What do you think? Is it possible ot have both?

Creation obviously the religous believe in creation as told through there religion and the atheists and agnostics beleive (I guess) in evolution.

You would be put to death for questioning that god created the world up until a few hundred years ago.
All early theorists like Darwin /Mantell/Cuvier/ were wary of the establishment and did not distance themselves from there religous beliefs.

I have no quarrel with the creationist theory or those who support it except when Jehovas Witnesess knock at my door trying to persuade me to become a follower.

They pick out every word in there bible to mean what they want to believe.

In the states when i was a kid, we weren't allowed to learn about either. Science stopped with the dinosaurs and our science teacher saying quite tight-lipped that she wasn't allowed to discuss it any further in case of upsetting creationists. :roll: To be fair they weren't discussing creationism either, in the fear of upsetting evolutionists. :lol: :lol:

Laura

Americans are there to remind us that the universe has a sense of humour.

Have a look at some books by a guy called Erik Von Daniken (I thinks thats how you spell his name).

He wrote some very interesting books called.

"Was god an astronaught" and
"Chariots of the Gods"

Make for some VERY interesting alternative theories! 8) :shock:

I am a religious person but I find the theory of creation laughable. Don't get me started on this subject because I've got into quite a heated discussion on a different forum in the past.

I have studied Geology at A level and there is definite proof of evolution. (Fossils etc) But that doesn't necessarily mean I dismiss the creation theory.

I generally do not like debating about religion as it is a touchy subject and I step on peoples toes with my own opinions differing from the religous values and teaching of the worlds religions.

When discussing the age of the earth though, it can be scientiffically proven that the earth has moved and that for example the Himilayas 25,000 feet in the air were once under the sea.

There are sea shells and sea creatures right up to the highest peaks.

According to the bibles timeframe this happened in the last 6,000 years.

That means only 6,000 years since India crashed into the Asian continent and pushed it up into the highest point on earth. Another example is the erosion caused by the colorado river through the Grand Canyon which is over a mile deep with rocks going half a mile deeper than the earliest forms of life.

Unfortunately, none of the 'facts' cuts any ice with the creationists. They just say they are all instances where god is testing us. You can't win with those guys.

That's right. Fossils of dinosaurs were created by God to test our faith....

You can't argue with that and that's the problem.

Evolution isn't just one simple theory its a very complex field of research and is far from complete. But the picture of evolutionary history is gradually becoming clearer even if we have only revealed a small portion of it.

Evolutionary theory rests on reason, experimentation and peer review.

Creationism claims to use reason, but this claim is flawed since Creationism requires a supernatural being as a prime mover. Occams razor will rule out supernatural beings with the first stroke.

I heard on the radio, I think yesterday, someone say that you cant actually resolve the evolution v creation question
Let us say that you decide that it all began with x happening in the cosmos. Then you have to decide where the cosmos came from. If it started with a big bang say, then what pre-existed to form that big bang
You see?
You could argue God was always there first and he invented the big bang
Then again you could point to the fact that it said on the radio this morning on another programme that we have 99.5% genes in common with chimps, so was Adam a chimp?
LOL
I am pleased not to know the answer to this big question

in terms of biological evolution on earth, the emergence of the first living organisms is certainly a hot topic and much debated within evolutionary circles.

But the origin of life is pretty irrelevant to the study of evolution which is a process, rather than a point in time. We have millions of years of fossil eveidence and millions of years worth of genetic evidence that evolutionary scientists are drawing upon to refine evolutionary theory.

But like so many things, where you start determines where you end up.

The Big Bang et al takes the argument to cosmology, where God has a much better chance, since evidence is hard to come by. Mainly we use the astronomy and the properties of physics and reverse engineer them to come up with the Big Bang theory. Lots of holes in cosmology at the moment, like dark matter. People are searching very hard for it, because if it doesn't exist then 30 years of astrophysics will need to be revised heavily if not actually binned completely.

Saying that God was first beforethebig bang and got the whole ball rolling is essentially the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. This argument is basicall saying
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2.The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

It is then automatically inferred that this cause is God, and he is still around.

But then you just have to ask yourself:
Q:Can god create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?

A1: Yes, god is all powerful, (but hang on, then he could lift anything).
A2: No. So he is not all powerful after all.

And as a post scriptum, we my share 99.7% of our genes with Bonobo Chimps, but we also share 50% of our DNA with bananas. We're made of the same stuff so no surprises there.

That'll teach me to contribute to things I know nothing about!!

I stand corrected

I will go back to being half banana

LOL

Incidentally, it is a good job I wasnt round for the Tony Martin debate, I would have annoyed endless people off with my views - I just was reading it, very interesting.

I'd say contributing to things one knows nothing about is the hallmark of forums like these! I know I do all the time.

Ohh, don't get me started on Tony Martin.

I think it'd be interesting to get you started on Tony Martin actually.

LMAO

Surely you have all done that to death.....or shall I log onto the Tony Martin topic and give it a go?

x

Keep debating this! It's all good for my GCSE Religious education revision! Thanks!

No-one knows how life began. I personally think that god (in all religions) is an invention to make people feel better about not being able to explain certain things. People feel they need a true leader and something to turn to when bad things happen, especially as humans are probably the only species to be aware that we are going to die and when we do we cease to exist, so the idea of some 3rd dimension 'heaven' or 'afterlife' is a way of coming to terms with it, but who am i to say?

i think religions were originally devised by people in times before governments as a means of controlling people into living a certain way. to do this they'd need to scare people into believing - i.e. hell, but also give them hope so they have something to look forwards to, i.e. heaven. its carrot and stick. muslim extremists have shown how useful religion is as a tool for controlling people to do things. in my opinion, all religion does is cause trouble. many many wars are caused due to religious differences. perhaps the concept of heaven is a world free of all religion?

When discussing creation, one has to consider who or what caused the existence of the Universe, did it just happen? what caused it to happen? Where did it all come from? some scientists say that everything in the Universe grew from a piece of matter the size of a pin head.


We live in modern houses with life support systems, I.E. water, heating, lighting, sewage disposal, did they just happen or were they created? of course they were, by men and women. By the same token, was the Universe created? of course it was! it could not just happen could it? By using our intellect we know the answer, but then our intelligence is very different to the creators.

The truth is that no one knows, if only we did, what a mind blowing world shattering event, to understand something that is unexplainable. That is why religion has attempted to explain it by inventing God, but then I believe in God the creator anyhow.

halevan wrote:
By the same token, was the Universe created? of course it was! it could not just happen could it?

thus the question begs, who created the creator? :wink:

the universe is infinite and beyond our understanding. we cannot put a date on when it was made and hence how it happened, it dates back to infinity. we can say how our own little planet was created though. by a series of explosions - the big bang. once space travel is further developed we will be able to see other planets being formed in the same way. religion is an attempt at explaining creation in a way thats comprehensible to a human brain, but i'm afraid its a lot more complex than that.

Originally posted by "LouiseB"


Then again you could point to the fact that it said on the radio this morning on another programme that we have 99.5% genes in common with chimps, so was Adam a chimp?
LOL
I am pleased not to know the answer to this big question

Nope, but Adam may have been the common ancestor of chimps and humans.

Stephen Hawking talks about science being in search of the "general, unifying equation" - that is to say, reaching such a level of understanding of the universe that everything could be predicted and gauged. Interestingly, he says that when we reach that point, we will "truly know the mind of God".

Interesting point made by Phanerothyme - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, as William of Occam said. Although personally, I'd go with Karl Popper, who said that theories can never be proved "true", but may (or may not) be used to predict behaviour in a given system.

Originally posted by "waxy chuff"

Stephen Hawking talks about science being in search of the "general, unifying equation" - that is to say, reaching such a level of understanding of the universe that everything could be predicted and gauged. Interestingly, he says that when we reach that point, we will "truly know the mind of God".

It is telling how many scientists are deeply religious yet you'd be hard pushed to find creationists with anywhere near as much interest in science. The best scientists are very open minded and creative in their thinking - they'd be lousy scientists otherwise because they wouldn't have the mental skills to create and develop theories. I know this is generalising a bit, but they question both their field and others in persuit of answers and this can include religion. Even if they don't believe religious teachings to be 'true' they do recognise their value - after all, there must be some reason religious ideas exist and in those reasons might be clues to problems the scientific world is trying to solve. It's very noticeable how closed-minded creationists can be (sorry, another generalisation, but I've found this from my experience). The worst refuse to believe in anything but their religious text and fail to understand that in essence all these texts are are a record of people's understanding of the world several thousand years ago. 1900 years ago (or whenever it was written) the bible was just as scientific as Steven Hawking's books are today - both are a way of understanding our environment, with the exception that the bible also guides us in how we live our lives.

agreed

Prof. Rchard dawkins:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). “Put Your Money on Evolution” The New York Times (April 9, 1989) section VII p.35

halevan:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it: ‘For Nature, heartless, witless Nature Will neither care nor know.’ DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. River out of Eden (1995) p.133 Prof. Richard Dawkin, the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University; Fellow of New College; Fellow of The Royal Society

and:
By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
-- Richard Dawkins, in "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder," The Richard Dimbleby Lecture, BBC1 Television (12 November 1996)

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end.
-- Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001)

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins (attributed: source unknown)

Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr's death will send them straight to heaven.

Creation (In Bristol anyhow) is too commerically orientated and cheesy

Evolution used to hold decent one off raves but that was back in 88' man!!

oh right, i see. oops

bedhead
Should have been in the Hub, Bath in early 90s!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme


Saying that God was first beforethebig bang and got the whole ball rolling is essentially the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. This argument is basicall saying
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2.The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

It is then automatically inferred that this cause is God, and he is still around.

But then you just have to ask yourself:
Q:Can god create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?

A1: Yes, god is all powerful, (but hang on, then he could lift anything).
A2: No. So he is not all powerful after all.

And as a post scriptum, we my share 99.7% of our genes with Bonobo Chimps, but we also share 50% of our DNA with bananas. We're made of the same stuff so no surprises there.

Or another way of looking at it is that if we accept that the universe is infinite, then we can also assume that nothing can exist outside the universe because of its infinite nature. Now, if something created this infinite universe they must have existed independently of it. This would mean that this creator isn't actually part of the universe and therefore doesn't exist as a god as he would have no power over this universe.

Alternatively, some divine being could have come into existence at the same time as the universe and therefore, while smiting the odd town or two through history, wasn't really the creator.

M

As a non-religious Christian (I can't stand religion, it does nothing but build barriers) I have no problem believing that God created the universe. I also have no problem with God using the big bang to get everything going, and evolution to create the myriad different creatures. I mean, what engineer is going to build 10 similar projects and start from scratch on each one? He's not; he'll use components and develop the design.

In my view anyone who shouts 'CREATION AND NOTHING BUT' is as much the fool as someone who shouts 'SCIENCE AND NOTHING BUT'. The fact that science has no answers to some questions, and creationism has no answers to other questions, indicates that both are at best incomplete, and at worst flawed.

My opinions may not be common, nor popular, but at least I have one. It's got to be better than accepting partial explanations in the hope that someone else will figure it out for you?

Originally posted by t020
halevan wrote:


thus the question begs, who created the creator? :wink:

the universe is infinite and beyond our understanding. we cannot put a date on when it was made and hence how it happened, it dates back to infinity. we can say how our own little planet was created though. by a series of explosions - the big bang. once space travel is further developed we will be able to see other planets being formed in the same way. religion is an attempt at explaining creation in a way thats comprehensible to a human brain, but i'm afraid its a lot more complex than that.

actually we can put a date on it, 12 billion years old.
Our planet wasn't created by a big bang, and we aren't likely to any others created that way.
The big bang theory is a theory of creation for the universe, not a planet. Planets accrete(sp) from matter left floating around after a star coalesces from a hydrogen cloud.

Originally posted by Cyclone
actually we can put a date on it, 12 billion years old.

However, thanks to that fact that the beginning of the world is outside living memory, we have to put a lot of faith in the dating mechanisms. Just because they are just about right dating to, say, a couple of thousand years, doesn't mean a tiny, almost unnoticable error, will not be enormously magnified by larger timespans.

*stir* *stir*

spiffymonkey,

Evolution is a theory based on scientific method and a better theory has yet to be developed to displace it. Creationism on the other hand is based on fairy tales, badly thought out ones at that.

Opinions are just that until they are backed up with reasoned argument, rationality, and scientific fact, as in fact the theory of evolution is.

And just what is a non-religious Christian?! Surely, Either you is or you ain't.

Come on down out of the trees you cheeky monkey and join the them there thinking people!

Originally posted by tallyho
Evolution is a theory based on scientific method and a better theory has yet to be developed to displace it. Creationism on the other hand is based on fairy tales, badly thought out ones at that.


Um, didn't I say that evolution is a good enough theory and is better than blind creationism? Yes, I think I did.

Originally posted by tallyho
Opinions are just that until they are backed up with reasoned argument, rationality, and scientific fact, as in fact the theory of evolution is.

See point above.

Originally posted by tallyho
And just what is a non-religious Christian?! Surely, Either you is or you ain't.

There are two kinds of people who claim to be Christian. Those who believe in, follow the teachings of Christ (hence Christ-ian), and those who go to church and do churchy things and sing hymns and what-not. You know, be all 'religious' and, to be honest, damned irritating. Basically, I do not blindly follow religion, which is a man-made thing, and I do not believe that I must follow the rules of any man-made organisation in order to be Christian.

So there you go, I is and I ain't.

Originally posted by tallyho
Come on down out of the trees you cheeky monkey and join the them there thinking people!

I think you'll find that I've thought about it a lot more than many people who have spouted an unfounded opinion, and that goes for creationists and blind followers of science alike.

Originally posted by Lickszz
What do you think? Is it possible ot have both?

Creation obviously the religous believe in creation as told through there religion and the atheists and agnostics beleive (I guess) in evolution.

You would be put to death for questioning that god created the world up until a few hundred years ago.
All early theorists like Darwin /Mantell/Cuvier/ were wary of the establishment and did not distance themselves from there religous beliefs.

I have no quarrel with the creationist theory or those who support it except when Jehovas Witnesess knock at my door trying to persuade me to become a follower.

They pick out every word in there bible to mean what they want to believe.

I beleive it is possible to have both, without sounding like a Bible punching nutter, after the creation of the Universe/Galaxies, leading to the forming of the Earth, when there was no life on it, excepting chemicals and acids in the primitive oceans, was the time when evolution began, hundreds of millions of years ago, on the timeless road to the creation of Homo Sapiens!!!as per text - red

Could it be possible that an energy form, unknown, unmeasurable to man ie - spirit, willed the event to happen that caused the big bang for its own reasons unknowable to us.

I think that it is at least possible, I dont believe in the bible as fact but it is a pretty good history book for the times it was wrote in. I think we have evolved but Something had to cause the event in the first place or even Why not two opposing forces colliding?.

It all depends on your view of reality, I dont believe Science can possibly ever understand the True nature of these events just as no religion gives all the answers.

So, who created the creator?:suspect:

Or does God have his/her own god?

Could it be possible that an energy form, unknown, unmeasurable to man ie - spirit, willed the event to happen that caused the big bang for its own reasons unknowable to us.

That will be the all powerful God called 'Physics'. Now that one I do worship.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by saxon51
So, who created the creator?:suspect:

Or does God have his/her own god?



That will be the all powerful God called 'Physics'. Now that one I do worship.:thumbsup:

Yeah, and physics is starting to get pretty mystical...

Originally posted by Esa666
Could it be possible that an energy form, unknown, unmeasurable to man ie - spirit, willed the event to happen that caused the big bang for its own reasons unknowable to us.

I think that it is at least possible, I dont believe in the bible as fact but it is a pretty good history book for the times it was wrote in. I think we have evolved but Something had to cause the event in the first place or even Why not two opposing forces colliding?.

It all depends on your view of reality, I dont believe Science can possibly ever understand the True nature of these events just as no religion gives all the answers.

but then you have to ask what created these forces or this energy.

Just because we can't yet understand something is no reason to dress it up in mystical nonesense and worship it.

This website has some very interesting debates on Evolution Vs Creation to download.

http://www.infidelguy.com/

Download and listen to Mr. Kent Hovind vs IG.com. I don't think there is another country in the world where Creationism is as broadly accepted as in America, and Kent Hovind is one of the so called "Doctors" that goes around lecturing in universities on the subject of Creationism.

The website used to have other (free) debates with Kent on that I downloaded, but these have been replaced, unfortunately. The irish guy at the end of the clip mentioned above really shuts Mr Hovind down!

The over-riding impressions that I get from him (and his arguments) after listening to a few of his debates are -

- He is NOT a doctor. He calls himself a doctor but freely admits that his qualifications come from so called "religious" universities and have bought their accreditations ($100 or so, I believe). They do not follow approved, degree level curriculums. In fact, he has very little scientific "expertise" other than to say he was a high school science teacher for 10 years.

- He spent a heck of a long time researching and preparing his source material. He has something like 7000 slides. It is easy for the layman to go along and be convinced by his arguments, as most people only have a very basic understanding of science. However, when it comes down to it and he challenged on his evidence by real experts in their appropriate fields, his evidence is always proven incorrect, based on ridiculous theories, incorrectly referenced and interpreted evidence etc.

- Despite having his lack of knowledge and understanding exposed (and unable to answer the arguements put before him), he STILL goes around lecturing exactly the same ideas. He's obviously got too much at stake to just admit that he's barking totally up the wrong tree.

They have a lot of scientists on the debates on this website - the science they talk about is often EXTREMELY complex. Some of the arguments and points made on the forum really vastly simplify the arguments for why evolution has come to be generally accepted amongst most people. In my opinion, the only reason why Creationism still exists at all is that it plays on the average persons lack of understanding of the topic - its the easy way out just to sit back and blame it on the creator.

Sorry for the long post.

yea, It is a hard thing to try and understand, what created the creator?

a bit like which came first , chicken or egg.

The good part is that we can sit here and Imagine which, I dont have any one religeon, mystical reasons are usually given for things we cannot understand, I would only really believe things because of my own experiences. Persuasive argument only takes me so far.

Science has an answer for most things but I dont believe all science's answers for all things just as i dont believe any religeons. But religeon can still give us usefull knowledge, I beleive that just as one thing may be true it may also existe in a different way too, i beleive that we live in a parallel universe, i have an open mind about things.

Most religeons seem to start out well but then get hijacked by people for gain. Some are just plain silly.
:)

Originally posted by Esa666
a bit like which came first , chicken or egg.

I would think it's the egg, as reptiles were laying them before they evolved into birds ?

Evolution definitely.

Creation would not be necessary IF 'infinity' exists.

INFINITY is something we do not experience in our lives, so we don't think it can exist. We can't grasp the consequences. Everything starts and finishes in our minds. We start things, we finish things. We are born, we die. We work/live to a timescale.

It is said that energy and matter can't be gained or lost. They are constant, but in different forms. Always.

If this is so, and infinity does exist, then there was never any need for creation.

Here endeth the gospel according to St. saxon51.:heyhey:

Originally posted by senseofplace
In the states when i was a kid, we weren't allowed to learn about either. Science stopped with the dinosaurs and our science teacher saying quite tight-lipped that she wasn't allowed to discuss it any further in case of upsetting creationists. :roll: To be fair they weren't discussing creationism either, in the fear of upsetting evolutionists. :lol: :lol:

Laura

Americans are there to remind us that the universe has a sense of humour.

Where did you go to school?

In California, we were taught evolution. Maybe some private (religious) schools taught creationism. I can never remember in England if what is private school there, is public school in the US or the other way around.

Someone please tell me the difference.

Have any SF users ever heard of the Scopes "monkey trial"?

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm

John Scopes was a high school biology teacher who got into trouble for illegally (it was 1925) teaching the theory of evolution.

:) Sierra

I remember the film...starring Spencer Tracey.

He was ridiculed, not for his anti-creation stance, but because he made the creationists look proper fools.

Great film.

Could it be that physicists are modern day preachers and the thories of Darwin, Hawkins and Einstein be the modern day equivalent of the scriptures?

Afterall, doesn't it take a leap of faith to believe in the models that phycisists use to explain their theories? Especially so in quantum physics. Scientists think up elaborate models and equations that help to explain their theories in ways that only 0.01% of the planets population truely understands. Isn't that a form of religious faith?

Who has ever seen an atom? Or a string? Or even a quark? I'd like to keep an open mind. I have a scientific mind, energy cannot be created or destroyed, simply converted. Therefore, when you die your life energy is converted into a different energy- whether it be another life energy or even as the wind or a water molecule or a dust particle surrounding one of Saturn's rings.

Just a thought anyway! Isn't this way of thinking a good way of keeping both creationists and evolutionists happy?

Originally posted by nez75
Could it be that physicists are modern day preachers and the thories of Darwin, Hawkins and Einstein be the modern day equivalent of the scriptures?

Afterall, doesn't it take a leap of faith to believe in the models that phycisists use to explain their theories? Especially so in quantum physics. Scientists think up elaborate models and equations that help to explain their theories in ways that only 0.01% of the planets population truely understands. Isn't that a form of religious faith?

Who has ever seen an atom? Or a string? Or even a quark? I'd like to keep an open mind. I have a scientific mind, energy cannot be created or destroyed, simply converted. Therefore, when you die your life energy is converted into a different energy- whether it be another life energy or even as the wind or a water molecule or a dust particle surrounding one of Saturn's rings.

Just a thought anyway! Isn't this way of thinking a good way of keeping both creationists and evolutionists happy?

The way of thinking, in my opinion, should follow the evidence - it isn't about keeping people happy. When we observed that the world was not flat, you wouldn't then decide to state that it is flat and yet a sphere in order to keep both sides happy. If something is shown to be non-tenable (or becoming increasingly so at least) I see no reason why we should modify the evidence to keep people happy.

The key to scientific theory is that, yes it attempts to explain observations but also that potential results and very complex observations can be predicted from them - sometimes leading to whole new areas of science. Creationism simply has no direct benefit or use in terms of what we can predict or take away to use for the future.

As I said earlier, I reccommend listening to the Irish scientist speak at the end of the Dr Hovind MP3. He puts the point across in rather a straightforward and convincing manner.

http://www.infidelguy.com/demo/infidelguy.com_hovind_vs_ig.mp3

Originally posted by nez75
Could it be that physicists are modern day preachers and the thories of Darwin, Hawkins and Einstein be the modern day equivalent of the scriptures?

Afterall, doesn't it take a leap of faith to believe in the models that phycisists use to explain their theories? Especially so in quantum physics. Scientists think up elaborate models and equations that help to explain their theories in ways that only 0.01% of the planets population truely understands. Isn't that a form of religious faith?

Who has ever seen an atom? Or a string? Or even a quark? I'd like to keep an open mind. I have a scientific mind, energy cannot be created or destroyed, simply converted. Therefore, when you die your life energy is converted into a different energy- whether it be another life energy or even as the wind or a water molecule or a dust particle surrounding one of Saturn's rings.

Just a thought anyway! Isn't this way of thinking a good way of keeping both creationists and evolutionists happy?

sorry but why should people accept their theories just to keep them happy? Makes no sense to me. If they are wrong (which they are because no scientific evidence supports their claims) then it should be pointed out they are wrong. Otherwise their ideas might gain acceptance in the general population and then the people start to say why should we give money to scientists and technological progress slows down as funding drys up and gets diverted to religous groups to spend debating their crackpot theories.

and no quantum mechanics isnt faith. It describes nature very well. Just because some people are unable to understand it doesnt make it wrong. It just means they are of limited ability in physics.

Its like saying the sun doesnt exist because 99% of people dont believe it exists. It still exists and that 99% are plain wrong. The sun is there irrespective of peoples beliefs/opions etc etc.

This is how both Men and Woman evolved.

Evolution (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v689/viking99/forums/evol2.jpg)

No,
noone is expected to take anything scientific on faith. They are free to research, question and evaluate it for themselves, starting right back at first principles if they wish.
The fact that not everyone is capable of doing that doesn't mean that they are asked to take anything on faith, just that they lack understanding of the explanation.

Originally posted by nez75
Could it be that physicists are modern day preachers and the thories of Darwin, Hawkins and Einstein be the modern day equivalent of the scriptures?

Afterall, doesn't it take a leap of faith to believe in the models that phycisists use to explain their theories? Especially so in quantum physics. Scientists think up elaborate models and equations that help to explain their theories in ways that only 0.01% of the planets population truely understands. Isn't that a form of religious faith?

Who has ever seen an atom? Or a string? Or even a quark? I'd like to keep an open mind. I have a scientific mind, energy cannot be created or destroyed, simply converted. Therefore, when you die your life energy is converted into a different energy- whether it be another life energy or even as the wind or a water molecule or a dust particle surrounding one of Saturn's rings.

Just a thought anyway! Isn't this way of thinking a good way of keeping both creationists and evolutionists happy?

Originally posted by Cyclone
No,
noone is expected to take anything scientific on faith. They are free to research, question and evaluate it for themselves, starting right back at first principles if they wish.
The fact that not everyone is capable of doing that doesn't mean that they are asked to take anything on faith, just that they lack understanding of the explanation.

Faith: n. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

Specifically, with ellipses:

Faith: n. Confident belief in the ... trustworthiness of a person ...

For Creationists it's God, for the secular man in the street it's scientists. If you don't have the ability to check for yourself, you have to put your faith in the ability of the person who tells you. You cannot verify it. If you get someone else to verify it, you are putting faith in the person performing the verification.

Sure, I'm nit-picking the meaning of the word faith, but faith in a religious context is exactly the same as faith in any other context. The only difference is the entity that is being trusted to be faithful.

maybe my point is that any scientific statement can be checked, given the time, intelligence and cash.
You can't check with god though.

My point is that no matter how much funding or intellectual know how we throw at scientific or quantum theories the simple truth is that the human brain simply cannot handle the complex thought processes needed to understand the universe.

A scientist once said that if you understand quantum physics then you don't really understand it at all. What i'm trying to put across is that no one has ever seen an atom or the sub atomic particles that make up everything. Therefore you are taking a leap of faith to believe that they excist similar to the leap of faith that religous people take in believing in god.

I think that scientific theories are the modern form of religious teachings. You must believe this and that because that is what is written type of thing. This is what is taught in school science lessons, similar to what is taught in RE lessons. Can't see the difference.

Don't get me wrong. Like I said i've got a scientific mind- I did A-level physics and I'm studying for a radiography degree so i'm not putting science down or anything. Its just that I believe you need faith in an afterlife and if that means being religious then I can't see what is wrong with having both a religious and a scientific mind.

Wasn't the driving force behind Einstein's theory of everything and his drive for a unifying equation the thought of knowing the mind of god? He managed to be both religious and scientific at the same time. It is dangerous to believe in one and not the other, you will never find the answers to life and the universe if you shut your mind to one and not the other.

That is the one thing religion and science have in common- the need to understand life and the universe. If they work together then maybe that is the secret to the meaning of life and world peace?

Again, just a thought!

i don't agree.
No one ever told me that if i didn't believe in an atom i was going to hell. No one told me that I had to believe in an atom despite a lack of evidence.

If I so wish I can examine the evidence that points to the existance of atoms myself and recreate the experiments.

Faith is accepting what you're told without evidence or logic or critical evaluation. Those factors are the corner stones of science and are anathema to religion.

Does it really matter one way or the other? If you choose to model the universe in religious, mystical, scientific the underlying structure is still the univers and if your model is adequate for you then its pretty much all you need. I see it much like psychology - no-one really knows how the mind works (though we all accept it does) but there are numerous conflicting theories. However id f something goes wrong with your mind then interventions may take numerous modalities from biopsychological drug therapy and ECT to more esoteric forms like primal scream therapy or hypnotherapy which many scientists would denounce as new age mumbo-jumbo yet they work. Now at this point you may cry placebo, but that doesnt affect the fact that in certain conditions they do work and can be shown to work. This brings up the intriguing posibility that the model you use is at least as important as what it describes and that multiple models apply to the same underlying concept. Given that we interact with the universe through our own modelsis it not possible that the concept of "universe" can accomodate multiple, equally valid models, e.g. god and science?

Originally posted by nez75

A scientist once said that if you understand quantum physics then you don't really understand it at all. What i'm trying to put across is that no one has ever seen an atom or the sub atomic particles that make up everything. Therefore you are taking a leap of faith to believe that they excist similar to the leap of faith that religous people take in believing in god.


Nope. You can take pictures of atoms nowadays. And you can easily see sub-atomic particles leaving energy deposits in detectors. Even if you wont accept they are particles you have to accept soemthing is travelling through the detectors leaving trails of energy deposits - its as clear as day this is happening.

You have no such proof of things like creationism, so it should not be placed on the same level.

That quote about quantum physics is out-dated, and comes from the days when it was a new subject doesnt it?. Nowadays many people do understand quantum physics in great depth.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
in terms of biological evolution on earth, the emergence of the first living organisms is certainly a hot topic and much debated within evolutionary circles.

But the origin of life is pretty irrelevant to the study of evolution which is a process, rather than a point in time. We have millions of years of fossil eveidence and millions of years worth of genetic evidence that evolutionary scientists are drawing upon to refine evolutionary theory.

But like so many things, where you start determines where you end up.

The Big Bang et al takes the argument to cosmology, where God has a much better chance, since evidence is hard to come by. Mainly we use the astronomy and the properties of physics and reverse engineer them to come up with the Big Bang theory. Lots of holes in cosmology at the moment, like dark matter. People are searching very hard for it, because if it doesn't exist then 30 years of astrophysics will need to be revised heavily if not actually binned completely.

Saying that God was first beforethebig bang and got the whole ball rolling is essentially the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. This argument is basicall saying
1.Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2.The universe began to exist
3. The universe has a cause

It is then automatically inferred that this cause is God, and he is still around.

But then you just have to ask yourself:
Q:Can god create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it?

A1: Yes, god is all powerful, (but hang on, then he could lift anything).
A2: No. So he is not all powerful after all.

And as a post scriptum, we my share 99.7% of our genes with Bonobo Chimps, but we also share 50% of our DNA with bananas. We're made of the same stuff so no surprises there.

Shall be using that in my revision notes this summer, thanks Phan ;)

I have to take this stance on the whole matter, having done it do death at school:

“Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.” – Isaac Asimov

So right...

If the universe needs a "creator" then surely the creator needs to have come from somewhere, so neither point of view offers any answers really.... but obviously I prefer the evolution story as it makes sense and has proof... unlike the the bunch of fairytales that religion relies upon to scare the masses into belief... religion is a means of social control and a way to help people deal with the finite nature of life.

As my favourite author Robert Anton Wilson says "belief is the death of intelligence" - once we think we know something we've closed our minds to other possibilities.. I think its best to reserve judgement until the aliens visit and tell us what REALLY happened! LOL

Having just watched a program about creationism being a "science" and dissmissing evolution i wondered if anyone else feels angry that certain schools in the USA were teaching creationism as fact :confused:

i know american schools have nothing to do with us but are they really that mad

Originally posted by Gordie OS1
Having just watched a program about creationism being a "science" and dissmissing evolution i wondered if anyone else feels angry that certain schools in the USA were teaching creationism as fact :confused:

i know american schools have nothing to do with us but are they really that mad

So you watched Boston Legal too? ;)

I think there should be a balanced approach to it; while I am spiritual, I don't believe in the creation. That said, I think it's for individuals to decide what they believe, and think children should get as much information as possible, then make up their own minds.

I totaly agree that children should get as much information as possible but to teach creationsim as sceintific fact is just plain wrong.

and no it wasn't boston legal (sounds interesting though)

They shouldn't teach any as fact, none of which have been proved.

on the contrary i think the evidence collected on the side of evolution proves it's existence without doubt

Originally posted by Gordie OS1
on the contrary i think the evidence collected on the side of evolution proves it's existence without doubt

So why is it called the theory of evolution? You may be thinking of "survival of the fittest" which is a bit different.

therory = a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.

Originally posted by Gordie OS1
therory = a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.

So maybe we'll never know.

Originally posted by Gordie OS1
on the contrary i think the evidence collected on the side of evolution proves it's existence without doubt

Not really.

There are parts of 'classical' evolution which don't hold up very well.

The 'steps' that seem to happen in evolutionary development, mass extinctions, some beneficial changes that happen to species across a very short timescale.

There's a lot to indicate that whilst Darwin's evolutionary theory is a good starting point, there's more to be built on it.

Just like 300 years ago Physics was Newtonian and Quantumn Physics was unknown. Newtonian Physics was a model that worked within certain contraints, just as the Theory of Evolution does, but once you start expanding your horizons you need to build a better model.

Evolution also applies to scientific sacred cows. ;)

Having said that, like Churchill said about democracy, it's not a perfect system of the government but it's the bst of a bad lot.

Joe

It's not just schools, it is entire states in the USA. It's quite common in some countries in Africa too

I find it extremely difficult to believe in the theory of evolution because of the overwhelming probability that faces it. For example, a genetic mutation takes place once every million years or so. Add into this equation the statistic that 999,999 genetic mutations out of 1m genetic mutations are unfavourable and the odds start to stack up against evolution. This means that once every million years a genetic mutation takes place but it's 999,999 times more likely to be a bad mutation (probably resulting in the death of the organism). Given these odds I find it extremely difficult to believe that we evolved into the homo-sapiens that we are today. From a mathematical point of view the theory of evolution seems proposterous!

Additionally, I find from speaking with scientists (one of my closest friends is a PhD Molecular Biologist) that they can't explain how it's possible that a 'big explosion' occurred and resulted in the formation of life. Looking around at the world man has created it seems impossible to think that a theory which not only has probability overwhelmingly stacked against it but also occurred as a result of the explosion of a star could 'evolve' into this.

People question creationism labelling it as a fantasy, mythological or just plain dumb because those who believe in it cannot explain it entirely with evidence for what is their faith. But it is my experience that asking scientists to prove evolution actually produces a similar response. So how do I pick from the two?

If you believe in multiverses then the theory of evolution stacks up pretty well.

Turns out we're just darned lucky to happen to live in this particular reality, where all the conditions (miracles?) needed for intelligent life to flourish happen to have come together, rather than in one of the gadzillions of other universes where things just didn't work out.

why do we need to look at evidence over millions of years, you only need to look at things on a smaller scale to see how evolution takes place without any cataclysmic events.
look ay everyday people,centuries ago everyone was shorter than today, this is evident in buildings,doorways,cars & old style clothing that you can still obtain.Therefore nature has allowed the human species to evolve - who knows what we will look like in the future. will we be taller,slimmer,heamaphrodite & what physiological changes will have to occur for our skeletons to support our organs or our musculature to support our longer & heavier bone structure.

if you view everyday occurences in the theme of evolution - would tsunami's have destroyed a life form if we were not intelligent enough to act as we did,are the ever threatening underwater volcanos destroying or manufacturing new life as they did off New Zealand's coast.

the only thing that cannot be " explained "is how the big bang occurred in the first

Originally posted by JonJParr
I find it extremely difficult to believe in the theory of evolution because of the overwhelming probability that faces it. For example, a genetic mutation takes place once every million years or so. Add into this equation the statistic that 999,999 genetic mutations out of 1m genetic mutations are unfavourable and the odds start to stack up against evolution. This means that once every million years a genetic mutation takes place but it's 999,999 times more likely to be a bad mutation (probably resulting in the death of the organism). Given these odds I find it extremely difficult to believe that we evolved into the homo-sapiens that we are today. From a mathematical point of view the theory of evolution seems proposterous!
Sorry, I just don't believe these numbers... Do you have any sources to back them up? Surely there is plenty of fossil evidence to support frequent and gradual evolutionary change (or "mutation")?

Ho hum.

Yes there is still scope for further research about the details of how evolution takes place, but in the creation vs evolution "debate", the current situation is:

Evolution = well-established theory supported directly and indirectly by a colossal amount of detailed evidence

Creationism = rubbish

[Edited because some people were fretting about the original version, which said "Evolution = fact"]

Creationists are very glib in the way they dismiss the science, partly (I think) because they're ignorant of the massive amount of detail in the scientific account (and the way it dovetails with other branches of scientific knowledge), and partly because they're psychologically incapable of going beyond the religious worldview that was inculcated in them in their early years.

In response to Gordie's question, yes I am dismayed that creationism is still being pushed in the Christian madrassas of the USA. Also that Tony Blair is sympathetic towards "faith schools" that teach this kind of stuff.

The fossils were planted to test you.

Originally posted by rich951
Sorry, I just don't believe these numbers... Do you have any sources to back them up? Surely there is plenty of fossil evidence to support frequent and gradual evolutionary change (or "mutation")?

Yes I wondered about that too - most mutations are in neutral stretches of DNA. That's the basis of genetic fingerprinting etc.

Originally posted by rich951
Sorry, I just don't believe these numbers... Do you have any sources to back them up? Surely there is plenty of fossil evidence to support frequent and gradual evolutionary change (or "mutation")?

ditto

Originally posted by Gordie OS1
on the contrary i think the evidence collected on the side of evolution proves it's existence without doubt

Scientific theories are never proven - All that exists is a constant failure to disprove them. The scientific method 'works' because when a theory is put forward, it is possible to extrapolate it and test it.

Evolution is always going to be a tricky one to test, mainly cos we cant go back in time and watch it happen, so alot of the evidence is deduced and inferred from pretty sparse datapoints.

I dont believe your numbers Jon re: 1 mutation in a million years. Its a meaningless figure - is it 1 in a million years per organism? per cell? per species? Mutations happen all the time. Stand to close to a CT scanner, or live in Devon, or fly across the atlantic and thousands of mutations will occur in your sperm cells - far fewer than one in a billion of these mutations will have an effect, but when you start looking at whole populations the effect is likely to be significant.

How do bacterial colonies become resistant to antibiotics? If you have the urge, you can sit and watch it happen in a petri dish - it doesnt take millions of years.

The danger with creationism is that it is inherently untestable.

In fact, it is really just solipsism by proxy.

Probabilities are misleading too - because of the scale of the whole thing. A 1 in 100 billion chance becomes very likely if youre looking at a population of bacterial cells. The chance of ME winning the lottery is less than 1 in 15 million - pretty slim odds! but SOMEONE wins it just about every week. So is a lottery win a common or a rare event? No rarer than a genetic mutation perhaps

Actually, in the fossil record there are periods of little or no change, then short times in which large changes take place - mass extinctions, new species coming up, etc.

There have been simulations on computers (things like Tierra and other A-Life systems) that actually do show this step wise approach to progress rather than the continuous change.

I guess that part of this is due to the fact that in some cases you can change quite a lot of a gene without it changing the way it's expressed. For example, if you look at a gene that's coding for a protein, three base pairs will code for an amino acid. You can get a variation of that 'triplet' which will code for the same amino acid, so if the mutation gives that equivalent triplet you won't see any expressed change. So you might end up several generations going on with slight mutations to proteins and instruction sequences in the genes, then one day a point mutation occurs that causes, for example, a protein to 'fail' in some way. If that gene is then passed to future generations, you'd start seeing an increase in the numbers of individuals with that gene from that point on, and it would be detectable via the 'failed protein' - say an enzyme that couldn't function properly any more.

The genes may change slowly, but the changes in the expression of the gene may appear in teh fossil record rather quickly.

The details of evolution do need sorting out, but it plays in to the hands of Creationists to just say 'Evolution = fact' without backing it up with evidence and theory. And at teh moment evolutionary scientists often seem to be amongst teh most arrogant of individuals... :)

Joe

I just find it ironic that there are folks in the US who champion Creationism and yet both physically and intellectualy they would seem to provide the most convincing evidence of humankind's descent from apes...:hihi:

Originally posted by JoeP
The details of evolution do need sorting out, but it plays in to the hands of Creationists to just say 'Evolution = fact' without backing it up with evidence and theory.

Fair enough - could start with any relevant textbook.

This one for instance (picked at random)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1405103450/qid=1121850089/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/026-4552378-9630007

has 751 pages of evidence and theory.

Originally posted by Carmine
I just find it ironic that there are folks in the US who champion Creationism and yet both physically and intellectualy they would seem to provide the most convincing evidence of humankind's descent from apes...:hihi:

Although similarly, they appear to be perfect examples of how natural selection does not work :P

I beleieve in evolution, how life actually started though I'm not too sure.

Well, I wasn't there when the "Big Boss Man" spoke the universe into existence, or, alternatively the "Big Bang" happened, so I can't say for certainty which of the theories is right.

However, I *have* heard it mooted that the order in which things happened according to the book of Genesis' version does follow the order in which evolution says things happened...

i.e, mass of nothingness>>> earth formless, then sea and land separate>> fish>>>plants>> animals>>> humankind. (to precis the opening verses of the Bible)

PT

The Theory of Evolution explains the process, i.e Natural Selection, of evolution...that is the forward progression of life on this planet.

Creation "Science" does not use the scientific method to obtain it's data...it's simply interpreted from a book written over two thousand years ago! THAT is not science, nor can it pretend to be.

having just read some of genesis again i find it increasingly hard to comprehend the creationsist stand point,

lets not forget that the published version of genesis was the one that was most favourable when the bible was written as were all the other testaments.
(Dan Brown strikes again)

It's true - evolution by natural selection is a theory, not proven fact. However, creationism is neither of those things.

I find that creationists generally argue that life on earth is too complex to have arisen 'by chance'. Therefore it must have been created - by an omnipotent super-being who simply exists. Surely we can't explain the complexity of life by citing even greater complexity that doesn't seem to have to be explained?

lets also not forget that the king james translation of the bible is fundamentaly flawed

Originally posted by Plain Talker
Well, I wasn't there when the "Big Boss Man" spoke the universe into existence, or, alternatively the "Big Bang" happened, so I can't say for certainty which of the theories is right.

However, I *have* heard it mooted that the order in which things happened according to the book of Genesis' version does follow the order in which evolution says things happened...

i.e, mass of nothingness>>> earth formless, then sea and land separate>> fish>>>plants>> animals>>> humankind. (to precis the opening verses of the Bible)

PT

Umm ... if it says that fish came before plants then it doesn't follow the order in which evolution says things happened ...

[Edit] ... unless you're talking about land plants, that is

yup, i meant land plants.

PT

Actually, on reflection, I don't suppose that it's necessary for plants to have evolved before fish, so long as some kind of autotroph (something which runs on light or chemical energy, rather than by eating other organisms) was around.

As it happens, however, plants (in the sense of photosynthesising things more advanced than bacteria-like things) have been around for over 1000 million years, whereas the oldest fish fossil found so far is not much more than half that age. The oldest known fossils of photosynthesising things are around 3500 million years old.

[I won't ask when the Book of Genesis says that stromatolites first appeared.]

I don't think either theory holds up under any scrutiny.

At one stage I can accept that there is a possibility that this planet was somehow formed. However, I can't accept that it was just formed as it is now.

Some evolution of species holds up and some doesn't

it certainly doesn't hold up for humans imo.

There has to be some element of outside involvement (whether by a God, Aliens or Atlantis etc etc0 that has fashioned how we are.

[I won't ask when the Book of Genesis says that stromatolites first appeared.] [/B][/QUOTE]

My version says that God made them on Tuesday, just after he'd done himself a boiled egg and found that with a bit of salt and pepper it was good. I think that's the same version Bush and his fundamentalist teaching policy bods were working from.

It is disarmingly easy to turn to the words of prophets and wise men, isn't it.? The holy writ that springs to mind comes from the never-to-be-sainted William Melvin Hicks: "f*** you, and f*** your quaint superstitions", he told a Christian once. He didn't like Genesis-pounders either.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
Fair enough - could start with any relevant textbook.

This one for instance (picked at random)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1405103450/qid=1121850089/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/026-4552378-9630007

has 751 pages of evidence and theory.

I think you're missing my point - my first degree was Biochemistry and I don't need convincing that as far as Evolution is concerned Creationist Science is tosh.

My point is that until we get to the point where those 751 pages are digested in to something that a lay person can undesrtand with little effort, Creationism will ALWAYS be appealing to people who don't want to think!

It's not enough to know 'the truth' - or what currently passes for the scientific truth, given that science is a process. It is very important to impart that knowledge to all who wish to learn in such a way that can be assimilated. And that's where many evolutionary scientists fail - basically by treating anyone who questions them as ignorant savages.

Not a good way to win friends and influence people.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
I think you're missing my point - my first degree was Biochemistry and I don't need convincing that as far as Evolution is concerned Creationist Science is tosh.

My point is that until we get to the point where those 751 pages are digested in to something that a lay person can undesrtand with little effort, Creationism will ALWAYS be appealing to people who don't want to think!

It's not enough to know 'the truth' - or what currently passes for the scientific truth, given that science is a process. It is very important to impart that knowledge to all who wish to learn in such a way that can be assimilated. And that's where many evolutionary scientists fail - basically by treating anyone who questions them as ignorant savages.

Not a good way to win friends and influence people.

Joe

The trouble is that a lot of the strength of the argument does lie in the accumulation of detail. Unlike biochemistry, evolutionary theory/palaeontology is not difficult, and I think that most people could understand an undergraduate textbook, no problem.

Or if they haven't the time or energy to read a textbook they could watch David Attenborough's Life on Earth - that's a fantastic example of the ideas being digested and put out in an accessible way. Not dumbed down, and does contain quite a large number of illustrative examples.

People who really "don't want to think" are beyond any argument, however simplified!

Originally posted by robbie


Some evolution of species holds up and some doesn't

it certainly doesn't hold up for humans imo.

There has to be some element of outside involvement (whether by a God, Aliens or Atlantis etc etc0 that has fashioned how we are.

Why don't you think it holds up for humans?

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't actually matter whether evolution = fact or creationism = fact. One of the most wonderful things about us humans (except womens bottoms but that is a different thread entirely) is our capacity for independant thought. Our ability to come up with an idea, explain it, defend it and argue against it and as a result actually learn something . We also have the ability to make our own minds up, an equally wonderful thing.

What does matter however is access to both of these theories.

To teach Creationism as fact, to the exclusion of any teaching of the theories surrounding evolution is to stunt the development of those being taught as they are missing half the argument. Similarly, for all the scientists among you to dismiss Creationism out of hand and to believe that Evolution is the one true path are just as guilty as the religious nuts who would do away with Science classes copmpletely and teach the theory of eveolution accorind to Genesis. The aim of science is surely to explore, to learn and more importantly to teach.

Children need to be taught both sides of the coin.

Teachers and parents need to say to children, well one group think this.... and another group think this.... No one group can conclusively prove they are right but they strongly believe that they are and here is the evidence they think supports their claims. After this, we need to let them make up their own mind. As a result, we will develop as a species as no doubt those children who make up their own mind are more likely to come up with new ideas, new arguments and new evidence, than those who are simply brainwashed in to thinking one way or another by a narrow-minded curriculum.

The teaching of Creationism as fact in schools is wrong. But so is the teaching of Evolution as fact.

(For what it's worth I have so many issues with organised religion that I cannot support the idea of Creationism)

^ I think any good parent or teacher aims to give their kids access to a full range of knowledge and opinion, with the expectation that they should make up their own minds.

I think the issue here, however, is whether creationism should be presented as a scientific theory that holds as much water as the theory of evolution by natural selection. Clearly, as it's not a scientific theory at all, I don't believe that to be true. (Note that I am not claiming evolution to be fact either).

Creationism is religion, it is faith, all of which have a place in school (though many would argue otherwise I imagine). However, it is not 'the other side of the coin' and I would most certainly object to it being taught as such.

Theory, well yes because science set’s its self high goals even Gravity is a theory. It’s the theory of gravity. Does that mean we are about to float of in to space when some religious guys says the earth is flat? No.

And evolution is not going to go away either. Its simple we can SEE evolution happen. We have seen it, and any single person here can go to a lab and see it for themselves. Not only can we SEE it, we can PREDICT what it’s effects will be and then watch to see if the effects happen! Not only can we SEE it and PREDICT from it, we USE it every single day! We use the process of (un)natural selection, to breed new plants, we use it to make chicken breasts bigger. So we can observe it in a test tube, small organisms with very short lives evolve much quicker as the natural selection process works over a much shorter period of time. We have watched evolution at work in many different speciecs, its all around us.

We are now seeing Elephants without tusks, because the process of natural selection favors elephants with no tusks, so humans do not kills them.

The theory is water tight, but it will remain a theory (like gravity) for a very, very long time. There are MANY unanswered questions, sure. Along the way people got things wrong, that’s the scientific process at work. Remember science will never be able to measure a piece of string to 100% accuracy. Does that make science wrong? Not at all, it set’s high goals and while we may be able to measure a piece of string to a fraction of the size of an atom, we may find later that we cannot measure it to the size of a string (as in string theory).

If you fear science or do not trust science, remember that when you, eat just about any crop, tuck in to KFC or wear non-man made fiber. Because the theory of evolution has been used to create each one. What has creationism ever done for us?

A very lucid post back2basics. I like that a lot.

What I would love to hear a creationist answer is, why do men have nipples? "In his own image", was God a woman?

Science says men have nipples because everybody starts off as a woman. Because we all evolved from organisms that are a single sex, much like singles celled animals and worms. So when we evolved in to mammals, we still start off as the part of the species that was best at looking after children, and nipples are (well were) very important to bringing up healthy children.

But if creationism is going to look for answers I would like that to be one. I would love the church to consider the possibility God is a woman. However with the current Pope saying that homosexuality is on the rise because women are competing with men, I do not believe some how that they will want to elevate the status of women to originators as science has proved.

We can show in the lab that early in the childs development we are all women. But some people would have us believe that women were an after thought. Women didn't have the status they do now 2000 years ago. I am pretty sure that women of today would love the church to catch up with society.

Besides, I have to say the “debate” has moved on to ID, away from creationism.

Not that many people will be interested, but I've modified my original post in response to the criticism that my statement "Evolution = fact" was perhaps a bit too blunt ...

Originally posted by JonJParr
I find it extremely difficult to believe in the theory of evolution because of the overwhelming probability that faces it. For example, a genetic mutation takes place once every million years or so. Add into this equation the statistic that 999,999 genetic mutations out of 1m genetic mutations are unfavourable and the odds start to stack up against evolution. This means that once every million years a genetic mutation takes place but it's 999,999 times more likely to be a bad mutation (probably resulting in the death of the organism). Given these odds I find it extremely difficult to believe that we evolved into the homo-sapiens that we are today. From a mathematical point of view the theory of evolution seems proposterous!

Additionally, I find from speaking with scientists (one of my closest friends is a PhD Molecular Biologist) that they can't explain how it's possible that a 'big explosion' occurred and resulted in the formation of life. Looking around at the world man has created it seems impossible to think that a theory which not only has probability overwhelmingly stacked against it but also occurred as a result of the explosion of a star could 'evolve' into this.

People question creationism labelling it as a fantasy, mythological or just plain dumb because those who believe in it cannot explain it entirely with evidence for what is their faith. But it is my experience that asking scientists to prove evolution actually produces a similar response. So how do I pick from the two?
The truth is that no one knows and no one will ever know!!![/COLOR]

Originally posted by Gordie OS1
I totaly agree that children should get as much information as possible but to teach creationsim as sceintific fact is just plain wrong.

and no it wasn't boston legal (sounds interesting though)

If there was no creation : where did the Universe come from ?

Originally posted by halevan
If there was no creation : where did the Universe come from ?

Which one?

There could well be multiple Universes.

i can't understand why people take a theory that only appeared 130ish years ago, and accept it as fact over the bibles account of creation, which has never been disproved.
just because we don't fully understand it doesn't make it wrong.
the reason dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible is because it only tells us what we need to know about Gods relationship with man.
there is a lot of evidence that the bible is true,
Prophecy, scientific and historic.
i just think that both sides of the discussion should be heard

Originally posted by Cyberscribe
Why don't you think it holds up for humans?


humans evolved from apes right?

I've seen no real evidence of any other great ape evolution towards our current state.

In fact I've seen little evidence of much animal evolution full stop since the time that Homo Sapiens came into being.

we seemed top evolve in a relatively super-quick length of time compared to other periods of evolution.

Originally posted by halevan
If there was no creation : where did the Universe come from ?

well the big bang.

Creationalism teaches that God created the world. There obviously was some kind of creation....

unless we are all pawns in the games of the gods....:o

Originally posted by xltim
i can't understand why people take a theory that only appeared 130ish years ago, and accept it as fact over the bibles account of creation, which has never been disproved.
just because we don't fully understand it doesn't make it wrong.
the reason dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible is because it only tells us what we need to know about Gods relationship with man.
there is a lot of evidence that the bible is true,
Prophecy, scientific and historic.
i just think that both sides of the discussion should be heard

the bible has never been proved so why should anyone accept it as fact.

There is lots of evidence to show that a lot of characters/wars talked about in the Bible did happen/lived but no evidence to prove biblical events happened.

my problem with evolution is that there is no evidence of evolution between species.
we all change over a period of time, height weight maybe even colour, but i have never seen a half dog, half elephant,
or a fully grown giraffe with a half length neck,
or fish with feet, or horses with a trunk, etc etc.
you would have thought that after all this time the fossel evidence would be mounting up, but there is non.
it just doesn't add up.

there is a fish that has hands and lots of other anomilies that good work in evolutions favour. Certainly we evolve within a species and to different species mating can create another (mule for instance)

Originally posted by robbie
humans evolved from apes right?

I've seen no real evidence of any other great ape evolution towards our current state.

In fact I've seen little evidence of much animal evolution full stop since the time that Homo Sapiens came into being.

we seemed top evolve in a relatively super-quick length of time compared to other periods of evolution.

Evolution works fastest during times of hardship when many of the species are dying. Natural selection needs things to be removed from the gene pool for it to work.

Evolution is all round you, you have seen it, you just don't recognize it. Dog breeders for example, you have seen a dog right? There you go, evolution at work. Have you seen old style chickens? They weren’t like the ones you buy in the supermarket. They had much smaller breasts. We used natural selection and only bread the ones with big breasts, we were so successful we even created Chickens with breasts so big their legs would not support their weight. So we went back and used (un)natural selection to make them stronger. Have you seen old houses? Do you remember how small their doors are? People were vastly smaller just 100 years ago, we are much taller now. Evolution at work! You see you HAVE seen evolution.

In dogs we have bread in and bread out many traits.

As for primates, it's great one of the things that makes evolution a water tight theory is the research we are doing with DNA. There are many DNA markers, so the work being done there is more than just chance. The fact that we can see, we can trace the evolution of our genes. Also did you know people have THREE brains?

The neocortex or neo-mammalian brain, the limbic or paleo-mammalian system, and the reptilian brain. They are built upon each other (that’s the way evolution works is adds on to existing systems, it does not start from scratch). So we can take a human brain, dissect it, LOOK at it with our own eyes and see the link to our past. Each of these brains contains the functions of our past evolutionary stages. Of course certain things take many many years to evolve like the front part of our brain that deals with relationships etc. These took much longer than some of the observable evolutionary phenomenon.

I mean it’s much more complicated than all this. Your comment on apes not evolving towards us, well they wouldn’t would they? There issues, dangers and needs are different now. So they will not continue moving towards Neandatholic man because we are not living in a period with the same things guiding evolution.

Originally posted by halevan
If there was no creation : where did the Universe come from ?

'Infinity', something we never experience in our lifetime, and can't comprehend because of this, would negate the need for 'beginning and end' of time and the universe.

Consciously measuring time is a human trait and we have evolved to believe that everything has a beginning and an end.

If, as physicists claim, energy and matter is constant and only changes in form - never in quantity, then it is easy to think that all the energy and matter around us has ALWAYS been there and always will be.

Think INFINITY, forget CREATION.:thumbsup:

Also if you don't agree with Evolution, you have to discount DNA and genetics, as the work there has painted a much clearer picture of our history than digging up fossils has.

So if you don't believe in Evolution, when the doctor asks you if you have a family history of cancer, don't worry about it! Just get on with your life.

And antibiotics, no need to finish your course! The bugs cannot possibly EVOLVE to be resistant (maybe it's the pharmacy companies trying to get money from us?), so no worries there. Just take one pill then STOP! If you do these things, you will be doing us people who believe in Evolution a HUGE favor, by letting natural selection do its job.

It was also nice of God to plant all the FOSSILE FUELS that causing so much of a problem. Not only did he (sorry she) plant the fossiles, he also planted fuels that would have been created if plant and animal matter were allowed to break down over.. oooh, lets say a few million years.

Many thanks in advance.

Originally posted by back2basics
Evolution works fastest during times of hardship when many of the species are dying. Natural selection needs things to be removed from the gene pool for it to work.

Evolution is all round you, you have seen it, you just don't recognize it. Dog breeders for example, you have seen a dog right? There you go, evolution at work. Have you seen old style chickens? They weren’t like the ones you buy in the supermarket. They had much smaller breasts. We used natural selection and only bread the ones with big breasts, we were so successful we even created Chickens with breasts so big their legs would not support their weight. So we went back and used (un)natural selection to make them stronger. Have you seen old houses? Do you remember how small their doors are? People were vastly smaller just 100 years ago, we are much taller now. Evolution at work! You see you HAVE seen evolution.

In dogs we have bread in and bread out many traits.

As for primates, it's great one of the things that makes evolution a water tight theory is the research we are doing with DNA. There are many DNA markers, so the work being done there is more than just chance. The fact that we can see, we can trace the evolution of our genes. Also did you know people have THREE brains?

The neocortex or neo-mammalian brain, the limbic or paleo-mammalian system, and the reptilian brain. They are built upon each other (that’s the way evolution works is adds on to existing systems, it does not start from scratch). So we can take a human brain, dissect it, LOOK at it with our own eyes and see the link to our past. Each of these brains contains the functions of our past evolutionary stages. Of course certain things take many many years to evolve like the front part of our brain that deals with relationships etc. These took much longer than some of the observable evolutionary phenomenon.

I mean it’s much more complicated than all this. Your comment on apes not evolving towards us, well they wouldn’t would they? There issues, dangers and needs are different now. So they will not continue moving towards Neandatholic man because we are not living in a period with the same things guiding evolution.

but surely other great apes would have faced similar challenges to our line? i

Whilst you're on the subjest of DNA.

I read a theory somewhere 9And by no means think I believe this) that we were genetically engineered by an external force . Biblical ages are in the hundreds and obviously we only live to mid 70's. Also there are bits of our DNA chain missing aren't there?

robbie
it was accepted amonst the historians that pontius pilate never existed because the only record of him was in the bible.
then around 1900 a step was turned over in rome and on the underside was an inscription bearing his name.
the bible was proved true.
i can relate other instances where historians have argued against the bible, and in time the bible has been proved ture.
it has never been proved wrong, even tho many people have tried over hundreds of years.

Originally posted by back2basics
Also if you don't agree with Evolution, you have to discount DNA and genetics, as the work there has painted a much clearer picture of our history than digging up fossils has.

So if you don't believe in Evolution, when the doctor asks you if you have a family history of cancer, don't worry about it! Just get on with your life.

And antibiotics, no need to finish your course! The bugs cannot possibly EVOLVE to be resistant (maybe it's the pharmacy companies trying to get money from us?), so no worries there. Just take one pill then STOP! If you do these things, you will be doing us people who believe in Evolution a HUGE favor, by letting natural selection do its job.

It was also nice of God to plant all the FOSSILE FUELS that causing so much of a problem. Not only did he (sorry she) plant the fossiles, he also planted fuels that would have been created if plant and animal matter were allowed to break down over.. oooh, lets say a few million years.

Many thanks in advance.

surely if I did believe in evolution then humans would evolve to comat cancer?

Also the way a virus evolves is different to the way a species evolves. As far as I'm aware a viral disease when blocked desperately evolves in order to survive and spread. A species evolves over millions of years.

Originally posted by robbie
but surely other great apes would have faced similar challenges to our line? i


No because their descendants (humans) changed the World significantly. So where as apes evolved in to humans because we had no real predators, we were the hunter and being a better hunter made your chances of survival much greater... so intelligence and forcefully going after something would be the traits that won through.

These days, being able to hide well from human hunters is probably what is driving evolution in apes.

Apes are evolving, just not in to humans anymore. Evolution is driven by the environment, when the environment changes, so does the path of evolution.

Originally posted by xltim
robbie
it was accepted amonst the historians that pontius pilate never existed because the only record of him was in the bible.
then around 1900 a step was turned over in rome and on the underside was an inscription bearing his name.
the bible was proved true.
i can relate other instances where historians have argued against the bible, and in time the bible has been proved ture.
it has never been proved wrong, even tho many people have tried over hundreds of years.

you have got to be joking.

1. I said that historical figures were fairly accurate.

2. its proven wrong all the time. All Christians say is well"its a stort, its not meant to be literally true."

example.

Jonah.

swallowed by a whale.

NO whale has ever existed with the capacity to swallow a grown man without chewing him first.

the Bible has NEVER been proven true

Originally posted by robbie
surely if I did believe in evolution then humans would evolve to comat cancer?

Also the way a virus evolves is different to the way a species evolves. As far as I'm aware a viral disease when blocked desperately evolves in order to survive and spread. A species evolves over millions of years.

1) Possibly. Cancer is relativly modern (it also evolved to become cancer) so yes we may well develop an immunity to cancer at some stage, like sharks.

2) A virus is a species. The only difference is the metabolic rate is faster the smaller you are, so life, death and evolution happen faster.

3) We probably all started out as what some would call a virus.

Originally posted by robbie
the Bible has NEVER been proven true [/B]


It's been proven to be false. Which is why we stopped using the Bible when researching history. Using it helped knock our understanding of history back many years.

Remember it was religious people that faught so long to say the Sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth was flat. Religious leaders ruined the lives of scientists who said the Earth was round. They trashed them, and discredited them.

Alll this is nothing new. They failed then and they will fail now. It will just take time. As i said now they have ID, which is where this is all going. ID will remove creationism from the public debate, so you all still arguing creationism are falling behind the Chruch. ID also allows certain things like the fossil record and the big bang to be true... they needed to go down that route.

Originally posted by xltim
robbie
it was accepted amonst the historians that pontius pilate never existed because the only record of him was in the bible.
then around 1900 a step was turned over in rome and on the underside was an inscription bearing his name.
the bible was proved true.
i can relate other instances where historians have argued against the bible, and in time the bible has been proved ture.
it has never been proved wrong, even tho many people have tried over hundreds of years.

'The parting of the Red Sea' could be translated as 'the parting of the sea of reeds'.

So, the unlikely miracle of Moses making billions of gallons of water part so that his people could walk across on the dry bed, then on his command flood back in and drown the pursuers could easily be, in truth:

Moses and his people scattered in the bed of tall reeds and the pursuers, who weren't familiar with the area were swallowed up in the tangle so gave up the chase.

It's all in the wording isn't it.

Originally posted by back2basics
It's been proven to be false. Which is why we stopped using the Bible when researching history. Using it helped knock our understanding of history back many years.

Remember it was religious people that faught so long to say the Sun revolved around the Earth and the Earth was flat. Religious leaders ruined the lives of scientists who said the Earth was round. They trashed them, and discredited them.

Alll this is nothing new. They failed then and they will fail now. It will just take time. As i said now they have ID, which is where this is all going. ID will remove creationism from the public debate, so you all still arguing creationism are falling behind the Chruch. ID also allows certain things like the fossil record and the big bang to be true... they needed to go down that route.

although until fairly recently scientists believed that the world was flat ;)

Originally posted by saxon51
'The parting of the Red Sea' could be translated as 'the parting of the sea of reeds'.

So, the unlikely miracle of Moses making billions of gallons of water part so that his people could walk across on the dry bed, then on his command flood back in and drown the pursuers could easily be, in truth:

Moses and his people scattered in the bed of tall reeds and the pursuers, who weren't familiar with the area were swallowed up in the tangle so gave up the chase.

It's all in the wording isn't it.

but then again Mary Magdelaine can be translated as Jesus's mate, friendd, lover, sister, companion.

if we go into Hebrw/Greek tranlations we'll be here all night.

;)

If there was no creation : where did the Universe come from ?
If there WAS creation, where did the creator come from?

Originally posted by robbie
although until fairly recently scientists believed that the world was flat ;)

Depends on your definition of recently. The theory the World was found and that we revolved around the sun is over 1500 years old. In 548 A.D the church was already defending flat earth theory and successfully kept it out of the main stream for hundreds of years).

Many people often make the mistake that the second coming of the flat earth theory was in the 1800's. Again popularized by the Church and religious people as it contradicted parts of the bible. So rather than reform, they attacked instead, as they are doing now. But the resurgence of Flat earth theory is not the full picture. The Egyptians (they are in the bible too) measured the circumference of the Earth very accurately and the American Indians have believed in a round earth for many thousands of years.

The modern bible is just a mishmash of other religious texts and stories that date back much further than 2000 years. So it's all relative... or not depending on if you beleive/trust in science or religion.

Quote by robbie> "NO whale has ever existed with the capacity to swallow a grown man without chewing him first."

LOL :hihi: The funniest quote EVER!

Creationism (or Intelligent Design for the sneaky) is not science and has no place in a science class. I also don't remember ever being given the option of "making up my own mind" when it came to any subject in school.

That coupled with the legally upheld seperation of church and state bar this crap from the classroom in more ways than one. All attempts to teach creationism in public school, put stickers in books ,etc have been overturned/stopped in court for these very reasons.

Personally I don't really understand folks who say things like "The universe is so complicated it must have been designed" or "We don't know so it must be god". These statements make NO logical sense and have no basis in reality.

I want my children to learn science in science class, not some superstitious nonsense made up for people who fear death.

Still not convinced? Go read this:

Wikipedia article on Evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

Then compare it to this:

Wikipedia artcile on Creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism)

Enjoy and to those who try let me say this...

Keep your mythology out of our school system!

Peace,

Locker

Originally posted by Locker
Personally I don't really understand folks who say things like "The universe is so complicated it must have been designed" or "We don't know so it must be god". These statements make NO logical sense and have no basis in reality.
[/B]

While i really want to agree, sadly tiss not true.

You see while the "Believers" are still banging on about creationism the real powerhouses behind the organized religious propaganda brigade are working with ID and unfortunately (IMHO by design) it's not going to be as easy to refute as creationism.

I really don't want to give people too much ammunition but in the interest of debate here are some interesting facts...

1) Einstein always referred to God. He called him the Big guy.
2) Steven Hawkins believes in God.
3) Many M-Theory scientists do. In fact Michio Kaku who is one of the leading M-theorists believes that we are close to a theory of everything. He says that if a theory of everything, tying together general relativity and string theory is only 1 and a half inches long, it would suggest design. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385509863/qid=1121891067/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9162291-7999107?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
4) If M-Theory proves correct, the possibility of a parallel universe a few inches away from our own is very possible. Kind of sounds like heaven. And there are some interesting parts in the time travel paradoxes, for instance if you cannot go back in time and kill your parents (time travel being theoretically possible) who or what would stop you? However if the multi-vers part is correct it would point us back to individual choice, and away from a God of some kind.
5) In fact relativity die to the time travel paradoxes kind of pointed towards a God more than M-Theory. A fact most scientists (and me) do not really want to talk about. Some of the paradoxes point to a lack of human choice, so our lives are mapped out (time travel forwards in time also being possible).

You are right it's not a science. ID was created from the seeds of doubt in physics. It does not prove anything, it does not predict anything, but it latches on to theories that will not be explained by science for hundreds of years. So they have a great wedge issue. The problem is selling ID to the faithful; they spent so much time on creationism, and see the benefits of ID over creationism.. but they have been telling the faithful one thing for hundreds of years now, so changing this will be a cleaver little bit of spin at the pulpit. But once we have the masses singing from the ID hymn sheet, not the creationism hymn sheet we have hit a stale mate... again.

Mind you I don’t expect any creationist types to be able to take this info and build a valid argument around it. But it’s coming, some of the better ID proponents are doing a better job of spinning these issues than Karl Rove.

But yeah the basic premise of the universe being so complex and perfect it must be designed is easy to refute.. much of it is not at all perfect for a start. Mind you if you choose to beleive a religion that worships a vengefull God i doubt that minor detail would bother you.

So the debate is more complex that i would like. But hey, bring it on ;)

Originally posted by limpetboy
In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't actually matter whether evolution = fact or creationism = fact. One of the most wonderful things about us humans (except womens bottoms but that is a different thread entirely) is our capacity for independant thought. Our ability to come up with an idea, explain it, defend it and argue against it and as a result actually learn something . We also have the ability to make our own minds up, an equally wonderful thing.

What does matter however is access to both of these theories.

To teach Creationism as fact, to the exclusion of any teaching of the theories surrounding evolution is to stunt the development of those being taught as they are missing half the argument. Similarly, for all the scientists among you to dismiss Creationism out of hand and to believe that Evolution is the one true path are just as guilty as the religious nuts who would do away with Science classes copmpletely and teach the theory of eveolution accorind to Genesis. The aim of science is surely to explore, to learn and more importantly to teach.



no. There are no experiments one can do to falsify the theory of creationism as far as I can find so it isnt science. There is no problem teaching it in religous education lessons and presenting it as a belief system. It is completely wrong to present it as a rival scientific theory to evolution though.

Originally posted by back2basics


Which one?

ALL OF THEM!!!

There could well be multiple Universes.

Similar threads merged.

As a theory, creation leaves a few things to be desired, but as any Christian will know, God does not make mistakes -

and as the revealed word if god tells us:
Genesis 1:30
And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

Genesis 1:29
And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food

Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

Isiah 28:6 -8
And these also stagger from wine
and reel from beer:
Priests and prophets stagger from beer
and are befuddled with wine;
they reel from beer,
they stagger when seeing visions,
they stumble when rendering decisions.
All the tables are covered with vomit
and there is not a spot without filth.


So, in short - eat hash cookies and stay off the booze.

Remember it's a sin to eat shell fish..


11:9
These shall ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them shall ye eat.

11:10
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:


Also you have to be carefull when you sell your daughter as a slave, not to let her go out like the male slaves do.


21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

What?!

You mean I can't cherry pick bible quotes to support my lifestyle, and ignore the rest of the inconvenient diktats?

Sod that, I'm converting back to fundamentalist agnosticism....

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
What?!

You mean I can't cherry pick bible quotes to support my lifestyle, and ignore the rest of the inconvenient diktats?

Sod that, I'm converting back to fundamentalist agnosticism....

Chrisitianity would fall apart without the cherry picking....

Luckilly much of what is in the bible (especially the OT) is presented as all allegory rather than fact. Having been brought up as a Roman Catholic and having gone to RC schools I can happily tell you that creationism/intelligent design is not a part of the curriculum for most church schools!

Originally posted by evildrneil
Luckilly much of what is in the bible (especially the OT) is presented as all allegory rather than fact. Having been brought up as a Roman Catholic and having gone to RC schools I can happily tell you that creationism/intelligent design is not a part of the curriculum for most church schools!

The ones i posted were Gods words to Moses, not meant as allegory at all. Theyt are a sort of extended ten commandents, of lesser sins and abominations.

Not overly bothered about the creation vs evolution business - am an athiest so you can guess which of the two I choose to 'believe'.

Just wanted to pick up on a few of the science misconceptions.

A virus is non-living so is not a species because it cannot reproduce independently of another living organism.

When two species mate e.g. horse and donkey and produce infertile offspring like the mule these offspring are not deemed to be a new species because they are infertile.

In the bible people are mentioned who are clearly very old 900 years,etc. But the bible was written a long time ago when making it to over 70 was very rare. There would have been the odd person who would have defied all the odds and still made it to 100 and this is probably where the references to very old people have come from. Not that we used to make it to ages of 900 and now don't.

As to human evolution we and chimpanzees took different paths a long time ago. There were other species of humans - e.g. the neanderthals but these have become extinct.

Evolution is very complex and the driving force is natural selection. So chimpanzees for example have been a succesful species it is only now that we threaten their habitats and hunt them to the point that they may become extinct in the wild. They can't now evolve into humans even if they 'wanted' to. Partly because of the major physiological differences and partly because they haven't got the selection pressures acting on them to cause such a dramatic change.

Finally just because doorways and the like were smaller hundreds of years ago does not prove we have evolved since then. Our diets back then were terrible and most people probably ate too little protein (meat being expensive) so we were unlikely to grow to our full potential hence no need for tall doorways.

Sorry for being such a pedant!

http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

[Links to this site usually remain active for a few weeks.]

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2

[Links to this site usually remain active for a few weeks.]

:D :D :D

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

Science will prove or disprove Darwin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&feature=related

I found this one interesting.

Science will prove or disprove Darwin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&feature=related

I found this one interesting.
Why are you resurrecting long dead threads in stead of continuing with the far more recent threads you were taking part in on essentially the same subject?

The tired old arguments presented in that video by liar for Jesus Behe (who completely disgraced himself at the Dover trial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rj06cvj0VLQ)) have been long disproved, irreducible complexity is simply the 'god in the gaps' argument dressed up in scientific sounding language and contrary to the claims in the video the bacterial flagellum isn't irreducibly complex (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU).

There are sea shells and sea creatures right up to the highest peaks.To many creationists that just proves that Noah's flood happened. :p

And you might want to revise your timescale for the Indian subcontinent crashing into asia from 6000 years to 60 million. ;)

I reckon the creationists just haven't begun evolving yet...

Evolution or creation?

Creation obviously... just look at the evidence. Oh. hang on...

All time starts when your born and ends when your dead.

Who cares how you got there?