I went through about 4 of them and none of them had anything close to what you needed to provide. I believe you claimed that Mayans and Aztecs had writings that claimed all stars are different?

Well, please post your link with a sample of these writings.

Well the Bible is straightforward in saying all stars are different. Unless you can supply something from other cultures making this same claim, I'll have to discard your argument.

Creation, Has evolved and Grown, or expanded, as it was Meant to be.

My Hammer Has become a Nail Gun, Humanity is no different. Everlasting, or infinate spirit is no diferent either, Allways expanding and learning, or changing.

Infinate, or infinity means This process Has been inforce since...........................................................................
...................

Get it?

It has always been and wil never end, This is Infinate spirit, which makes up The physical world.

Infinity is a hard concept for some, but is actually quite simple.

Love unconditional creates worlds, This freewill From Father of our spirits Has ensured Evolution at its best, and worst.

Looking for the beginning of Infinity is a futile Chase, What we do with Today can mean everything.

Love.

Love Omnaka

That's it, WWF. If you're going to purposefully disregard information, insult other cultures, shover your religion down other people's throats, and try to glorify your own beliefs by stepping on and crushing other's, I'm not going to argue with you any longer. Until you're able to have a mature argument, I'm no longer posting in this thread. It's not doing anything productive, and you won't accept any information unless it's written exactly the way you want it in exactly the right context, which is incredulous. Again, I'm no longer posting here. Have at it everyone, Otter is out.

Ummmm, one of the links you posted was about Christmas. Had nothing to do with Aztecs or Mayans saying stars are different. You're just posting bogus links that have nothing to do with what's being discussed.

You're insulting other cultures. In fact you've insulted my culture many times and I get tired of it.

The things I posted are in line with the topic. If you don't like what I've posted, then no one is forcing you to read or post in this thread.

Also, of course I expect information to be supported as you claim it to be. If what you claim is true, there should be no trouble in providing evidence for exactly what you claim. What you should be providing is links showing writings from Mayans and Aztecs saying all stars are different. I have already shown that the Bible states they are already different, and did this almost 2,000 years ago.

Aztec culture. The stars, the planets, and the movements of heavenly bodies in the universe was a great part of the traditions of the Aztec people and it had a lot to do with their everyday movements and the decisions that they made on a daily basis.

I have a question for you WWF, how in the world did the aztec's, and well mayans for that matter, come up with
a calendar if they did not know stars were different?

Well then post a link to something showing that Mayans and Aztecs believe all stars were different.

We seem to have a different interpretation of the word Gap.

To me, a Gap implies that we have solid evidence either side, such as the case of the missing Cytosine and Adenine required for both RNA and DNA. Here, we have a decent working framework for what happened either side of this gap - Evolution & Astrophysics. It's therefore quite possible that, given time, Biochemists will be able to close this Gap. In the meanwhile, I leave it to those of a more religious nature to contemplate the thought that the remaining half of the jigsaw puzzle, Guanine, Thymine and Uracil would have been found in the clay of the prebiotic Earth.

With the initial spark of the Universe, however - we are in an entirely different situation. We have no feasible working model prior to the initial spark, so we have no Gap to fill. We are, for all intents and purposes, stuck determining initial cause.

Baryogenesis, for example, remains a key problem with the regards to the formation of matter itself - a problem that Physicists have yet to reach any sort of reasonable consensus upon.

Quantum decoherence replaces the requirement of the observer, and replaces it with interaction with it's surroundings. In the case of the Big Bang Singularity, as you've noted, it does rather beg the question - what surroundings? Without surroundings, we're left with either the singularity causing it's own waveform collapse, or, as you've mentioned, the rather unsettling idea that Everett's intepretation of a quantum multiverse is correct. Whatever the answer, there is still no resolution as to the difficulties of superluminal information transfer, nor any reason to make the cosmic auditor henceforth unemployed.

With these difficulties, it's no wonder that the SUAC interpretation of Quantum theory is the most widely held view within modern Physics. To quote Feynman "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

I cannot speak for the aztecs as I am not well read on that subject.

But, mayans on the other hand had knowledge of astronomy. They studied the sun, the moon, the ecliptic,
venus, as well as the milky way. They obviously knew the differences.

Oooh look! The silly argument that because the bible has some obscure and obvious mentions to science, the entire book must be right!
You realize that THE EXACT SAME THING can be done with the Illiad or the Qu'ran, right?


I believe the Illiad stands as solid evidence for Zeus.

And you are wrong. Atoms were first believed to have existed in 400 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom


Actually, it was commonly well known that the air must weigh something. I believe that the ancients knew this as well as we do. This is really common sense.



Kidding, right? The ancient Egyptians obviously knew stars where different- Hence, in their pyramids at giza, the biggest pyramid corresponds to the biggest star.
Pyramids vs Stars:





from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumbing#History




Yet...
Contradictions...

Internal Contradictions:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/internal.html

Numerical Contradictions:
II Kings tells us that Jehoiachin became king when he was eighteen while II Chronicles alleged that he became King at age eight:

II Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned three months in Jerusalem
II Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.

The same problem exists with the age Ahaziah ascended the throne.

II Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.
II Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

Not only does II Chronicles contradict the information in II Kings, it even contradicts itself. For the author mentioned that Ahaziah took over from his father, Jehoram, who had just passed away - at the age of forty! (II Chronicles 21:20) Thus according to II Chronicles Ahaziah was two years older than his own father!

* The authors of Chronicler and Kings can’t agree on how many foremen Solomon used in building the temple. I Kings 5: 16 he is said to have used 3,300 of them, while in II Chronicles 2:18 he was suppossed to have used 3,600. Thus we have a contradiction of 300 people.
* They also disagree on how many stalls Solomon had for his chariot horses. I Kings 4:26 said there were 40,000 stalls while II Chronicles 9:25 said there was only 4,000.
* Finally they could not agree on the actual capacity of the tank built by Solomon. I Kings 7:26 said that its capacity was 2,000 baths while II Chronicles 4:5 contradicts this by mentioning that its capacity was 3,000 baths!

II Samuel 24:9
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people of the King: in Israel there were eight hundred thousand valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand.
I Chronicles 21:5
And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to David. In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and in Judah four hundred and seventy thousand who drew the sword.

More:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/prophecies.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/astronomy.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/taxonomy.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/math.html


You see, there are just as many inaccurracies in the bible as 'predictions'.


Cheers,
SQLserver

It doesn't really matter. The whole argument that 'LOL The Bible by chance got some off thing right, so the insane myths are obviously right too!' is ridiculous. The same thing can be done with the Illiad, the Qu'ran, and Dr. Seuss.

Especially in a thread about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

You will not clear anything up with statements like that .Creationism is all religion


fullywired

NO. That is NOT what I meant.

I was trying to explain where science comes in, and where it becomes religion.

Creationism is part science and part religion. IT may NOT be good science, but it is partly encompassed by Science because parts of it(Evolution, age of the earth) can have evidence given against it or for it. IE- parts of it are encompassed by Scientific Observation or Experimentation.

WHAT is not science is exactly HOW life got started. We may be able to show abiogenesis is POSSIBLE, and that all of the evidence shows Evolution eventually got to us in the tree of life, but we will never truly be able to know whether those first few cells were created by god, or abiogenesis. THAT is faith.
The Existence, or non-existence of god is also faith.

I may not be explaining it correctly, if you are still confused, just ask.

-SQLserver

Well, depends on if you believe it scientifically or religiously. I personally believe in Intellegent Design which is practically the same thing as Creationitism except you believe in it for scientific reasons, not just because you're putting faith in the Bible.

Yet, none have been given.
(If you don't count Yeti's rather long and tedious links- and you shouldn't, as we asked him to paraphrase the arguments, which he has yet to do)

OK. Another quick question:
from wiki:
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"

Doesn't Intelligent Design add up to Theistic Evolution, or a variant?
I don't understand- All religions MUST be Creationist or a type of Theistic Evolutionist.
Which is ID? It seems to me from the above definition that ID is a unprovable theory that simply says God chooses which mutations happen as part of his grand plan, Aka God Guides evolution by choosing the supposedly random mutations.

That would make ID Theistic Evolution, and thus 100% religion, as no scientific observation or experimentation can back it up.(besides the irreducible complexity argument, and most agree that doesn't exist.)

Excuse my ignorance. Most people here seem to think ID is Creationism, yet it seems to me it is more Theistic Evolution.
I understand it is USED by Creationists, but that doesn't make it the same thing.

Cheers,
SQLserver

WWF, Lady Otterwynd has obviously put quite some effort into finding sites for you to look at to discuss the claims she has made. In the space of 3 minutes you managed to look at those sites and dismiss her work asking for specific quotes. Three minutes to look at 18 websites really does provide insight into your character and motivations as to why you are here - and it appears obvious that it is not to learn or discuss, but rather to simply validate your own beliefs. I had a little look through some of those sites myself and came across (as just a few examples):

The Maya are well known for their precise calendar and astronomy. The four surviving written documents (which are called the Dresden, Madrid, Paris, and Grolier Codices) that they have left behind include an ephemeris that charts the heliacal risings and settings in the synodic cycle of the planet Venus and an eclipse warning table based on observable lunar and solar cycles. - Source

Maya astronomer-priests looked to the heavens for guidance. They used observatories, shadow-casting devices, and observations of the horizon to trace the complex motions of the sun, the stars and planets in order to observe, calculate and record this information in their chronicles, or "codices". From these observations, the Maya developed calendars to keep track of celestial movements and the passage of time. The Maya also kept detailed records of the moon, although these do not seem to constitute a formal lunar calendar. Source

And from a link in that page:

Most of the Maya codices were burned by the Spanish during the sixteenth century when they tried to convert the Maya to Christianity. The few codices which have survived, however, are a valuable source of information about the religious beliefs of the Maya and their ritual cycle, and record information about the gods associated with each day in the Maya calendar as well as astronomical tables outlining the cycles of Venus and other celestial bodies. - Source

Thes are just three quotes (one for each of the three minutes it took for you to read and dismiss Lady O's work), and I only randomly clicked four of the links Lady O provided for you. To be fair, one of the four sites I randomly chose was a site on Stonehenge which has nothing to do with the Aztecs or the Mayans, so some of the sites are useless for the question you asked. But seriously, take some time to do the research and look at the sites that are provided when someone provides them for you. Three minutes to read and dismiss more than a dozen articles just shows people where your true motivations lie. All three quotes here are at least indicative that the Mayans understood stars were different - at the least, the "proof" is on a par to the Bible quote you used to prove that the Bible acknowledges the stars were different.

Just something to consider,

~ Regards, PA

It's funny, you say they're trying to force religion, ID, etc., into the public schools. Yet, which side is taught as the only point of view?

A Creationist's Challenge To Evolutionists
Author: Robert Congelliere

In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.

One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.

(1) Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?

Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.

(2) Is this scientific evidence for creationism, or isn't it?

I have also noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don't they give us answers to questions such as these:

(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?

4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?

(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?

How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?

(6) How did life develop from non-life?

(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?

(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?

(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?

(11) If the first generation of mating species didn't have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point anyhow? Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?

Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate.

(12) How did the heart, lungs, brain, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring?

For example, did the first animal develop 10% of complete veins, then 20%, and on up to 100%, with veins throughout its entire body and brain? Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot? How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from? Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets, and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?

Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach? Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from? What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this. How did the animal survive during these changes? (And over thousands of years?) Of course, at the same time the animal's eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food and his brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food.

Like the heart, brain, veins, and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal's body must be fully functional in the first moments of life. This indicates that evolution couldn't occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn't occur!!! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never could have even gotten started! Or is your attitude going to be: "Don't bother me with such details. My mind is made up."?

(13) Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don't evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed? (An animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)

(14) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50% of offspring are male and 50% are female (based on 50% X-chromosomes and 50% Y-chromosomes)? Again – is there some sort of a plan here?

To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, animal life, plant life, and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer.

Evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe.

(15) Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn't it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?

Further evidence: The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in 2 trillion of the sun's total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. ( I have read that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world! )

(16) Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?

(17) Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence from design without any serious consideration?

Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible". This of course is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural. Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer.

(18) Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the 3 main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy, and the origin of life?

If you believe in evolution:

(19) Can you give us just one coercive proof of evolution, i.e., a proof that absolutely eliminates any other possible explanation for the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life?

(20) Isn't it true that rather than proofs of evolution, all that evolutionists can come up with are evidences for evolution to someone who already believes in evolution?

Let's see some answers to important questions such as these, rather than a discussion of what is science and what is religion. That type of discussion is entirely irrelevant. What we seek is the truth, and creationism is a far more reasonable and logical explanation of the origin of the universe, the material world, and human life.

Source

edit: Here's the rest of the article. So as to not leave anything out for others to nitpick on.

Students: Make a copy of this CHALLENGE TO EVOLUTIONISTS and ask your teacher or professor to give you answers to these questions. If they cannot, you have a right to be skeptical that what they are teaching you about evolution is true. Also, give copies to your fellow students so that they too will be aware that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution. And of course it is still a theory, not a "fact".

Robert H. Congelliere

Comments? Students: Let me know what your teacher or professor said after they looked over these questions. Did they give you any answers?

rhcongelliere@yahoo.com

SQLserver, I don’t think it is worthy to attack the veracity of the Old Testament writings, by basing the attack on errors made by copyists. To save cluttering this thread with many posts, what do you think of the following answer by Gill to the 2Ch 22:2 problem?

[Copy-pasted excerpt from -- John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible]
2Ch 22:2 Forty two and years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign,.... In 2Ki_8:26, he is said to be but twenty two years old at his accession to the throne, which is undoubtedly most correct; for this makes him to be two years older than his father when he died, who was thirty two when he began to reign, and reigned eight years, 2Ch_21:20,

… it seems best to acknowledge a mistake of the copier, which might easily be made through a similarity of the numeral letters, מב, forty two, for כב, twenty two (d); and the rather since some copies of the Septuagint, and the Syriac and Arabic versions, read twenty two, as in Kings; particularly the Syriac version, used in the church of Antioch from the most early times; a copy of which Bishop Usher obtained at a very great price, and in which the number is twenty two, as he assures us;

and that the difficulty here is owing to the carelessness of the transcribers is owned by Glassius (e), a warm advocate for the integrity of the Hebrew text, and so by Vitringa (f):

and indeed it is more to the honour of the sacred Scriptures to acknowledge here and there a mistake in the copiers, especially in the historical books, where there is sometimes a strange difference of names and numbers, …

(d) See Kennicott's Dissert. 1. p. 98.
(e) Philolog. Sacr. p. 114.
(f) Hypotypol Hist. Sacr. p. 67.

You may be raising a "straw man argument" here.
Yes, there are inaccuracies by copyists in the Bible; and yes, there are interpolations added by copyists in the Bible. However, the undeniable fact that there are prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled throughout history, should be seriously considered, before dismissing the Bible as "a book written by men".

Something to consider, I hope,
Karlis

This is not an issue in most Western European countries. The separation of Religion and State started along time ago here and continues with national and Europeanwide legislation.

All in all theres nothing wrong with a lively discussion or with a bit of name calling (Creationist/Evolutionist..etc) but people and especially children have the right to be protected from groups of people who have a personal axe to grind with the rest of society.

Wow, I've been away for three days... just THREE DAYS and already this thread is a trainwreck.

So here is my response to this.
First of all, WWF, I find it highly disrespectful that you put up a one liner after Lady O's 18 some odd links only a few minutes after she posted. This confirms my initial misgivings that you have no desire to actually listen to what anyone else has to say, but instead only want us to listen to you. Sounds an awful lot like a Napoleon Complex if you ask me...

Second, you insulted MY culture not only when you deliberately B.S.'d me about having a "prophecy" about me, but also every time someone puts a lot of work into their post, coming up with dozens of links and evidence etc. etc. and you blatantly blow them off with petty one liners that skew the thread's subject away from the OP. That insults my belief in both honesty and hard work, but that is neither here nor now, so stop focusing on people "insulting" you. If all you can come up with in response to someones post that shows what you believe is incorrect, then you have a lot of soul searching to do. So put aside your petty little differences, and if you have proof that shows what you believe, as in proof that doesn't require as intense an interpretation as Biblical sources, then posit it or hold your peace. Fools often have much to say, but little of any importance.

Third of all, here are some links, which I know you will brush off, showing the Aztecs and the Mayans had an extensive knowledge of astronomy and cosmology long before your biblical references did:
http://www.michielb.nl/maya/
http://www.authenticmaya.com/maya_astronomy.htm
I thought this one would be right up your alley: Aztec Astronomy for Kids!

Not very extensive, but maybe you'll actually take the time to sit down and read these. How bout it?

see what I'm talking about here? not one relevant argument in the hole shebang! just the same old debunked and incoherent BS they always use. any one with half a brain can see he is just trying to get his religion into the science class room or stop evolution from being taught by harassing teachers and school districts. this is going to have and has already had a terrifying affect on are country. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaN6Rx8X6_I . say doesn't his post constitute as spam any way?

From: Karlis

SQLserver, I don’t think it is worthy to attack the veracity of the Old Testament writings, by basing the attack on errors made by copyists. To save cluttering this thread with many posts, what do you think of the following answer by Gill to the 2Ch 22:2 problem?
Oh? Copiests?
What stopped the copiests from purposely changing the verses that WWF has pointed out?
Obviously, if 1 copiest is enough to change the Bible, I doubt the entire integrity of the thing.
None of WWF's quotes are trustworthy points!
Thanks for pointing this out!

I'd like to stress this amazing logical point!
A. The Bible has few to no copying errors. Therefore, it should be the true word of god. However, there are so many errors. So, obviously, it isn't the word of God.

B. Copiers were able to influence the Bible, which accords for the copying claims. However, this renders every single "prophesy" or scientific fact, or anything in the bible COMPLETELY UN TRUSTWORTHY!

Either way, the bible Looses!

Tarheels fan:
It's funny, you say they're trying to force religion, ID, etc., into the public schools. Yet, which side is taught as the only point of view? blink.gif
OH NOES GUYS! SCIENCE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS IS BAD!


Tarheels Fan:
In Time Magazine, August 23, 1999, evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould asserted that "evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science" and "we can call evolution a 'fact'". This is typical of the stratagem used by evolutionists: If you make a statement strong enough and repeat it often enough, you may be able to convince yourself and others that it may be true. I would like to remind evolutionists that, despite their dogmatism, there are many knowledgeable people who do not believe that the evidence supports the theory of evolution.
Evolutionists don't exist.
There is everyone, and Creationists.

Tarheels Fan:
One of the most-powerful pieces of evidence against evolution is the fossil record. If evolution occurred by slow, minute changes in living creatures, there would be thousands of times more transitional forms of these creatures in the fossil beds than complete forms. Since the billions of fossils that have been found are all complete forms, the obvious conclusion is: Evolution has never occurred! Though evolutionists have stated that there are many transitional forms, this is simply not true. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
Wow. Why didn't you just cut that out and replace it with:
I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FOSSILS LOLZ?
It would have said the same message.
2 Points:
A. In the majority of Evolutionary trees, such as that of man, those only 'holes' in the fossil record are easily filled in with micro evolution changes. You see, almost the entire evolution of man is Micro Evolution. Just a LOT of Micro Evolution over time.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Please explain which change on there(from fossil to fossil) is impossible.

B. Fossils are EXTREMELY RARE. When YOU die, you will definitely NOT become a fossil, unless you happen to be buried underneath a river. Something like 90% of all species that have ever existed we DO NOT have fossils of, as fossils are extremely rare, almost freak occurances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossils#Rarity_of_fossils

Quote TarheelsFan:
Critics of creationism often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.
Every fossil is a transitional fossil. You realize this, don't you?
Examples of new species forming OBSERVED in nature:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML

List of Transitional Fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Evolutionary Paths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_whales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

OK. So far your claims have been so utterly ridiculous it is hilarious.

From now on, you should understand that you saying "LOLZ NO FOSSILS!" does NOT make it true.

Quote Tarheels Fan:
A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
Such as your appendage?
Such as several of the fossils in the Human Evolution Timeline link?
They are called vestigical organs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

YOU are an example of this: a failure to realize this is pretty ironic.

Quote:
(3)Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?
Wow. THEY DO.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1999/ph123/lec11.html
Most of the Elements found today were formed under nuclear fusion in stars.

Quote:
4) How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
There is no 'precision' in the 'design' of the elements. THAT is how they happened to be.
There is an infinite number of supposed ways our atoms could end up. The majority ended up working like the standard Bohl Model.
AKA, illogical question.

Quote:
How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements? When did these compounds develop from the elements (before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang)? When evolutionists use the term "matter", which of the thousands of compounds are included? When evolutionists use the term "primordial soup", which of the elements and compounds are included? Why do books on evolution, including grade-school, high-school and college textbooks not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation. Why don't they speculate about this?
I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS! Unbefreakinglievable.
I cannot believe there are people this ridiculously stupid. You seriously, SERIOUSLY, believe that no scientists, nobody, has ever done an experiment, written a book, worked mathematically with those questions?
The thing is, Creationists never need to speculate. They only need to think when they create lies to help their nonsense.
Everything else is predetermined for them in a 2,000 year old book of fairy tales.

Quote:
(5) Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
Sigh. The problem is, more Creationists are brainwashed when homeschooled. Clearly, whoever wrote this either was, or they didn't pass 7th grade.
Compounds are formed EVERY DAY in chemical reactions. Please, PLEASE tell me this is a joke. For god's sake, in 7th grade students MAKE half a dozen compounds, including some of those found there!

Quote:
(6) How did life develop from non-life?
Abiogenesis?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Quote:
(7) Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?
Man, this guy is an idiot. Why the heck can't he just use Google?
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/emotion.html
http://biopsychiatry.com/emoevo.html

Quote:
(8) What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
The odds:
100%.
Why?
Simply, because IT DID NOT MATTER what path Evolution took. It had an infinite number, and it chose the one it did.
No probability involved.

Quote:
(9) What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?

Species are an illusion. Only 1 of the parents needed to have a beneficial mutation to most likely pass it on most of the time.

Quote:
(10) Why are there 2 sexes anyhow? This is not foreordained in the evolutionary framework. Is there some sort of plan here?
*Shrug* Just happened to be that way. There is no argument here. Evolution of Sex:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/index.html


What? If that is trying to say what I think it is, this guy's IQ must be in the negatives!


Again: What?


Heart:
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/abstract/1047/1/13
http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Deve...t_evolution.htm

Lungs:
http://www.csupomona.edu/~dfhoyt/classes/z.../PRIM_FISH.HTML
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/2/289
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/zoo00/zoo00172.htm

Brain:
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html
http://www.primatesociety.com/Into/surviva...e/textEvol.html
http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm

Stomach:
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/abstract/265/9/4944
Actually, couldn't find much on the stomach. Will try harder tommorrow.

Blood:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/biology/art14442.html
http://www.honors.umd.edu/HONR269U/Evolution/Evolution.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1008528

Kidneys:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...ateKidneys.html
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0


Blah, blah, blah, all explained above.


Blah, blah, blah, blah, Explained above again.

Jesus, this guy likes to rant on and on.

The best part is how well he thinks he knows Scientists. He's like "LOLZ CLOSE MIND" and "LOLZ I KKNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION!" and it is just hilarious!



Because the people who write science text books don't want to intrude on religion, or they just aren't very good at explaining evolution?



You know what: GOOD QUESTION. If someone could answer this, that would be great.
Obviously, it isn't an argument against Evolution, but if someone who knows more about genetics could answer this, that would be great.



All theoretical stuff. Ask Tiggs. He knows a lot about Theoretical Physics.


No. It came from the vast, infinitely dense singularity of the Big Bang.


Because:
A. We have the answers; You just aren't looking.
B. The question is an illogical attack.
C. You are talking about something completely irrelevant to Evolution?



No. Proof is only mathematical.


Which is 1000000000 times better then Creationists, who can't come up with any evidence!
Hilarious! Moutains upon moutains of evidence, observation, experimentation, and science isn't proof, but it is infinitely better then a ridiculous, illogical 2,000 year old book of fairy tales!

LOL. That was just about the stupidest, Creationist, thing I've ever read!

Cheers,
SQLserver

SQLserver,

While we would normally agrue for the same side, here I must disagree with you. Creationism - because of its unscientific premise of a creator - is nothing to do with science. Yes, 'moderate' Creationists have incorporated some of what science has discovered into an adapted literal Creation mythology, but this adoption of scientific discovery in no way validates the premise of the Creator and is only done because of the overwhelming evidence science has uncovered for explaining certain mechanisms of how things have happened (planetary formation, evolution etc.)

I hold no brief for teaching creationism or intelligent design alongside natural selection, but signs of life in people's thinking are to be encouraged, not disparaged.

Intelligent Design makes a tremendous leap forward over crude Creationism. We find assent to the ideas that stories about how things are must account for how things appear to be, and that all stories (very much including scientific ones, just as much as religious ones) contain figurative elements.

This is a stunning improvement. The Earth was created before the cave paitings at Lascaux. Hey hey, now we're getting somewhere. And we were not getting anywhere before.

Neither atheists nor theists are unanimous in holding that there is no evidence about the existence of a transcendent creator. So, Intelligent Design retains some "special pleading," that there is "irreducible complexity." Fine, some atheists hold the defamatory "Occam's" razor, to parallel effect: to transmute the absence of evidence into support for their own viewpoint that there is no transcendent creator.

The American legal environment constrains all tax-supported institutions to be even handed about religion. It is impossible to teach science, neither the findings nor the method, under these constraints when "God says" that the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is possible when God is the author of both "The Good Book" and "The Book of Nature."

I have faith in the ratchet effect, that progress accumulates. The day will come when all that separates the godly from the godless is the bare premise "Yes, but there was an original personal agent." ID is a step towards that. I welcome the progress, acknowledge that further work is needed, and accept that in a free society, we all have to put up with a lot, mainly each other.

It's so very, very sad. Honestly. You should have known better than to put that dross up here; that guy makes dumb look good.

Ok I don't think you quite understand the idea of successive modifications. For example; it is true that the pieces of the mouse trap will not catch mice separately, but they do have many other uses. and they all were present before the structure was created, and eventually through successive modifications they became 1 working system. the same is true about the bacterial cell. So before you look at the final product you first have to look at the separate parts and see how they came to be. After that you can look at how they came together.

*snip**snip*

These are just a few of the questions creationists have for scientists, and they are not necessarily bad questions, but they are pretty simplistic. The lack of a precise explanation for a given subject is NOT an argument FOR creationism. In other words, the lack of a step by step, million year evolutionary process explaining how a circulatory system developed in mammalian life, does not mean it MUST have been created as-is.

How did the digestive juices enter the stomach? I'm sorry, but that kind of question really borders on childish, and shows a complete lack of understanding of science, biology, chemistry...the basics. How does a fetus, just a few cells, develop digestive juices? It must just all be there at the moment of conception, right? Just really tiny, right? It's childish. These are NOT arguments for creationism, they are arguments for ignorance, fear, and superstition.

Yes, it is--admittedly so!

Judgment Day (NOVA): The Story of the Dover ID Trial
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/



That said, this is just ... sad. Evolution is taught because it has been proven on both a micro and macro level, in repeated experiments over a period of some 150 years! Creationism? Nothing! Can be used only in Sunday school and not in the lab.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICA

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

Science is used to test itself. That is why you have theories shot down all the time and new ones advanced. This leads to advancements in all the sciences every day. Creationism ...? Nothing--neither on a micro or macro level. It cannot be used in the lab. As Biologist Dr. Douglas Theobald stated to me in an email a while back regarding evolution and creationism:

... But I am a research scientist, and I require that "working" inferences and explanations be tangibly productive (or at the very least not misleading), regardless of my political and philosophical preferences. My research (cancer research at the molecular level) and scientific success depends on it. Contrary to common public perception and to the unsubstantiated claims of many non-scientist Creationists, evolutionary theory is fundamental to progress in the biological sciences, and it is only becoming more so as we become engulfed in the information tsunami coming from large-scale genomic sequencing projects. I cannot afford to use concepts that lead to the wrong inferences or that just lead to nowhere. The real-life stakes are much too high, and in the end reality has no sympathy for quaint philosophical biases.

Cheers,

Douglas

^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`
Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D.
American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellow
http://www.cancer.org/
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry University of Colorado at Boulder

In other words ... If evolution wasn't FACT, he couldn't do what he does, medications et al could not be developed, and people would die. Can creation "scientists" make such claims? No!



All of the above answered here ...

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense: Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up by John Rennie

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

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, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), 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.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "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.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Gal¿pagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].

The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

REST HERE: Scientific America
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-ans...&print=true

1. The Creation Itself

Scientific America, June 18, 2002

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.--John Rennie is editor in chief of Scientific American

SOURCE: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=15-ans...&print=true

The Book of Genesis is not to be taken literally. It is an allegorical story.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. It was not created in a literal six days. Genesis is not to be taken literally. It was written by people who were trying to understand a complex world. As Rev. Dr. Claus Westermann, Professor of Old Testament, University of Heidelberg states:

... The development of the book of Genesis was a long process extending over centuries. The first book of Moses, or Genesis, as we know it, is only the final stage of this process. Oral tradition—narratives, genealogies, itineraries—played a large part in the evolution of this book; it was a long way to the present unity that combines all of primeval and ancestral history. The question of the identity of the author (in the modern sense) of Genesis is irrelevant. It was not writers or poets who desired and first formulated these accounts; their origins lie in the human communities to whose life they belonged. Thus they express an understanding of God, of the world, and of humanity, which did not yet make distinctions between knowledge and belief, between science, philosophy, history, and religion. This explains in part the parallels to the themes of the creation story in many other cultures. These parallels were not necessarily due to literary derivation; rather, questions about origins were asked everywhere in early human history. Therefore, primeval events cannot be understood or described as the beginning of history; it is misguided to inquire about their “historicity.” The appropriate question to ask of this material is not, “Did it really happen that way?” but, “Is it our world that is being portrayed? Is this description of human beings accurate?” The essential fact is that, in describing creation, people for the first time grasped the world, and humanity, as a whole.

2. The Holy Bible

Using the Bible to prove the Bible is Circular Reasoning.

3. Problems with Abiogenesis

Talk Origins:

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
by Ian Musgrave
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Intro

Abiogenesis
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology by Chris Colby (Genetic Variation)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology

4. Problems with Evolution
5. Problems with the Fossil Record

Even during my fifteen years as a Christian, I believed in evolution. The evidence was simply overwhelming, and to deny it - - and I am speaking only for myself here - - would have been intellectually dishonest. So, to have my cake and eat it too, I believed in "Guided Evolution" - - that God created all life, and guided it on an evolutionary path over millions of years to where it is today. I see absolutely no reason why a Christian cannot believe in both God and evolution. It simply baffles me.

The evidence for evolution? If the fossil record isn't enough ... just look at the human body. Genetics ... Both apes and humans are 99% the same. You are also a walking Periodic Table--oxygen, hydrogen, zinc, magnesium, calcium, copper etc.--everything that makes up the earth, a star. And water? By weight we are some 72% water! Our blood? Nearly 85% water! The brain? 95% water! Also, why can you be born covered fully in hair (hypertrichosis) and have a tail (vestigial tail)? Why wisdom teeth, which are vestigial third molars? How can you live without an appendix and other once essential organs? Evolution!

That said, why would God deliberately create so many closely related hominid species--an extensive fossil record of human evolution? Why purposely create confusion amongst His followers? Why not make human beings so unique to this world--so unique that not another single creature even remotely resembles us--that their would be not the slightest doubt that we were created by a deity/force?

2. How did humans evolve?

Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. See "What is evolution?", "How does natural selection work?", and "How do organisms evolve?"

SOURCE: Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/

*ESSAY V: EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS
by Christian Robert J. Schneider
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

Intelligent Design
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/intelligent_design.htm

Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html

The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_i...nt_designs.html

Top 10 Missing Links
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/to...ssinglinks.html

*Scientific America: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie (editor in chief of Scientific American)
http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/gop-evolution.html

*National Center for Science Education (NCSE)
http://www.ncseweb.org/

*The New Yorker: DEVOLUTION: Why intelligent design isn’t.
by H. ALLEN ORR
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/index.html

Evolution multimedia library
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/index.html

6. Problems with Radiometeric Dating Methods

Talk Origins: Radiometeric Dating Methods
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html#index_r

7. Unexplained Phenomenon

Possibly ...

8. Personal Testimony

From whom? Not a living soul was a witness to the birth of life.

9. Miracles and Healings

In my forty years--fifteen as a devout Christian--and not in recorded history has a miracle, like that which occurred in the Bible, been observed--ever! Jesus supposedly stated that this would be the case--that believers would do greater miracles than he. Has never happened. No one has ever walked on water, calmed a storm, raised the dead, changed water into wine, made an amputated limb grow back--nothing! Now, if they don't occur today ... they never happened to the ancients, either.

Christian faith healers ... When you watch FH's in action, notice they never go near, nor heal, those in the wheelchair/hospital section of the audience. That speaks volumes. And the same thing applies to places like Lourdes. Millions of desperate people over the years seeking to be healed ... and of all those millions, "the Church" has recognized only sixty-five "miracles" (Independent medical investigators have found otherwise)! And poor Bernadette Soubirous (now Saint Bernadette) who got this whole process rolling with her "visions" of Mary, suffered from tuberculosis of the bone for years and died at age thirty-five! Sadly, it seems, the miracle[s] of Lourdes couldn't save her.

That said, miracles and healings were a dime-a-dozen in the ancient world. Jesus was no different from anyone else.

... In the healing miracles the encounter of the sick person with Jesus is usually followed by a remark about the severity of the disease. The healing is either accomplished through a word of Jesus (magical terms from Aramaic are sometimes preserved; (cf Mark 5:41; 7:34), through some manipulation (Mark 8:23), or a combination of both; the conclusion tells of the success of the healing and the applause of the bystanders. All these features correspond to the standard forms of the telling of exorcisms and healing narratives in [pagan] antiquity Nature miracles ... basic form and narrative schema .., closely correspond to those of analogous stories from the Greco-Roman world, including those that can be found in the apocryphal acts of the apostles.--History and Literature of Early Christianity, Volume 2, Introduction to the New Testament, 2d edition, Koester, Helmut, p. 63

10. Prophecies and Other Proofs

First, you must prove the validity of prophecy. Second, even if you could, how could prophecy possibly prove creationism?

Kindly,

Sean

As I earlier wrote, "I don’t think it is worthy to attack the veracity of the Old Testament writings, by basing the attack on errors made by copyists."
My above statement still stands, SQLserver.

Below, I am copy-pasting what I wrote on the 13th April concerning a major fulfilled Bible prophecy. Would you care to try to show how the prophecy in Daniel chapter 2 is "untrustworthy"? Of course, to disprove the prophecy, you would have to do considerable historical research, and show how the fulfilled events fail to match up with what Daniel told King Nebuchadnezzar..

Daniel interprets King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream.
The following are the historic and fulfilled events:

HEAD --