Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[laurasaur]

i made j make an account, be warned hes on my laptop right now and has been for about an hour, im sure hes posting a big long reply

[JayKay]

So here we have a omnipotent god, which created us. Yet in this modern world were the planet is being destroyed, church attendance is at record lows and intolerance is rife God fails to save what he created? Yet he will allow a single fishermen to survive in a whale?

Now you have moved onto questioning God as to his methods. Aside from the fact that this is not really what we are debating, I wonder why you think yours or anyone elses opinions on what God chooses to do actually matters. If his opinions and ideals differ to yours, so what?

And from what I have seen in your posts you haven't debunked any of our ideas.

Well, read my posts again. By using the statements of many prominent evolutionists, if nothing else, I have pointed out that evolution and creationism are in the same boat, scientificallywise=both are unfalsefiable theories, and neither fall under the rules of the scientific method (keeping in mind that both sides use the scientific in their interpretation of the evidence).

By applying exactly what you do I can say YOU assume the bible to be true,when the massive majority of evidence disproves it.

Of course I make assumptions! Since when have I denied it! If only evolutionists were so honest. But hang on, LET ME REPEAT MYSELF AGAIN, they do! Read up, and note that all hypothesis' are based on assumptions! And then we all go and test those assumptions using the scientific method. And again, the interpretation of the evidence that you have been exposed to makes you believe evolution is more probable. Remember, you can't unfortunately disprove either theory, as scientific method can't be tested on even'ts in the past.

Hell the mechanics of evolution might be wrong, it wouldnt be the first time science has been proved wrong. But whenever a scientific theory has been proved wrong it has been done so by emprical evidence of other scientists.

Absolutely true. Something we agree on.

Rocks don't lie. I went to boarding school for seven years and was exposed to christian teachings everyday of my school life, before that I went to sunday school, yet I like the majority I turned away because it doesn't stack up.

Rocks don't lie, agreed. But the various measurements used to estimate their age do! I'm going to write a post after this, this time attacking evolution, rather than merely defending creation, which will go to further detail, including the isochron method you mentioned. And by the way, I'm not going to defend the incompetency of any Christian teachers you may have had. There are incompetents out there.

And its hardly a comfort either, your promised a heaven and eternal life when you die. Im gona be eaten by worms

Just remember, your preferences have no sway on what may or may not be true, as I pointed out right at the beginning. QUOTE]

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Now you have...wonder why...his opinions...of many...assumptions!...Rocks don't lie...incompetency of any Christian teachers...have no sway on...the beginning.

That's hardley and hours worth.

Yay, i'm the first one to quote JK.

But certainly not the last.

[Arnifix]

Has anybody asked the zealot what credentials he has? What qualifications? Though I'm sure that qualifications mean nothing, as they're all judged on the wrong basis and the assumption that hundreds of years of study by the most brilliant minds in the world is correct.

SM: Maybe it just takes an awful lot of time to come up with such high quality bullshit.

[dgint]

I am a neutramonist which I filled in on my census form which means "I am god but I don't expect anyone else to believe in me"
dgint

[JayKay]

Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s.
How then has the light from galaxies which are 13 billion light years away reached us if the universe was created under 10,000 years ago?

Well done Dirtyape, here is a real issue, one that has been perhaps the most debated issue among young earth scientists. I address this in my next post.

And as for making assumptions, you will find that it is an inevitability to make assumptions when describing the universe.

Yippee! My point is getting through. Yes all theories require assumptions, and especially when theorising about the past;  and our assumptions are going to be based on unscientific  personal biases, just as the very famous Stephen Jay Gould pointed out in the quote I have already posted (people, I read your posts, please read mine).

The bible itself is based upon the assumption that it is in fact the word of god and not some fairy tale written a long time ago by 12 drunk shepards. Given that you cannot ever prove that it is the word of god - I would say your entire arguement is assumption.[

We have been through this before: you are correct to a degree; just as you have to assume that life formed from non life, and assume that gradual increases in genetic information are possible, although evolutionists admit that they will probably never be able prove it. (I'll address this further in next post). Read on: both our theories originate from frameworks, not evidence.

Genesis merely provides a framework, just as "we evolved using the rules of naturalism" is the framework of the evolutionary theory. Both are general ideas, around which we interpret the evidence we have;  you may choose to believe the Genesis account was made up by men. The "We Evolved Using Only the Rules of Naturalism" framework was also created by men. And don't think for a second that infact evolutionists came to that framework because of "evidence"; No, as the well reknowned evolutionists quoted above admitted, the framework is taken as a given. Infact, they even admit that when Darwin made it popular, he basically promoted "wicked lies" to popularise it. Its only since then that they have supposedly come up with evidence that "fits".  Here it is again: Kenneth Hsu, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 56(5): 729-730 (1986) although not a creationist stated after reading Darwin's The Origin of Species that "I agree...that Darwinism contains "wicked lies"; it is not a "natural law" formulated on the basis of factual evidence but a dogma, reflecting the dominating social philosophy of the last century". And no informed evolutionist would refute this.

Let me paraphrase the above paragraph to make my point clear: Creationists admit the Genesis account is a framework, which we test with evidence which in turn uses the scientific method, and to which we apply theories; Evolutionists (when pressed) admit that their theory is also based on a framework made by men, the framework being "We evolved via the rules of naturalism", and further admit that this framework was originally brought about by popular social philosophy, not evidence.

After all that, it is a matter of choosing which assumptions are supported by the evidence; and remember before you say "of course the evidence supports evolution!", remember that the evidence itself can be interpreted completely differently based on assumptions! If this is to hard for you to comprehend, then I suggest you read some excellent materials listed below to start you off:

Refuting Evolution 2 (What PBS and the Scientific community don't want you to know)(2002) by Dr. Jonathan Sarfarti (who incidently is a NZer based in the US, with a Ph.D in physical chemistry from Victoria University, and has contributed numerous technical papers in his field. He is a former New Zealand national chess champion, and incidently was not a Christian until he had decided there was more evidence for a young earth). The fact that the book is aimed at Christians does nothing to diminish his logic.

Also, Evolution: The fossils still say no! (1995) by Dr Duane T Gish, Ph.D (Biochemistry, Uni of California, Berkeley) also an author of numerous techincal articles in his field, and member of American Chemical Society and Fellow of the American Institute of Chemists.

Also, Michael Denton's:Evolution: A theory in crisis (he holds both an M.D. and a Ph.D from different UK universities, and incidently is not a creationist, he merely devastates the possibility of Evolution).

And don't think you prove anything by criticsing authors because they suggest and apply different assumptions, which happen to be suggested by a historical/religious document. It is good scientific process to apply different assumptions to see if they infact provide a better explanation. Neither does doing a google search to find an some evolutionist criticising them for not being "scientific" but merely religious, as we have already discussed that these bleatings are based on the fact that the ideas don't conform to the rules of Naturalism.

And remember, I bother to read evolutionary material. How about you try reading something you don't already agree with, if you really don't want to have your mind made for you by mainstream media?

[JayKay]

Has anybody asked the zealot what credentials he has? What qualifications? Though I'm sure that qualifications mean nothing, as they're all judged on the wrong basis and the assumption that hundreds of years of study by the most brilliant minds in the world is correct.

SM: Maybe it just takes an awful lot of time to come up with such high quality bullshit.

Still can't come up with anything constructive can you arnifix. Note that I'm not actually relying on my scientific knowledge, but rather refering you to others that do have credentials to their name. Just about all of them being evolutionists too, I should add!

And spacemonkey, if you were referring to my sometimes use of "..." in quotations, I do provide references for you to check that I'm not pulling these out of my arse. I'm not denying that these guys are evolutionists, just that they happen to be more honest than you lot!

[JayKay]

With regards to the distance of stars and the speed of light dirty ape, as I suggested, this is not a simple matter to explain. First of all, I'd like to suggest to you that you get your hands on the book Starlight and Time by Dr Russell Humphreys. He holds a Ph.D in physics from Lousiana State University, and works at Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear phyics, geophysics, pulsedpower research and theoritical atomic and nulcear physics.

Hang on gotta go will finish later.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

And spacemonkey, if you were referring to my sometimes use of "..." in quotations...

I wasn't.

[Simon_NZ]

Still can't come up with anything constructive can you arnifix. Note that I'm not actually relying on my scientific knowledge, but rather refering you to others that do have credentials to their name. Just about all of them being evolutionists too, I should add!

And spacemonkey, if you were referring to my sometimes use of "..." in quotations, I do provide references for you to check that I'm not pulling these out of my arse. I'm not denying that these guys are evolutionists, just that they happen to be more honest than you lot!

So now we are liers?

Still waiting for your attack.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

With regards to the distance of stars and the speed of light dirty ape, as I suggested, this is not a simple matter to explain. First of all, I'd like to suggest to you that you get your hands on the book Starlight and Time by Dr Russell Humphreys. He holds a Ph.D in physics from Lousiana State University, and works at Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear phyics, geophysics, pulsedpower research and theoritical atomic and nulcear physics.

Hang on gotta go will finish later.

Damn, I was so waitig for his reply on what dirtyape said.

[Arnifix]

Still can't come up with anything constructive can you arnifix. Note that I'm not actually relying on my scientific knowledge, but rather refering you to others that do have credentials to their name. Just about all of them being evolutionists too, I should add!

I'm not trying to come up with anything constructive. This is a non-event. Your blind faith in a supernatural will warp your views on everything to conform to your ignorant mindset. If you prove god exists, I'll agree with you. Until you do, I'll believe what I've always believed, that there is no divine supernatural being responsible for the all of existance.

One of the primary tools of creationist propaganda is the misquotation of respected scientists. So half of your quotes are not only deliberate misrepresentations to further your own view points, but also incredibly offensive and disrespectful to the scientists involved.

As the famous Stephen "MC" Hawking would say, "What we need more of is science."

[JayKay]

I'm not trying to come up with anything constructive. This is a non-event. Your blind faith in a supernatural will warp your views on everything to conform to your ignorant mindset. If you prove god exists, I'll agree with you. Until you do, I'll believe what I've always believed, that there is no divine supernatural being responsible for the all of existance.

If you understood any of what I have explained in my last few posts, you would recognise that evolution is also based on a blind faith in the framework: "We evolved from nonlife using only the rules of naturalism". You don't even need to read the quotes from the evolutionists who state this, to see that it is so: evolution became popular via Darwin using "evidence" current evolutionists debunk as useless (hence the term "neo-darwinism". Repeating myself AGAIN).

One of the primary tools of creationist propaganda is the misquotation of respected scientists. So half of your quotes are not only deliberate misrepresentations to further your own view points, but also incredibly offensive and disrespectful to the scientists involved.

Go on. Do some research of your own for a change and show that I am misquoting those scientists. Or just admit that you can't provide refutations to my answers. Stating that "this is a non event" after all the in depth material and unrefuted refutation I have provided shows you up to not only being ignorant on the issue, but also that you have absolutely no interest in challanging your comfortable predetermined beliefs.

Please some one, back me up here. If there was another person supporting creation making no effort to follow logical sequences, I would be the first to tell him to just let it be. Making statements to the effect of "Evolution is a given, why do we even bother discussing it" which a number of you continually proclaim in one way or other is not only being far more close minded than any creationist I have ever known, it is also the very reason people stop challenging what they are told to be true, which is exactly what Kenneth Hsu was describing as dangerous. Yes I am accusing you of being closedminded. Outrageous isn't it! Its creationists that are closeminded isn't it? Isn't it!? Gets us very far doesn't it, accusing and counter accusing each other of being closeminded. Give me a break, stating "its a non event" and telling me I'm misquoting respected scientists. What a pathetic way to weasel your way out of having to respond properly.

I am now going to completely ignore Arnifix, and anyone else who can't be bothered to read and comprehend my posts. If there is a hole in a line of logic, tell me. Actually I lie. I'm probably not selfcontrolled enough to ignore Arnifix and co, unfortunately. But I'll attempt to anyway.

[Zarkov]

I don't comprehend your posts.

Mind you, I haven't actually read any of them.

[BerG]

I stopped reading about 4 pages ago.

The part about people living to 850 years old was an insult to human intelligence.

[Hazard]

I stopped reading cos my head started to hurt.

[JayKay]

Right let me start again on the stars and light speed issue.

Well as I said, this is not a simple matter to explain. And let me stress, the following is no proof against evolution. It is merely a completely different theory of cosmology developed by a very intelligent, respected scientist, using the same mathematics and physics totally accepted by all cosmologists (including of course Einsteins various theories) and accepts (along with vitually all physicists) that there has been universe expansion in the past. These are all scientific processes that we all agree on. Where he differs from the various Big Bang theories is in the assumptions which Big Bangers make which are wholly unverifiable; instead he makes assumptions (again, admittedly unverifiable) based on what we find in Genesis. (As previously mentioned, Evolutionist theorists gather their assumptions from one unverifiable framework (naturalism) and creationists from another).This new cosmology seems to explain in one swoop all of the observations used to support the 'big bang', including progressive reshift, and cosmic microwave radiation.

Now, I'm sure you will want to understand this properly, Dirtyape, being openminded on the issue and happy to challange any idea that comes your way. I hope.  So, as I said, I'd like to suggest that you get your hands on the book Starlight and Time by Dr Russell Humphreys. This is because there is absolutely no way I can condense the workings of the theory into a postable amount and make it make sense! Humphreys holds a Ph.D in physics from Lousiana State University, and works at Sandia National Laboratories in nuclear phyics, geophysics, pulsedpower research and theoritical atomic and nulcear physics. He holds two patents, and has been awarded twice by Sandia for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

What I can do, if locating the book is to much of an ask, is perhaps, if you ask nicely, pdf a condensed overview of the theory that I have, and provide a link to it.

Needless to say, it is a remarkable theory, one which provides the necessary explanations to your questions. It has, of course been vigourously  opposed by believers in the big bang, who have claimed to found flaws in it (Conner, SR and Page DN, 1998, Starlight and Time is the Big Bang, CEN Technical Journal 12(2):195-212. However Humphreys has succesfully defended it, and developed it further (Humphreys DR 1998. New vistas of space time rebut the critics. CEN Technical Journal 12920:195-212.

Obviously, discussion on it is not to be expected to be found widely in evolutionary based science publications, as it does not incorporate Naturalist assumptions. (Remember guys, no more "but everyone believes in the big bang" refutations please, as remember: a majority opinion provides only comfort in ones beliefs, but not additional evidence or proof).

Right hold it there, I have to pick some friends up from the rollingstones concert; I have all my "attacking" material ready and waiting (doubt me at your peril!)-Im itching to get it down, If only I had the selfcontrol to only respond to posts which have involved effort induced thought processes!

[JayKay]

I stopped reading about 4 pages ago.

The part about people living to 850 years old was an insult to human intelligence.

Based on the evidence you've been exposed to. K really must go now.  :bounce:

[dirtyape]

Let's just cut to the chase and get to the root of the problem.

The reason why people dismiss creationism is this:

creationism requires god


And seeing as how the whole "god" topic is a subject open to multiple interpretations there is never going to be a accepted singular answer.

Now, in lieu of god, the only other option for creation of life on earth is Evolution. Hence the reason why the non-christians amoung us adopt it - they have no choice. It may not be flawless - no one denies that (all theories have flaws). But its still better than nothing. The real arguement here isn't evolution vs creationism - it's non-christianity vs christianity.

I personally don't believe in a christian god, for my own reasons, and so i will never ever in a billion years agree with creationism. Whats more, seeing as how it is fundamentally religious in origin i wouldn't want my children "brainwashed" with it either (they can look it up when they are adults and able to draw their own conclusions).

Oh and for everyone who is defending or attacking theories here, know that if everything is assumption there can be no absolutes. So what are you actually arguing? Opinions have no merit. Be secure in your own assumptions. Thats all that counts.

[Arnifix]

Richard Dawkins deliberately mislead, then misrepresented by creationists.

Since you're so fond of quotes, here's one I found.

Stephen Jay Gould

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

Strange that you mention Kenneth Hsu, since his article “When the Mediterranean Dried Up” (Scientific American, December 1972 , page 26 to 36) and book “The Mediterranean was a Desert” (Princeton University Press, 1983) offers some solid evidence that the “great flood” was a load of tripe.

In response to the creation = religion and evolution = science, I’d like to point out a few things in relation to your comment.

…as well as there being ardent creationists on the very team that sent the first men to the moon, the fact that Newton, Faraday, Mendel, Pasteur to name a very few, plus nobel prize winners, thousands of science PhD holders, prominent researchers etc are and were all ardent creationists shows that idea to be a great fallacy.

Neither Newton or Faraday were biologists. So they are not exactly in a position to argue creationism. In fact, Frank E. Manuel wrote in the book “The Religion of Isaac Newton” (Clarendon Press, 1974, page 63) that “There would come a time, he [Newton] told John Conduitt, when Trinitarian doctrines hallowed by the Church would be considered as outlandish as Catholic transubstantiation.”
He also made deliberate efforts to keep science and his personal religion separate.
“Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial I have left to the consideration of my readers.”

Faraday, apparently, thought along similar lines, stating in a letter to Ada Lovelace that:
“I do not think it at all necessary to tie the study of the natural sciences & religion together and in my intercourse with my fellow creatures that which is religious & that which is philosophical have ever been two distinct things.”

The reason, in part, behind this was that as scientific progress was made it became painfully obvious to both men that science was driving a wedge between man and God. Strangely enough, Louis Pasteur confirms this: "the more one attempts to approach God through science the further one distances oneself from Him…there is an insuperable gap between science and metaphysics. Experimental science is essentially positivistic and has nothing to do with the essence of things."

And finally Mendel. Mendel too believed in God. However your description of him as a creationist is entirely unfoundered, as he accepted both evolution and natural selection as fact. Mendel’s teacher and mentor, Franz Unger at the University of Vienna, had already aroused Mendel’s interest with his own theory of evolution, which was in some ways similar to that of Jean-Bapiste Lamarck.

Anyone who can use google can easily ascertain that creationists have a habit of listing scientists who are (or “were”) creationists. Ie. Answersingenesis.org (Hereafter referred to as AIG)

This technique quite obviously bears little relevance to, well, anything. As I have already mentioned, scientists CAN have religious beliefs (though my personal belief is that in many cases this was primarily due to the possible social repercussions of the time), but all the scientists you have mentioned made an effort to distinguish their beliefs from their research.

The other flaw in this technique is even more basic. NOT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WERE CREATIONISTS. Though I do not have the time, or the patience to research all the people on the AIG list, I can make several points (this will require knowledge of the list at AIG that I have previously linked.).

You will note that the list is titled “Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?” AIG themselves admit that these people were NOT creationists, they merely believed in a creator. To refer to anyone who died prior to Wallace and Darwin’s 1858 paper on evolution as a creationist is to overstep the bounds of reasonable assumption. You mention that evolution “was well known during the time of even Newton”. However in the research I have done on the subject it does not appear that there was any serious interest in the subject until Wallace and Darwin’s paper was released, Darwin’s book being the most accurate origin (of species, lol) of modern thought on evolution and therefore creationists (of all kinds) could not have existed (in their current, antievolutionary, form).

The intermediary fish, which you complained that nobody cared about, is a dull discovery. It wouldn’t be on the front page of every paper from here to Islamabad if it weren’t going to be exciting/controversial. Off the top of my head, the theory of a water snake of some variety slithering it’s way onto land to avoid a water-bound predator seems likely enough. The predator follows the snake onto land, so the snake evolves a more efficient method of movement on land, legs. Etc etc etc. And don’t get all up in my face about this idea, it literally came off the top of my head at 1 in the morning.

To challenge yet another of your “sources”, John Woodmorappe/Jans Peczkis is known to deliberately misquote with the specific goal of misrepresenting the work of respected authorities. His own work on the other hand, has been widely debunked. It is embarrassing he is actually as qualified as he is, with a BA in Biology and a MA in Geology, considering the sorry state of his professional life.

The Wikipedia entry on Peczkis is short, but the highlights of it are this.

In several of the papers he has submitted to geological journals he lists himself as a member of the faculty at the American Geological Institute, yet is not listed by their geosciences department as a member of staff. There is no other evidence “that he currently teaches science or is a research fellow at any university.”

Wikipedia references both of his primary works having been debunked by two geologists, both currently members of faculty at universities, and more interestingly, both “creationists”.

Dr Kevin R. Henke is the gentleman responsible for the exposure of Peczkis’ dubious references and quotations. In this article, he illustrates some of the techniques used by Peczkis to skew quotations and figures to reflect his New Earth theory creationist approach.

Sure, I here you cry "ridiculous!" But thats because based on your belief that there is no such supernatural, which is in turn based on your belief in evolution, there is no room for such supernatural events. This leads to the circular reasoning of most evolutionists which lock them into their naturalistic world view: Special creation is ridiculous because it invokes the supernatural; we know there is no supernatural because evolution points to this fact; we know evolution must be true because the only other current alternative is the preposterous creation theory; and we know special creation is ridiculous because it invokes the supernatural! And (subconsciously) around and around it goes.

You criticize evolution for making assumptions, and yet you have obviously been under the belief that we/I subscribe to the philosophy of ontological “naturalism”. In my case, this is certainly incorrect, as I would place myself firmly in the methodological camp.

Regardless, I reckon its pretty cool that I just basically blew your flawed assumptions out of the water using simple logic

Pardon? What qualifications do you have again? I notice you never actually answered my question, instead choosing to insult my intelligence, referring to me as “closedminded” and telling me to “do some research”.

[Arnifix]

It just goes to show that most people who believe in Evolution do so because: a) the general idea seems pretty ok b) most people believe it c) you'd rather believe it than believe that there is a supernatural d) you haven't bothered to investigate the arguments against it.

Again, you manage to insult the intelligence of the members of this forum. I would suspect that the majority of people would believe in evolution because some of the most intelligent minds in the past 150 years have been studying this subject with great scrutiny and when they say “Evolution is the most probable theory,” then it’s good enough for most people. I especially object to c) as you know very little about the majority of the people on these forums, though I can only speak for myself, and despite that, the different schools of thought, referring to both evolutionary and creationist, can be vastly dissimilar. Methodological and ontological “naturalism” can be seen as the two primary differing evolutionary views, while creationism has multiple varieties and subgroups of thought, the main groups being Young-Earth Creationism (to which you appear to adhere), Old-Earth Creationism, Theistic “Evolutionism” and Neo-Creationism. The difference between a Young-Earth Creationist and an Old-Earth Creationist is a large one, and it would be much appreciated if you didn’t simply lump us all together, as I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate it.

Just as a suggestion, if you are going to investigate the Bible, use a more modern version which doesn't incorporate old English. Even I find it hard to make heads or tails of 400 year old translations. I suggest the NIV, its straight forward and concise.

It is not suprising that you suggest a newer translation of the bible. As translations occur, the story changes, dramatically. Similar to a game of Chinese whispers, but taking place over thousands of years. For example, go to the library and find yourself a copy of Richard Lattimores translation of Homer’s Iliad. Now find another translation of The Iliad. A 50 year gap between translations and a different translator completely alters the tale. This effect would have been even more pronounced when The Iliad was still an oral poem, passed down from poet to poet. How do you think this has effected the bible over the hundreds of years since the first copy was made. I have a strange suspicion that if I say five scholars down, two with evolutionary biases and two with creationist biases and one control subject and set them to it, the evolutionary and creationist copies would come out vastly different. And I suspect the evolutionary copies would have a lot more in common with the control copy than the creationist copies would. And a sidenote: a four hundred year old translation of the bible would be considered to be early modern English, not old English. If you want old English you need to go back circa 1050AD. Early modern English is a piece of cake by comparasion.

It should read: ... because it does not conform to the humanistic rules of Naturalism. As mentioned previously ruling out a supernatural just because we want to does not make a theory more scientific or more logical.

No, it shouldn’t. The highest courts in America, a country where 47% of the people surveyed in a recent study believed that the world was “created”, have laid creation “science” to rest as a illogical proposal. The appeal previously quoted by Simon states, and I quote, “The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.” This, in and of itself, points directly towards what I see as one of the core problems with creation science, and indeed some Christian attitudes.

The acceptance of “naturalism” or creation “science” would stymie the advancement of science. Science, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, has the primary definition of “The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something specified or implied; also, with wider reference, knowledge (more or less extensive) as a personal attribute. The middle ages (and in many respects the dark ages) are a perfect example of the lack of scientific exploit in a Christian-dominated society. Religious study was one of the few accepted schools of thought that made any advancement in these times, and the less divine sciences paid the price, with an epic lack of innovation and development. The resurgence of Christian ideals is already beginning to effect our own society, both culturally (abortions) and scientifically (stem cell research and cloning).

If creation “science” had been allowed into American schools, it would have spread, and with it a new dark age of scientific repression would almost certainly have begun.

I presume by "the last 200 yeasr of scientific investigation" you mean the naturalistic interpretation of the evidence around us. This I think has been thoroughly dealt with. Would you like that long list of anti evolutionist scientists who have contributed hugely to the furtherment of operational science ?

You have already said multiple times that multiple people believing something doesn’t increase it’s likelihood of being truth so what is the point in showing our fine ancestor a list of  “antievolutionist scientists”? Operational science? Just say methodological “naturalism”. It’s what you mean. Because that is what those “antievolutionary” scientists you tout like heroes have been doing. They’ve been acting like any other atheistic, nihilistic, satan-worshiping scientist, because in the real world, God doesn’t build a bridge. Or design a microchip. Or smooth current to ensure a better supply of power.

Creationists admit the Genesis account is a framework, which we test with evidence which in turn uses the scientific method, and to which we apply theories; Evolutionists (when pressed) admit that their theory is also based on a framework made by men, the framework being "We evolved via the rules of naturalism", and further admit that this framework was originally brought about by popular social philosophy, not evidence.

I have multiple problems with this paragraph. Your statement about “Creationists” shows either more of that JayKay blinding arrogance or a serious lack of understanding of the various different creationist groups. For example, omphalos hypothesis, Old-Earth creationism, gap/restitution creationism, day-age creationism and progressive creationism all differ in some respects to your idea of creationism fitting the “framework” of Genesis. And this is ignoring theories such as theistic evolutionism and neo-creationism, the main representative of which is Intelligent Design.

Your statement that “We evolved via the rules of naturalism” being the framework within which evolutionary scientists study is also flawed in the extreme. If I had to sum up the framework of modern science it would be “To make hypothesis, test these hypothesis’ and make assumptions about the nature of existence based on empirical evidence yielded by observing these test.” But that is merely my own interpretation.

The advantage of this framework for scientific endeavour is that when using the framework it ignores the possibility of the supernatural, and only takes into account what can be observed and measured. This methodological approach ensures that the most logical, and reasonable theory that can be made, given the accuracy of the experiment, is made. Surprisingly, “creation science” (for the most part) can be tested and evaluated under this framework, though whether the results can stand up to outside inspection is another matter altogether.

Still can't come up with anything constructive can you arnifix. Note that I'm not actually relying on my scientific knowledge, but rather refering you to others that do have credentials to their name. Just about all of them being evolutionists too, I should add!

Rhetorical questions generally have question marks at the end. Or at least, they do in my experience. Of course, God’s rules of grammar may be different to mine. And I hope I’ve been constructive enough for you. Or should I say destructive. Well, it doesn’t really matter, because you’ll still be snide and arrogant, won’t you. (See, I’m trying out God’s grammar. I don’t like it much.)

I think I have provided more than enough evidence of the credentials of the others who you have mentioned, or misquoted/misrepresented, in the cases of the prominent supporters of evolution.

Now, I'm sure you will want to understand this properly, Dirtyape, being openminded on the issue and happy to challange any idea that comes your way. I hope.

I have a suspicion that I am not the only one who is offended by your outstanding capacity for arrogance.

In response to your post about the light speed issue (I’m out of order and it’s unprofessional, I know), I would make a few points.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, while still listed as an employee of Sandia National Laboratories is only listed as having a mailstop there, with no contact phone or fax number. He is also notably absent from the extensive Sandia database, which would indicate he has not published any articles in recent times. Sandia, of course, distances itself from his creationist propaganda and it is reported that he has even refused to discuss his private studies on radiocarbon dating with his colleagues at Sandia because they are “non-work related”. Perhaps this is because his work is highly controversial, and frequently lambasted by other scientists, including the aforementioned Dr. Kevin R. Henke. Dave Thomas, a New Mexico physicist, compiled this page of information on the theories, rather convincingly debunking them.

[Arnifix]

I am now going to completely ignore Arnifix, and anyone else who can't be bothered to read and comprehend my posts.

Ug. I find your posts so hard to comprehend. So full of lies and trickery. It takes me hundreds of man-seconds to refute them.

However, luckily for you, I am a forgiving Arnifix. Say sorry, go away and I promise I’ll never bother you again. Actually, I’ll just settle for the going away part.

[Simon_NZ]

And little boy waits and hopes.

[Black Heart]

I said "creationsim isn't a theory..." you respond

But it IS a theory

and then

I'm afraid you got your sentence around the wrong way Blackheart: Because Evolution/Creation aren't testable, they aren't scientific theory

So after arguing with me you then state after quoting some circus clowns opinions the exact damn thing. The only significant difference is you've included evolution. Let me make it VERY clear. I am not saying evolution is good / correct /complete. I am pointing out that creationism is vastly flawed.

Eventually the question is "how did life begin?"
Your answer "god did it" or equally not an answer "aliens did it" is no use what so ever. Scientists are atempting to understand the HOW. as in by what means. the question assuming creation and god are responsible for starting life, simply changes to "how did god begin life?"

Perhaps you're too absorbed by the concepts in your version of an answer, to actually see what the point of the question is.

And as you have assumed 'supernatural' answers also fall well short of what I'd accept.

And your not understanding the implications of still finding new life are bewildering. new life may possibly have new genes.

[Black Heart]

the oldest living tree is 4797 Years old care to explain that biblically?

also explain your gene decay as it applies to flora.