Byt then why bring Newton up?
Neither was his time and society comparable, nor is science necessarily in contradiction with theism.

Yes, I meant scientifically, because that is the basis of the debate.

Right; I can't validate my faith scientifically in order to affect goverment etc. So instead the Creationist tries to show that evolution requires faith also, because it is hardly the rock-solid fact it is often touted to be.

But it doesn't require faith. Any holes that you've pointed out, supposedly needing faith to accept, have all been misunderstandings and ignorances of yours.

Show us one single part of the theory of evolution that relies on faith.

Of course, I haven't the knowledge to discuss neurological impulses.

The point is that God, you might say, is an abstract concept from our perspective, an intangible.

Thus He cannot be scientifically observed.

Which is something I often say. Why bring science into the debate if you adhere to an immaterial god? Science does not concern itself with the immaterial and intangible.

However, creationism always wants to encroach on science's territory. They keep saying that certain observable phenomena do prove a god. That's what science is opposed to, as that is clearly not the case.

If we are a product of chemical compounds that evolved over billions of years, then we are a product of science.

I should clarify that, and say that we are not the product of the study of science, but rather a product of the information studied.

See what I mean?

Yes, but it's confusing to say it like that.
Science is the study of natural and social observable phenomena. It's wrong to say we are a product of science, we are a product of whatever phenomena science is studying.

Again, I'm not discussing the concept of God exactly, but rather One God.

Anyways, without abiogenesis, there is of course not (yet) an explanation of how matter appeared other than Creation.

I presume you mean life instead of matter. But why discount abiogenesis? It's a young field of study and still incomplete. But already it certainly points us towards the correct answer. A proces involving nucleotides and amino-acids is a much better explanation than god just did poof.

Yes, you explained how all these minerals combined and diversified. That sounds great if you start with the minerals in the water etc.

But where do you get the minerals? I want to know where all this stuff generated. And matter cannot be created or destroyed, so...

Matter can be created and destroyed, energy can't (under current circumstances). And we've recently had a discussion about that. The laws of thermodynamics and the conservation of energy do not necessarily apply in all circumstances. Which is why they're laws, laws are not universally applicable.

Again, the creationist is not against the concept that matter evolves. Obviously, bacteria and all other things diversify. But the bacteria has not been seen to become anything but bacteria.

Because the timescales do no permit for that. But bacteria and fruit flies do show speciation happens, which lies completely in line with the theory of evolution, and there's no reason why it wouldn't apply to other forms of life. Especially with the vast amount of genetic similarities between for exapmle humans, chimpanzees and gorrilas.

That's what the essay was about. And AGAIN, I don't have immense technical knowledge, I have admitted already. But anyone can wonder where the original matter came from, and when a bacterium has turned into lizard.

A bacterium doesn't simply turn into a lizard. it takes hundreds of millions of years for a single-celled organism to even become multicellular. Do you have any idea what amount of generations that entails?

I knew I should have put a reference for this. Lemme find it.

There we go. The Piltdown Man. Check it out on Wikipedia.

Charles Dawson found a "missing link" that consisted of a human skull, the lower jaw of an orangutang and chimpanzee fossil teeth.

The teeth were filed down to give them a more accurate appearance to what the discoverer wanted it to be.

And this find was vaunted as proof of evolution for 40 years. It wasn't just some random guy.

And no, he doesn't represent all science. But, as you can see, it happens.

And scientists have discovered it was false. That's how science works, it checks and rechecks everything, making corrections as it goes. Besides the whole Missing Link concept is quite unscientific, everyone is a link between his parent's generation and his kids' generation.

A negative mutation is, of course, a mutation that causes harm. Maybe I did come up with "devolve." It makes perfect sense etymologically.

Ah yes; here it is from dictionary.com.

Biology. degeneration.

That's the idea.

Devolution isn't science as it implies some sort of progress or value system. If humanity lost all intelligence in a million generations, then that's not devolution, it's still jusy evolution.
Evolution doesn't work towards a goal, which means it can't regress on a line towards a goal as devolution implies.

And 'harmful' mutations tend to die out, that's how natural selection works. But again the timescales make it hard to observe.

Humans are becoming smater and healthier because of education and medicine.

of which the theory of evolution is an integral part.

However, for instance, if my granpa had diabetes, and my dad has diabetes, then I will probably have diabetes.

Thus, we all carry harmful mutations. I, for instance, have a weak vertebrae in my neck that goes out of place every so often. It's a genetic problem, so my kids might have it too.

And if it has only harmful effects it will eventually die out as people with those shortcomings will tend to die faster and reproduce less.

It actually has to do with abiogenesis, yes. The big bang, to be exact. Of course, even if the big bang is wrong, you will come up with another theory.

There is no end to making theories. So the debate will never end. If either of us has insufficient evidence, we will rely on future scientific discovery to vindicate us.

Scientific theories aren't just made up, they are the consequence of utilising the scientific method.

Again, I can't prove it because even though we've never seen bacteria become fish, you will tell me that it will happen eventually.

And since it takes 1000000000s of years, I won't be around to gloat when it doesn't happen.

But genetics can show it.
You'd trust a paternity test right? It works essentially the same.

Variation doesn't prove that we are apes. It proves that apes vary. Forgive my oversimplification.

We are apes under current taxonomy.

The theory (and yes, it is a theory woohoo) is that the sun shrinks about 5 feet per day. Thus, if you rewind billions of years ago at that rate, then the earth is in the sun.

Here are creationist and secular sites respectively:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=165

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/590/1/567

You said the Earth, not the Sun.

And the Sun goes through various stages, with the timescales being even larger than with evolution.
I don't really see how this is supposed to affect the theoruy of evolution though.

Yes I did.

So crudely put, your belief rests on hear-say.

No it wouldn't and they're not. Sorry.

Well, semantically speaking they are the same. But in practice they are extremely different.

Yes, Allah simply means God. But Allah and I AM do things quite differently, thus they are worshipped by different religions.

Thanks Playfishpaste, and truly you know your stuff!

Muslims would contend that, just like Jews contend that the Christian god an Jahwe are the same.

[Playfishpaste]

It's not really a case for creationism as it is against evolution is it? As you explained creationists only seek to show that evolution is as much a faith as creation. So what you're doing here is trying to refute evolution, not justify creationism as an alternative.

I aspire to be one someday.

I think it bothers people because I've been likened to rocks and mentally handicapped people and other things quite a bit on this forum.

BD, for instance, comes across as quite upset at me for disagreeing. It was to circumvent flaming and such like content that I wrote that little preamble.

I see.

OK, the problem is that you are coming from a different standpoint, and I rather failed to make mine perfectly clear.

I am not defending Theism, I am actually defending the Holy Bible and Biblical Creation.

Therefore, if evolution is true, then it contradicts what my Bible says. Then my Bible is a lie, so my religion is a lie.

You're then defending a literalist interpretation of the christian bible, alrighty, makes sense now.

Thus, evolution is opposite my religion.

It is opposite a particular (and quite small) sect of christianity.

Yes I am well aware that Newton was born before the advent of evolutionism. I should say that he engaged in apologetics.

And no, this doesn't validate my oppinion. That's not where I was going with this statement.

So you were saying "Alot of atheists think theists aren't for science, but look at Isaac Newton"? Isaac Newton never used science to defend his religion. He used philosophy.

Yes, I meant scientifically, because that is the basis of the debate.

Right; I can't validate my faith scientifically in order to affect goverment etc. So instead the Creationist tries to show that evolution requires faith also, because it is hardly the rock-solid fact it is often touted to be.

Which part of evolution requires faith? Throughout the entire post I found nothing indicating a flaw in any of the evidence for evolution.

Of course, I haven't the knowledge to discuss neurological impulses.

The point is that God, you might say, is an abstract concept from our perspective, an intangible.

Thus He cannot be scientifically observed.

Actually, since we're using a literalist interpretation of the bible and your christian god, then he in fact can be scientifically observed. For instance, we would be able to catalogue him in his entirety on the day of the second coming through multiple means. We would also be able to observe him during miracles, empirically.

If we are a product of chemical compounds that evolved over billions of years, then we are a product of science.

I should clarify that, and say that we are not the product of the study of science, but rather a product of the information studied.

See what I mean?

I'm sort of getting the gist of it. But this creates a false dichotomy between science and natural occurences. Anything that isn't explained scientifically cannot necessarily be called "god" or "religious". There are many other branches of philosophy besides theology.

Again, I'm not discussing the concept of God exactly, but rather One God.

This one god actually has pretty factual and logical characteristics, omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, this makes him not abstract. To be clear, we're specifically talking about your god, the literalist christian version, in this thread.

Anyways, without abiogenesis, there is of course not (yet) an explanation of how matter appeared other than Creation.

Not true at all, there are many philosophical explanations, like that time is not a continuum, or that worlds undergo a cycle of birth and destruction (a sect of hinduism I think).

Yes, you explained how all these minerals combined and diversified. That sounds great if you start with the minerals in the water etc.

But where do you get the minerals? I want to know where all this stuff generated. And matter cannot be created or destroyed, so...

This is not a question that evolution addresses, and bringing it up does not refute evolution. If I was to try to argue "cars don't actually work" by saying "Cars don't even exist, where do they make them, huh?" this would be an argument AGAINST the existence of cars, not against the physicsof cars. The physics of cars would still work EVEN if cars didn't exist. Just as even if life didn't exist evolution and natural selection would still be factual until proven otherwise.

Also, I believe I have also explained to you the process that generated the first atomic particles, if you'd like I can explain it to you again, but I don't want to write something out extensively so you could respond saying you don't have the knowledge to discuss astrophysics either. Would you like me to explain it or no?

Again, the creationist is not against the concept that matter evolves. Obviously, bacteria and all other things diversify. But the bacteria has not been seen to become anything but bacteria.

okay, you can't be against evolution and for evolution. This makes no sense. There is no difference between evolution of S. Mutans into S. Mutans II and the evolution of austrolophithicus to homo habilis (the first human genus).

That's what the essay was about. And AGAIN, I don't have immense technical knowledge, I have admitted already. But anyone can wonder where the original matter came from, and when a bacterium has turned into lizard.

The bacterium never turned into a lizard, it turned into many other things first. If you'd like I could show you the entire taxonomical tree from cyanobacteria to the first reptillians, but I forwarn you it is quite extensive as well.

I knew I should have put a reference for this. Lemme find it.

There we go. The Piltdown Man. Check it out on Wikipedia.

Charles Dawson found a "missing link" that consisted of a human skull, the lower jaw of an orangutang and chimpanzee fossil teeth.

The teeth were filed down to give them a more accurate appearance to what the discoverer wanted it to be.

And this find was vaunted as proof of evolution for 40 years. It wasn't just some random guy.

And no, he doesn't represent all science. But, as you can see, it happens.

Dawson was an archeologist, one who lacked a degree in archeology, interestingly enough. Even if he had been a PhD he would not have been credible in any of his findings because he wasn't an anthropologist and in fact knew next to nothing about evolutionary biology (which is probably way he thought pig teeth would go over). He attained his position through his craftiness at collecting.

He is not a respresentation of any science. He has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. Therefore this cannot be used as a flaw of evolutionary biology. Now, before you go looking for at least one person who's committed a fluke (and there are quite few in evo bio, compared to physics or chemistry) I will concede that scientists in fact, make mistakes. This is why we have something called peer review, where you submit your work to other scientists and have them check it over and actively try to refute it. Science is only based on the evidence.

A negative mutation is, of course, a mutation that causes harm. Maybe I did come up with "devolve." It makes perfect sense etymologically.

Ah yes; here it is from dictionary.com.

Biology. degeneration.

That's the idea.

Humans are becoming smater and healthier because of education and medicine.

Degeneration is not "devolving" at all in the way you're using it. Because it is not negative. Degeneration is an evolutionary process by which a particular function or process or physical structure is removed from a taxon. If natural selection finds that a species becomes more efficient slithering then by using bipedal movement, it will remove it's legs, or shrink them to encourage the trait. This is exactly what happened to snakes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigial_limb

However, for instance, if my granpa had diabetes, and my dad has diabetes, then I will probably have diabetes.

This is because diabetes effects the genealogy of a human being. It's one of the ways nature balances itself out. If no one on earth got diabetes or any other hereditary disease, our species would die out. On the other hand, if your grandpa had the common cold in 1920, you would be less likely to contract the same cold in 2009, due to your evolutionary and hereditary resistance to it.

Thus, we all carry harmful mutations. I, for instance, have a weak vertebrae in my neck that goes out of place every so often. It's a genetic problem, so my kids might have it too.

And your kids will either find it advantageous and useful, or negative, at which point natural selection would decide whether to correct the anamoly, or whether to make your future generations less likely to reproduce. In this way, the gene pool is kept improving as well as evolving. People are smarter and have hospitals because of evolution. It's because homo erectus ate all that protien filled meat that our brains have so much space.

It actually has to do with abiogenesis, yes. The big bang, to be exact. Of course, even if the big bang is wrong, you will come up with another theory.

Two completely different things, yet again, see the example with the car I brought up above. All of science's theories aren't just made up to support this one, they are all come up with INDEPENDENTLY by DIFFERENT people, the fact that they concur with each other is because the EVIDENCE concurs with itself. (sorry for the caps again, I feel like those are important bits.).

There is no end to making theories. So the debate will never end. If either of us has insufficient evidence, we will rely on future scientific discovery to vindicate us.

There is no insufficient evidence on the evolutionary side. All the evidence that is needed is there, and that is why we are getting closer to curing aids and cancer.

Again, I can't prove it because even though we've never seen bacteria become fish, you will tell me that it will happen eventually.

I will never ever tell you a bacterium will become a fish, that is completely wrong. I can tell you however, exactly what bacteria turned into before it turned into a fish, and I can show you evidence of why it did, climatalogical evidence, chemical evidence, biological evidence, anatomical evidence, neurological evidence and environmental evidence. I'm not just saying "look at the fossils". Everything else points to the same conclusion.

And since it takes 1000000000s of years, I won't be around to gloat when it doesn't happen.

So the only thing you consider real is what you can see with your eyes? Okay, in that case, stop using your cell phone, seeing as it's not actually sending text messages to people, and you can't trust the physical tracing of the particles, as they are too small to see.

Variation doesn't prove that we are apes. It proves that apes vary. Forgive my oversimplification.

We are apes because we have the same chromosomal structure as apes and our fused telomeres correspond to the taxonomy of the great apes. This is a 1 in a quadrillion or some such link up. It's like arguing that your house still isn't really there after doing extensive testing to prove it's location with the five senses.

he theory (and yes, it is a theory woohoo) is that the sun shrinks about 5 feet per day. Thus, if you rewind billions of years ago at that rate, then the earth is in the sun.

Here are creationist and secular sites respectively:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...on=view&ID=165

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/590/1/567

Interestingly, the very second link you posted refutes the first one:

"If a careful analysis is performed, then it turns out that there is no evidence for any variation in the solar radius."

The sun has been the same radius since it was formed, if you'd like again, I can explain to you why, and how I can prove it and millions of astronomers do. Just for fun though, explain how those creationists know that five foot figure is constant? It's kind of interesting that they assume that considering we were just talking about how they use making assumptions of things billions of years in the past as an ARGUMENT AGAINST evolution.

Hmmmm; I'm not sure.

Did Darwin pick his nose?

Hehe its nice to take a break and have fun.

I'm sure he did, and ate it as well. Good way to strengthen the immune system interestingly, and being the father of evolutionary biology I'd guess he'd have figured this.

Yes I did.

K, just checking. You did say you had some UPG, so I'd figure you'd answer "both", but your UPG may not have had auditory responses.

No it wouldn't and they're not. Sorry.

Well, semantically speaking they are the same. But in practice they are extremely different.

Yes, Allah simply means God. But Allah and I AM do things quite differently, thus they are worshipped by different religions.

Thanks Playfishpaste, and truly you know your stuff!

I see, I was just still assuming under the blanket term of "theism". And gracias, I just try to be descriptive, not much of a physicist or theologist myself.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Actually, reading through the rest of it, he's just restating the crap he's posted elsewhere. It's all been refuted. Either he's too ignorant to realize it or he does and he's being dishonest about it.

Ah, BlackDragon. How good to see you.

Yes, this is a copy of another post. Thank you for observing three times what I already put in my first sentence.

And within this copy of another post is material from many other posts.

It's a summary. But then, I figured I might as well put it in a new thread while I was at it.

And, being that it's a summary and there are already single threads that discuss almost all of these topics, I'm not going to argue all this over and over.

If you really think it's so crappy and just a bad rehash, maybe you should stop posting in my thread, in hopes that it will slowly fade to the bottom of the list.

[black-dragon]

Ah, BlackDragon. How good to see you.

Yes, this is a copy of another post. Thank you for observing three times what I already put in my first sentence.

And within this copy of another post is material from many other posts.

It's a summary. But then, I figured I might as well put it in a new thread while I was at it.

And, being that it's a summary and there are already single threads that discuss almost all of these topics, I'm not going to argue all this over and over.

If you really think it's so crappy and just a bad rehash, maybe you should stop posting in my thread, in hopes that it will slowly fade to the bottom of the list.

Never. It just proves that the proponents of creationism are either ignorant or dishonest.