Creationism vs. Darwinism

[Zuleus]

Ahh don't worry I haven't left this guild at all since I was invited to it. I am really happy to see a Christian guild on here and didn't even know one existed until awhile ago. I have not posted in awhile because there wasn't that many responses. I'm glad people looked more into this cause it's important to understand what they believe in.

I can't say that I'm an expert scholar in the science field but I've taken a few classes in science and anthropology and found a few interesting things in college. These are some of the few things I do believe in.

Pangea (or the continental drift theory). I believe this theory because scientists have studied the ridges of beach lines from one side to the other and have found there might be a possibility our continents might have been connected to each other at one time, though I don't believe it took millions of years as it has been suggested. One show I watched on PBS outside of class showed that there are many cities underwater and some of them are buried under much erosion combined with the wind and the elements. I think this explains a lot of our history, but it doesn't explain the extinction of dinosaurs.

God's selection. Ok so no such thing really exists, it is just my name of natural selection. I call it this because while Charles Darwin studied the differences in birds on the Galapagos Islands and noticed the different body structures, I think that if the continents shifted at a certain points with each animal seperated into different seasons, then it should hopefully explain while one animal may have different weights and colors from another. Mammals in colder environments usually have more fur and weight to keep themselves warmer, while mammals in hotter environments are thinner and have less fur. I know that in the time of Noah's ark, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights but I wondered if the continents changed in position. Mind everyone that these are just my thoughts and not something I'm trying to prove as fact.

My anthropology class studied both the biblical and the scientific side and I did a paper in what I supported and why (which was the biblical side). Yes I know that God can perform miracles but he also decided which way the wind should blow every day. God decides how each day will go and it is amazing to me that there are hidden artifacts that support biblical history. I do not think that evolution is fact but that animals adapt to new environments. Human beings even dump old tanks and ships into the ocean on purpose while fish adapt to new environments.  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

How can you believe in natural selection and not evolution?

I seriously am convinced that creationist have never looked at the definition of the word "evolution" before. eek The two are mutually inclusive. To say that you don't believe natural selection leads to evolution is like saying that you don't believe the arrangement of atoms leads to molecules. confused  

[Pirate Munke]

I'm at work right now, I so don't have the time needed to respond to zz1000zz's post. I will say, however, that she is a prime example of someone reading through material with an already biased opinon. Arguing with someone like that is like arguing with a brick wall... Also, I'm getting frustrated because everything I am saying is going in one ear and out the other. So I'll take time to think about how best to structure my reply and cool off a bit.

There is only one important thing that really decides it for me. When you take away all of the scientific facts and all of the studies and results and opinions, the only only thing that truly matters is the Bible, and the Bible says that the earth was created in six days. If you want to tell God He's a liar, go for it. I promise to come back later tonight or tomorrow to post more about the sources I've been reading and studying from. I have nothing to hide.

FushiginaButterfly

How can you believe in natural selection and not evolution?

I seriously am convinced that creationist have never looked at the definition of the word "evolution" before. The two are mutually inclusive. To say that you don't believe natural selection leads to evolution is like saying that you don't believe the arrangement of atoms leads to molecules.

Well, you have me there. The general idea of evolution is that it's evil, and the assumption about evolution is that anyone who believes in it thinks that bacterium eventually evolved into people. While looking up the definitions of evolution and natural selection on Wikipedia, I realized my mistake in thinking that evolution only applied to the wider scale. I will agree that evolution does take place in the form of natural selection, but I still do not believe that we evolved from germs. I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys, nor birds from dinosaurs. Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no.  

[Matt Pniewski]

Pirate Munke

I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys, nor birds from dinosaurs. Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no.

So then what's this Tailbone thing all about?  

[Pirate Munke]

Here is a little more information from my sources, proving they aren't as Weekly World Newsish as zzz1000zzz tries to make them sound. I'll start out with the Answers in Genesis site and then move on to the others. All of these are recommended by me for you to go and read in your spare time. I am not here to spoonfeed you my beliefs and sources and 'proof'. God wants you go figure things out on your own and make your own decision. This is what free will is all about.


Evolution Exposed
Written by Roger Patterson
Roger Patterson earned his B.S. Ed. degree in biology from Montana State University. Before joining the curriculum development team at Answers in Genesis, he taught for eight years in Wyoming’s public school system and assisted the Wyoming Department of Education in developing assessments and standards for children in public schools.

This discusses(from creationists point of view) the history of evolution and why it doesn't work. I am not going to type out each and every argument when all you have to do is click a few times. Don't be lazy, and don't try to argue that I'm afraid of posting it because I know I'm wrong. That's just rediculous; if I was wrong I wouldn't be posting at all. If I find out that I'm wrong about something, I'll rethink things.

Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs
Stunning New Research Overturns Widely Held Evolutionary Idea
by A.P. Galling

This article is referencing recent discoveries by doctoral student Devon Quick, commented on by zoologist John Ruben. It is now clear that due to the varying aspects of the reptile and bird anatomies that birds never really evolved from the dinosaurs. The closed thing evolutionists had to proof is now defunct.


Proof of Creation?
Written by Ken Ham
Founder and CEO, Answers in Genesis–US
B.Sc., environmental biology, Queensland Institute of Technology; Dip. Ed., University of Queensland; Honorary Doctor of Divinity, Temple Baptist College; Honorary Doctorate in Literature, Liberty University

I came across this in The Answers book I'd borrowed from my mom-in-law, and I think it's a superb highlight of the argument creationism vs evolution. It shows how presuppositions effect the outcome of how you view the earth's history and how we got here. This article is everything I've been trying to say, as far as how it's like arguing with a brick wall. Until you decide to change how you think, no matter what 'evidence' or theories I put in front of you, you'll always reject them.

The Answers in Genesis site has many, many articles on subjects like this one. Some aren't as solid or well-researched as others, but then evolutionary scientists are like that as well. Some are more serious and focused than others.


www.s8int.com
This website is very informative with numerous, numerous articles on each subject it lists. It's basically an archive of articles attempting to prove that the Bible is true. This would include evidence that man was originally perfect(Adam and Eve) and as generations went on, we lost most of the good things that we had been given. I would read the homepage first, because it explains why the articles sometimes mention millions of years and evolution. Instead of cutting out what they want people to hear, they post the entire article in its original form to better prove their point.

DNA, the Ultimate Oopart!
This article talks in-depth about DNA and how absolutely wonderous it really is. By examining the complexity of DNA, the building block of life itself, it shows how it's completely impossible for life just to 'poof' into existance. Something I found particularly interesting is that DNA is actually a language! I have not researched this idea yet, so I am not personally stating it as a fact. Also, check out the article on page 2. It's an interview with a scientist named Gene Meyers who works at Celera Genomics in which he brings up the topic of intelligent design. A scientist bringing up intelligent design! :O

The Boneyards
Yet another bunch of webpages all about fossils and how they form and why it possibly disproves the old earth view. It brings up the questions that evolutionist scientists don't try to answer or ignore completely. Also it examines some 'ooparts' that completely disprove evolution entirely, if looked at from a purely scientific view! The dates and ages just don't add up!

Matt Pniewski

Pirate Munke

I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys, nor birds from dinosaurs. Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no.

So then what's this Tailbone thing all about?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/setting-record-straight-vestigial
Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs
Written by Dr. David DeWitt
Director, Center for Creation Studies, Liberty University

Quote:

The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails.” But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.5

Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the a**s in place.” In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

I urge you to read the entire article for other vestigial organs you might think prove evolution.  

[Pirate Munke]

I would like to just say really quickly that it's kind of odd how these discussions go. Usually people who are pro-evolution pick out the worst possible articles and forms of proof and then proceed to rip it apart. They attack and debase the opposition rather than show proof of their own for evolution. So if you have ultimate proof that we evolved from monkeys which evolved from bacteria which was poofed into existence, please show me. I really am tired of being attacked, and seeing other creationists attacked, while evolutionists sit back with their popcorn and fling the daggers.  

[Matt Pniewski]

Pirate Munke

I urge you to read the entire article for other vestigial organs you might think proves evolution.

Read the article. All it does is pretty much pick apart a better article, and go "Nuh-uh".

EDIT: Let me elaborate... The article pretty much claims the use of organs and bones that are said to have evolved over times sort of proves that they are necessary.... I.E. the fact that the Tailbone is a useful part of our body means it didn't evolve.

Which is actually a pretty flimsy arguement.  

[Pirate Munke]

Matt Pniewski

Pirate Munke

I urge you to read the entire article for other vestigial organs you might think proves evolution.

Read the article. All it does is pretty much pick apart a better article, and go "Nuh-uh".

EDIT: Let me elaborate... The article pretty much claims the use of organs and bones that are said to have evolved over times sort of proves that they are necessary.... I.E. the fact that the Tailbone is a useful part of our body means it didn't evolve.

Which is actually a pretty flimsy arguement.

Saying that the human tailbone's structure looks like an animal's tail so it has to be so, is also rather flimsy.

For those of you who aren't too familiar with what the tailbone actually looks like:





I graduated from massage school and had to take extensive anatomy, so I'm pretty confident when I say that it's designed that way more for stabilization rather than what's left of a tail. Edit: The tailbone curves inward, not outward... if it had been a tail wouldn't it be curved out and away from the body?

Does it say anywhere in the Bible that we had a tail? He made us perfect, thus we wouldn't have had a tail. razz  

[zz1000zz]

Pirate Munke

I'm at work right now, I so don't have the time needed to respond to zz1000zz's post. I will say, however, that she is a prime example of someone reading through material with an already biased opinon. Arguing with someone like that is like arguing with a brick wall... Also, I'm getting frustrated because everything I am saying is going in one ear and out the other. So I'll take time to think about how best to structure my reply and cool off a bit.

If you have a problem with my response, please explain what the problem is. I put a fair amount of effort into making that post about Saturn's rings, and you dismiss it as nothing more than me being biased. Do you agree the articles I mentioned in my posts are wrong? Do you agree Saturn's rings in no way show what the authors claimed they show? If not, why not?

In a discussion you are not allowed to simply dismiss things without reason. You are especially not allowed to do so while making derogatory remarks. If you are not willing to actually discuss material, all you are doing by posting it is spamming. Why should I respond to any more of your links when you completely ignored the last response I made?

You accused me of simply being biased, then completely ignored my response. That is insulting and ridiculous.  

[Pirate Munke]

zz1000zz

Pirate Munke

I'm at work right now, I so don't have the time needed to respond to zz1000zz's post. I will say, however, that she is a prime example of someone reading through material with an already biased opinon. Arguing with someone like that is like arguing with a brick wall... Also, I'm getting frustrated because everything I am saying is going in one ear and out the other. So I'll take time to think about how best to structure my reply and cool off a bit.

If you have a problem with my response, please explain what the problem is. I put a fair amount of effort into making that post about Saturn's rings, and you dismiss it as nothing more than me being biased. Do you agree the articles I mentioned in my posts are wrong? Do you agree Saturn's rings in no way show what the authors claimed they show? If not, why not?

In a discussion you are not allowed to simply dismiss things without reason. You are especially not allowed to do so while making derogatory remarks. If you are not willing to actually discuss material, all you are doing by posting it is spamming. Why should I respond to any more of your links when you completely ignored the last response I made?

You accused me of simply being biased, then completely ignored my response. That is insulting and ridiculous.

The last thing I meant was to insult you. I do not wish to insult anyone, I merely wish to spread knowledge and have deep discussions so that I can continue to learn, myself.

I did have a problem with your response, but it isn't you personally. It's how all people react when a topic they care much about is under fire. If you read through the Proof of Creation? article, you'll learn what I meant by what I had to say going in one ear and out the other. It seems like you clicked on my links, barely glanced at them, and then denounced them for garbage. The one article you did manage to pick out:

A) had nothing to do with evolution and the topic at hand, and
B) was obviously one of the weaker articles avaliable

That being said, I would like to quote what I said earlier about the Answers in Genesis site:

Quote:

Some aren't as solid or well-researched as others, but then evolutionary scientists are like that as well. Some are more serious and focused than others.

Just because one article is very loose and not very well researched does not mean the entire site is garbage. I have not a clue when it comes to how old Saturn's rings are, nor do I care. If somehow it becomes imperative that I know, then I'll research more. The truth of the matter is you could be completely right about the giant planet's rings, but it really doesn't effect this discussion one way or the other.

I can sit here and pull up webpage after book reference after Bible reference, but when it all comes down to it, I have one argument. Evolution is not in the Bible. According to God's Word, He created us in His image. It really amazes me how stubborn some people can be in refusing His truth.

 

[zz1000zz]

If you say science is wrong, you have to be willing to back up your claim. If you want to go with the Bible and ignore science, that is fine. But so long as you claim science is wrong, I will continue to show it correct. Plenty of Christians have no problem accepting science and religion together, and the reasons for that are important things to understand.

Pirate Munke

Just because one article is very loose and not very well researched does not mean the entire site is garbage. I have not a clue when it comes to how old Saturn's rings are, nor do I care.

The article was not "very loose." It was obviously wrong. Anyone who had the slightest understanding of the subject material would have known it was wrong. If that article was that wrong, why should I believe anything from that site? The first three articles I read from it were so horribly wrong, how could I ever trust what the site says about other subjects? It is not like you pointed to a specific article as good, you just pointed to a bunch of links and said, "There you go." If the various links I followed were untrustworthy, why would I assume any of the others are better?

I find it remarkable you say, "It seems like you clicked on my links, barely glanced at them, and then denounced them for garbage." I posted an in-depth rebuttal to one of your sources. You did not even bother to describe the source. I gave an explanation for why I dismissed each of your sources, and you did not even respond to that.

If you want to go with a literal interpretation of the Bible, fine. Don't talk about science then. Science, beyond any doubt, shows the Earth is not under 10,000 years old. If you want to discuss what you perceive as flaws in science, you can, but be willing to discuss them. So far you have done nothing to discuss them.

So let us try this again. Could you point to a specific article on that site which I should read to see the support for your position?  

[Fushigi na Butterfly]

Pirate Munke

Here is a little more information from my sources, proving they aren't as Weekly World Newsish as zzz1000zzz tries to make them sound. I'll start out with the Answers in Genesis site and then move on to the others. All of these are recommended by me for you to go and read in your spare time. I am not here to spoonfeed you my beliefs and sources and 'proof'. God wants you go figure things out on your own and make your own decision. This is what free will is all about.


Evolution Exposed
Written by Roger Patterson
Roger Patterson earned his B.S. Ed. degree in biology from Montana State University. Before joining the curriculum development team at Answers in Genesis, he taught for eight years in Wyoming’s public school system and assisted the Wyoming Department of Education in developing assessments and standards for children in public schools.

This discusses(from creationists point of view) the history of evolution and why it doesn't work. I am not going to type out each and every argument when all you have to do is click a few times. Don't be lazy, and don't try to argue that I'm afraid of posting it because I know I'm wrong. That's just rediculous; if I was wrong I wouldn't be posting at all. If I find out that I'm wrong about something, I'll rethink things.

Birds Did Not Evolve from Dinosaurs
Stunning New Research Overturns Widely Held Evolutionary Idea
by A.P. Galling

This article is referencing recent discoveries by doctoral student Devon Quick, commented on by zoologist John Ruben. It is now clear that due to the varying aspects of the reptile and bird anatomies that birds never really evolved from the dinosaurs. The closed thing evolutionists had to proof is now defunct.


Proof of Creation?
Written by Ken Ham
Founder and CEO, Answers in Genesis–US
B.Sc., environmental biology, Queensland Institute of Technology; Dip. Ed., University of Queensland; Honorary Doctor of Divinity, Temple Baptist College; Honorary Doctorate in Literature, Liberty University

I came across this in The Answers book I'd borrowed from my mom-in-law, and I think it's a superb highlight of the argument creationism vs evolution. It shows how presuppositions effect the outcome of how you view the earth's history and how we got here. This article is everything I've been trying to say, as far as how it's like arguing with a brick wall. Until you decide to change how you think, no matter what 'evidence' or theories I put in front of you, you'll always reject them.

The Answers in Genesis site has many, many articles on subjects like this one. Some aren't as solid or well-researched as others, but then evolutionary scientists are like that as well. Some are more serious and focused than others.


www.s8int.com
This website is very informative with numerous, numerous articles on each subject it lists. It's basically an archive of articles attempting to prove that the Bible is true. This would include evidence that man was originally perfect(Adam and Eve) and as generations went on, we lost most of the good things that we had been given. I would read the homepage first, because it explains why the articles sometimes mention millions of years and evolution. Instead of cutting out what they want people to hear, they post the entire article in its original form to better prove their point.

DNA, the Ultimate Oopart!
This article talks in-depth about DNA and how absolutely wonderous it really is. By examining the complexity of DNA, the building block of life itself, it shows how it's completely impossible for life just to 'poof' into existance. Something I found particularly interesting is that DNA is actually a language! I have not researched this idea yet, so I am not personally stating it as a fact. Also, check out the article on page 2. It's an interview with a scientist named Gene Meyers who works at Celera Genomics in which he brings up the topic of intelligent design. A scientist bringing up intelligent design! :O

The Boneyards
Yet another bunch of webpages all about fossils and how they form and why it possibly disproves the old earth view. It brings up the questions that evolutionist scientists don't try to answer or ignore completely. Also it examines some 'ooparts' that completely disprove evolution entirely, if looked at from a purely scientific view! The dates and ages just don't add up!

Matt Pniewski

Pirate Munke

I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys, nor birds from dinosaurs. Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no.

So then what's this Tailbone thing all about?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/setting-record-straight-vestigial
Setting the Record Straight on Vestigial Organs
Written by Dr. David DeWitt
Director, Center for Creation Studies, Liberty University

Quote:

The tailbone or coccyx has often been presumed to be vestigial and a leftover remnant to our alleged mammal and reptilian ancestors who also had tails. Evidence that is cited includes the variable number of bony segments humans can have (usually 4 but can be 3 or 5) as well as “babies born with tails.” But these so called tails are not really tails at all and instead are a type of fatty tumor. There are no bones or muscles in them at all, and thus, it cannot truly be considered a vestigial organ.5

Spinney acknowledges that the coccyx now has a “modified function, notably as an anchor point for the muscles that hold the a**s in place.” In fact, the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles that form the entire pelvic diaphragm. Therefore, while the coccyx has a clear function in humans today, the only reason to claim that the function has been modified is because of evolutionary assumptions. If you believe that humans descended from animals that possessed tails, then there must have been a modification of the tailbone. In contrast, if our ancestor Adam was created by God then there was no modification, and our tailbone is just as it always was. Without the evolutionary presupposition, the evidence that the tailbone is vestigial evaporates.

I urge you to read the entire article for other vestigial organs you might think prove evolution.

I will do my best to go through these articles and read through them with an open-mind, and I will address them each in turn (probably in different posts, because I don't know if I can do them all in one sitting). I'll start with the first one.

First, when I clicked on the link for the first chapter, I was a little confused about the table there, so I'm going to dismiss it altogether. I have no idea what it's there for or what to make of it. My first actual problem is this:

Quote:

Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts His eyewitness account—the Bible—as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe.

Personally, I don't think evolution could have happened without God. Not all evolution denies the role of God in the universe. Perhaps that's just me being nit-picky, but I think it's a fair thing to point out. Generally speaking, evolution does deny the role of God, but not always.

Quote:

If an idea is not testable, repeatable, observable, and falsifiable, it is not considered scientific. The denial of supernatural events limits the depth of understanding that science can have and the types of questions science can ask.

This guy clearly doesn't understand that the falsefiability and testability of science are what make it dependable and reliable. Supernatural events are often unable to be tested and all you end up with is anecdotal evidence, which, as science has shown time and again, is often very, very wrong. If something can't be tested, then we know nothing about it. All we can do is make educated guesses and inferences. Being unable to test supernatural events does limit science, but that's not science's fault. Scientists would love to reliably test supernatural occurrences, if such a thing were possible.

Quote:

The problem with the above definition of science is that, even though naturalistic science claims to be neutral and unbiased, it starts with a bias. The quote from Dr. Todd on page 19 demonstrates that bias: only matter and energy exist and all explanations and causes must be directly related to the laws that matter and energy follow. Even if the amazingly intricate structure of flagella in bacteria appears so complex that it must have a designer, naturalistic science cannot accept that idea because this idea falls outside the realm of naturalism/materialism.

Just because something is really complex does not mean it "must" have a creator. However, as I believe there is a Creator, I lose a bit of credibility here. However, I believe in the possibility of God's creation to become so complex all on its own, and I find it an insult to God's innovativeness and creativity to assume otherwise.

Aside from that, yes, science is forced to assume there are other reasons behind aforementioned awesome bacterium because it cannot, by its very nature, allow for supernatural explanations. See my previous wall of text for more on that.

Quote:

The ability to study the world around us is only reasonable because there is a Lawgiver who established the laws of nature. Most people do not realize that modern science was founded by men who believed that nature can be studied because it follows the laws given to it by the Lawgiver. Johannes Kepler, one of the founders of astronomy, said that science was “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” Many founders of scientific disciplines, such as Bacon, Newton, Kepler, Galileo, Pascal, Boyle, Dalton, Linnaeus, Mendel, Maxwell, and Kelvin were Bible-believing Christians. As a matter of fact, the most discerning historians and philosophers of science have recognized that the very existence of modern science had its origins in a culture at least nominally committed to a biblical worldview.

Well, if they believe it, it must be true. Christian scientists are the only ones you can trust after all.

Quote:

Some events defy natural laws. Christians refer to these things as miracles, but naturalistic science must find a way to explain these occurrences naturally. This approach rejects miracles in the Bible because they cannot be explained using natural laws. Such scientists occasionally try to explain the miracles in the Bible as natural phenomena, but this ultimately undermines the authority of God and His Word.

And here is the crux of the issue. Understanding how a miracle works doesn't make it any less miraculous. This paragraph contradicts the previous one. The previous one said, "We should understand everything about our world" when this one goes on to say "Except for when stuff happens- then we should ignore it and assume that science is only going to lie about it." If something defies nature, yes! We should study it! Why the heck not? It's only out of fear that people refuse to understand something, and fear of being shown wrong is what prevents die-hard Creationists from exploring events that allegedly defy nature.

Quote:

Operational Theory: an explanation of a set of facts based on a broad set of repeatable and testable observations that is generally accepted within a group of scientists.
That evolution has been elevated to the status of an operational theory (and “fact” in the opinion of some) is not due to the strength of the evidence, but in spite of it. Because evolutionary ideas are interpretations of past events, they are not as well-founded as testable scientific theories like Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or Newton’s Theory of Gravity. These theories offer predictable models and the ability to conduct experiments to determine their validity in different circumstances. Molecules-to-man evolution does not offer this opportunity because these events happened in the past. Therefore, evolution is not an operational theory.

How is it not an operational theory? We see evolution all the time. We may not have watch the evolution of man from single-celled organisms, but man is still evolving. It's at a much slower rate due to technology and our bodies themselves not needing to adapt to our environments, but it is occurring. We are evolving out of our wisdom teeth, our appendices, our pinkies, and, some theorize, our Y chromosomes (which would end us up like whip tailed lizards, a species of lizard in which there are no males; females "mate" with one another by going through a courtship and mounting ritual and become fertilized (the process causes them to self-fertilize).). Evolution is an operational theory because we can observe evolution as it is happening now.

Quote:

If rocks form or erode at a certain rate in the present, uniformitarians believe that they must have always formed or eroded at nearly the same rate. This assumption is accepted even though there are no observations of the rate of erosion from the distant past and there is no way to empirically test the erosion rate of the past.

Now, I'm no geologist, and obviously neither is this guy, but I'm fairly certain there are ways to test these things based on the layers of sediment and other rocks/earth, and the chemicals and such found therein. It's not exact, but it's a pretty good way to tell how long it took something to form or erode.

Quote:

Noah’s Flood, for example, would have devastated the face of the earth and created a landscape of billions of dead things buried in layers of rock, which is exactly what we see.

Except for the dinosaurs. Satan put those there to confuse us. He must have planted them there around the same time he was picking up the remains of all the wicked that were killed in this same flood.

Quote:

Just because many scientists believe the story does not make the story true.

Replace scientists with people. You get the point.

Quote:

... but it cannot answer the questions of where we came from and why we are here. Those questions are outside the scope of operational science. But we are not left without an answer.

So it's okay for Creationists to be taken at their word about the origins of the universe because such questions "are outside the scope of operational science" but completely unacceptable when science (generally) denies the role of God for the same reason? Is it just me, or are you seeing the double standard here too? Science may, in fact, not be able to tell us where we came from and/or why we are here, but it certainly can give us the details of those six days.

And that's all I've got in me. If you'd like, I can go through the other chapters and links and discuss them, but I'm fairly certain none of those will have anything different to say.  

[freelance lover]

Pirate Munke

Well, you have me there. The general idea of evolution is that it's evil, and the assumption about evolution is that anyone who believes in it thinks that bacterium eventually evolved into people. While looking up the definitions of evolution and natural selection on Wikipedia, I realized my mistake in thinking that evolution only applied to the wider scale. I will agree that evolution does take place in the form of natural selection, but I still do not believe that we evolved from germs. I do not believe that we evolved from monkeys, nor birds from dinosaurs. Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no.

Well, you know that they say about assuming...

I'm also of the party that believe science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand why so many fundamentalist rail against it, without even understanding it. As far as I'm concerned, many things science supports are also supported by Christianity.

I also had to ROFL a little at Answers in Genesis, simply because I'm currently reading The Year of Living Biblically (great book, everyone should read it) and the guy actually pays a visit to the AiG museum. He goes over several of their theories in their book, and from what it sounds (though I'd have to check in on it a little more myself) many of them hold very little, if almost no actual scientific backing. If there was strong scientific proof to support those theories, it would be more widely publicized. Contrary to popular belief, science is not always out to get religion.

My main reason I don't think creationism can really hold any weight is because the creation stories are contradictory. They were clearly mean to be taken as metaphorical. I've yet to have anyone explain to me how we're supposed to take both stories as literal when they don't even line up and agree. In the first story, man was created after the animals, and in the second, he was created before. There's not a whole lot of wiggle room there. Besides, every single early culture has a creation story, none of which were meant to be taken metaphorically (and they still don't). Some scholars would argue that early Jews and Christians didn't take the stories literally either. Biblical literalism is a relatively recent phenomenon.

And really, if millions of years ago humans looks like monkeys, I don't think it really matters. God loved us then, and still loves us now.  

[The Amazing Ryuu]

I first learned in my freshman biology class that how scientists think the earth was created and the order in which life appeared heavily correlates to Genesis. This is a link that writes it out quite nicely. I was hoping for a chart, but it seems I'm either typing in the wrong keywords or nobody's sat down and done it yet.

Also... since I think the current discussion was on the literal six-day theory... wasn't the sun and moon not made until the third or fourth day? So, it could NOT have been a literal 24-hour day that was mentioned in the Bible.

When this was written, a day was sunup to sunset, and night was sunset to sunup. If you experienced a length of time, completely undeterminable, that was light, and then an equally undeterminable length of dark, wouldn't you call that a whole day? So it was dark for an undertermined length of time before the light and dark got seperated... night into day. Then after another undetermined length of time, the dark and light got set into their appropriate rotations. Day into night. Two days. However long that might have actually have been.