Creation Theory

[Runa]

Watch the NOVA episode "Judgment Day".
Anyone who leans towards Creation as any type of Science, will have something to think about.

Here's the site:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

[Mr Danksworth]

[zzontar]

*personal attack removed*/ferri

You mentioned earlier about Ned not knowing about any "ologies"... you didn't mention psychology... perhaps read up on insecurity sometime and see how someone insecure would have a debate.

[Nebula]

I thought that was bloody hilarious.

[Big ned]

Ned would put his knowledge of ologies up against soulras anytime.

[Nebula]

I'll put $20 on Ned.

[cerealkiller]

The cartoon is very funny!

Surprise surprise, another example of how displaying ignorance and insult is the way some like to discuss.

Which part of it is ignorant and/or an insult?

Ned would put his knowledge of ologies up against soulras anytime.

Too bad soulra has already a distinct advantage: he doesn't need miracles to explain things.

[Mr Danksworth]

Surprise surprise, another example of how displaying ignorance and insult is the way some like to discuss.

You mentioned earlier about Ned not knowing about any "ologies"... you didn't mention psychology... perhaps read up on insecurity sometime and see how someone insecure would have a debate.

Aww, don't your bible in a bunch? Can't refute so you have to insult, typical.
That cartoon sums up the ridiculousness of 'creationism'/'Intelligent Design".
You want my kids to be taught the world is 6000 years old? In a comparative religion class maybe, but in a science class? Screw that. Your faith has no place in the science class.

[Mr Danksworth]

Ned would put his knowledge of ologies up against soulras anytime.

You're on! Let's go. Where do you want to start? Archeology, History, Biology, or Genetics?

[Mr Danksworth]

Come on boys. Man up and put your money where your mouth is.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[pat1167]

Boy is this getting off track. The sarcasm is getting a bit thick.

It should be pointed out that there are very few people who belief the earth is under 10,000 years old.

Even many who try and marry the two theories and settle for guided evolution rather than random mutation. I would probably put myself in the guided evolution bunch. Random mutations usally cause dreadful diseases that parents have to deal with (not a pretty picture). The beauty and variety of this world calls for some sort of guidance.

[nolanrh]

Even many who try and marry the two theories and settle for guided evolution rather than random mutation. I would probably put myself in the guided evolution bunch. Random mutations usally cause dreadful diseases that parents have to deal with (not a pretty picture). The beauty and variety of this world calls for some sort of guidance.

Of course the random mutations are guided. Its commonly referred to as natural selection.

Through natural selection the random mutations that enhance the chance of reproduction are passed on. I agree the results are beautiful and have great variety, but neither implies the mutations aren't random.

[cerealkiller]

nolanh, great insight!

It should be pointed out that there are very few people who belief the earth is under 10,000 years old.

What do they believe then? Science, the bible, a prophet, coffegrounds, tealeaves....?
Us heathen have a hard time understanding. 10,000 different religions, thousands of gods, different claims, different miracles, different times and locations, different 'laws', different worship, I could go on. If there is only one truth, shouldn't the billions of faithfuls believe the same truth?
2+2=4 no matter what language or religion. We can state that this is a fact. It is uncontested and globally used without questioning. If any one religion has the truth (there can be only one which means all other religions must be wrong) why does the majority of the planet disagree with it?
Truth is a perception. You claim to have the truth without a shred of evidence that is built on trust called faith. That includes supernatural and unverified claims, miracles, angels and the whole shabang. Us sceptics believe in a much greater truth: one that is observable, repeatable, verifiable and accepted by a majority of experts in the field.
People trust science explicitly when it comes to the brakes of their car going to the hospital, using your cell phone, and post on the computer, but science is shunned when it comes to faith! Why? We asked that question before, never got an answer. Maybe someone can enlighten us?

[pat1167]

I will do my best ck. I can only speak for myself and do not assume all others are the same. There are many different religions as there are many different cultures which add to the diversity and dynamics of this world. It would be very boring if everyone was the same. I do not agree that there is only “one” truth, anymore that I think that one man, if cloned, would suit every woman (or the reverse). There are different needs, both cultural and psychological and each person must seek their own comfort zone/faith. I only have a problem with when someone tries for force their belief or non-belief on another.

Math can be proven. 2+2 is indeed 4 and any 1st grader who lines out popsicle sticks can prove that. Personally, my university physics and chemistry classes were quite quantifiable and not related to my faith at all. Again with auto mechanics, it can be proven that certain things work in a certain way and both experimentation and verification can and have been done. The same goes for cell phones and computers. All Christians should examine how the world works and how this tremendous gift to us is programmed and organized. Scientific research was funded by churches for centuries including Newton, Galileo, Capernicus, etc.; not so much in recent years as there are other sources of funding.

However, evolution is a theory, has never been proven and due to the time it takes (eons) probably never will. It has been proven only that birds evolve into other birds (different colours) and dogs evolve into other dogs (breeding), but the crossover of one species evolving into another has not been documented. The “majority of scientists” at one time accepted the geo-centric view of the earth, that the earth was flat, and numerous other ideas. The “majority” does not make it right either, unless they have both the data and experimentation to back it up.

The supernatural has been observed and in some cases filmed. It is often not explained. There is much to explore in our world and over time, perhaps more of these things will be explained, who knows. For now, those who see, believe; those who don’t may not.

[Mr Danksworth]

However, evolution is a theory, has never been proven and due to the time it takes (eons) probably never will.

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

A fact is "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

It has been proven only that birds evolve into other birds (different colours) and dogs evolve into other dogs (breeding), but the crossover of one species evolving into another has not been documented.

Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.