We have proven a supreame power to be true.....

[FA_Q2]

Taken:

That is correct, nothing can be created or destroyed. The universe has been in existence for eternity. So what? Where is your point?

The actuall energy, or power that drives the alteration is like time and space beyond our grasp to quantify or qualify.

Or that power can simply be circumstance. Like when stars begin to create energy with fusion. No outside force drives it. It is solely due to the matter being together and adding its gravity to the whole. Why is this outside force needed?

James R.

You didn't respond to my point about being able to make matter from pure energy.

Yes he did. Energy is converted into matter and vice versa. Nothing is created or destroyed. In this way we can come up with some universal number that is the sum of all energy and all matter in the universe. While the amount of energy and matter will fluctuate, that number will forever stay constant.

[Rick]

Originally posted by Taken
If you are going to go looking for God...first you gotta know what you are looking for in order to know if you found it or not. I already addressed our falicy in defining God in our terms in another post.

Lets look at some basic scientific knowledge here.

One..Nothing can be ultimatly created or destroyed.
In ALL elements we realize that we can manipulate and alter forms of substances but we can not ultimatly create new ones or destroy any. This includes time and space, which we have yet to even be able to alter, but we know we can't destroy or create it.

If then the world was created, we must assume it was an alteration of something that came prior to it, and that, whatever it was, was a form of something prior and so on and so on.

The actuall energy, or power that drives the alteration is like time and space beyond our grasp to quantify or qualify.

Therefore, that power, or energy (whatever you chose to term it) must also have always existed as well, since nothing can be created or destroyed. We are told by Biblical teachings, although an Einstien has yet to be able to capture it in a formula ..that the power, or energy that alters creation is unchangeing. We can in human terms neither prove or disprove that statement. However we know from what we CAN prove that it must exist, and must have ALWAYS existed and will continue to ALWAYS exist.

i think what you are talking is in terms or with respect to this world's rules.may be true.but dont talk by this world's limitations,as it is in this world that energy can neither be created or destroyed.everything goes on or transforms into other.in some parallel universe you could possibly have matter being created from nothing.!

[James R]

I said:

A few misconceptions here:

1. Evolution is not random.
2. Creationism does not progress. It is a dogma. Creationists do no research.
3. Evolution differs from biblical accounts of life.
4. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That is the field of <b>abiogenesis</b>, not evolution.[/i]

and tony1 replied:

Thanks for warning us that you were posting misconceptions.

1. Very few of your fellow evolutionists will agree with this. One of the basic tenets of evolutionism is that it is random, otherwise it would be directed, which in turn leads to the question, "Who's directing it?"
2. What progress would one need when one has the final answer?
3. It is actually very similar. It only differs in how long things take, and how things get started.
4. That is a peculiar concept, indeed. Evolutionists concern themselves with everything starting with the big bang. From your POV, there must be a nanosecond after the big bang which belongs exclusively under the purview of abiogenesis.

Here are my replies to the replies:

1. Evolution is not directed. Nevertheless it is not random. The environment affects the course of evolution of all organisms by means of natural selection. Natural selection is not a random process. Those lifeforms best adapted to their environment will come to dominate. There's nothing random about that.
2. So you agree with me. Good.
3. It also differs in the respect that the bible says there are certain immutable "kinds" of creatures, clearly delineated from each other, and none can ever turn into another type. Evolution draws no such false boundaries.
4. Evolution is a theory which explains the changes in life forms over time. It is not concerned with the formation of the universe. Nor is it concerned with the formation of life from non-life. Grab a dictionary. Look up "abiogenesis" and "evolution".

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Cris
tony1,
So no useful ideas of your own to add then as usual. *

Ditto, or is their some hidden information I'm just not seeing?

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
The universe has been in existence for eternity.*

I can't remember if you're one of the sticklers for scientific proof or not, but if you are, where would your proof be for such a statement?

*It is solely due to the matter being together and adding its gravity to the whole. Why is this outside force needed?*

Because if the universe is infinitely old as you say, then it would all be a homogeneous, diffuse gas or ashes or whatever already, not separate planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

*Originally posted by James R
1. Evolution is not directed. Nevertheless it is not random. The environment affects the course of evolution of all organisms by means of natural selection. Natural selection is not a random process. Those lifeforms best adapted to their environment will come to dominate. There's nothing random about that. *

You have a curious definition of "not random."
Random essentially means having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.
That means that "not random" would mean having a specific pattern, purpose, or objective.

The question is, "Whose purpose is it?"

*2. So you agree with me. Good.*

Not really.
We need to find out more so we can see how the universe matches what God says about it.

*3. It also differs in the respect that the bible says there are certain immutable "kinds" of creatures, clearly delineated from each other, and none can ever turn into another type. Evolution draws no such false boundaries.*

So, we can safely toss the word "taxonomist" into the garbage can?
If they are "false" boundaries, then can you prove that they are indeed false?

*4. Evolution is a theory which explains the changes in life forms over time. It is not concerned with the formation of the universe. Nor is it concerned with the formation of life from non-life. Grab a dictionary. Look up "abiogenesis" and "evolution".*

It appears that you are restricting evolution to biological evolution.
Other evolutionists don't.
That's OK.

Theodosius Dobzhansky says...
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, the biological, and human or cultural development. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."

Julian Huxley says...
"The concept of evolution was soon [after its appearance] extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of the stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social athropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process.

Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect to evolution in general."

It could be that you are head and shoulders above guys such as that in the field of evolution.
On the other hand, it could be that your theory is just the dandruff.

[James R]

tony1,

<i>You have a curious definition of "not random."
Random essentially means having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective. That means that "not random" would mean having a specific pattern, purpose, or objective.</i>

"Random" means "purely by chance". Roll some dice and your get some random numbers, purely by chance. Stick a bunch of lifeforms into an environment and the result you get is not random. The best adapted ones always tend, on average, to have a better chance of surviving to pass on their genes.

It is important that randomness and purpose are not opposites. Something can be well-determined (i.e. not random) and still have no purpose. If I drop a rock, it always falls to the ground. Does that mean gravity has a purpose or objective? Does it <i>want</i> the rock to fall down? I don't think so.

<i>I said:
3. It also differs in the respect that the bible says there are certain immutable "kinds" of creatures, clearly delineated from each other, and none can ever turn into another type. Evolution draws no such false boundaries.

You said:
So, we can safely toss the word "taxonomist" into the garbage can? If they are "false" boundaries, then can you prove that they are indeed false?</i>

There are many examples in the fossil record of so-called "intermediate forms" - animals with characteristics part way between those of two related animals. Similarly, in the lab we can watch as one form of bacterium evolves into another over many generations.

<i>It appears that you are restricting evolution to biological evolution.</i>

For the moment. That's all Darwin dealt with, and I think it's a good place to start.

<i>Theodosius Dobzhansky says...
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, the biological, and human or cultural development. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."</i>

How much does this Dobzhansky guy know about the theory of evolution? Inorganic things do not evolve (in the biological sense of the word), though they can change over time. They are not subject to natural selection in the same way that living things are, and they have no innate capacity to reproduce.

<i>...Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of the stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social athropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process.</i>

I disagree with this use of the word evolution. When an astronomer talks about the evolution of a star, he means no more than the process by which the star changes over time. There is no implication that some type of natural selection process operates on the star. The word "evolve" is being used in a completely different way. Saying that this type of evolution is the same as biological evolution is misleading and inaccurate.

<i>It could be that you are head and shoulders above guys such as that in the field of evolution.</i>

Who are these guys? If they're writing about this stuff, you'd hope they'd start by finding out something about what they're talking about.

<i>On the other hand, it could be that your theory is just the dandruff.</i>

My theory? Huh? If you mean Darwinian evolution by natural selection, I'm flattered to be in such illustrious company, but Chuck got there over 100 years before me.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
If I drop a rock, it always falls to the ground. Does that mean gravity has a purpose or objective? Does it want the rock to fall down? I don't think so.*

Actually, gravity does have a purpose, just not an anthropomorphic purpose.
It exists to keep things together.
God created gravity to allow us to walk around on the planet Earth, among other things.

*There are many examples in the fossil record of so-called "intermediate forms" - animals with characteristics part way between those of two related animals. Similarly, in the lab we can watch as one form of bacterium evolves into another over many generations.*

You're funny.
No one has observed any of that.
That is the part of the mythology of evolution.

*For the moment. That's all Darwin dealt with, and I think it's a good place to start.*

Eventually, a person has to move on.
Other evolutionists have, hence evolution no longer means biological evolution.

*How much does this Dobzhansky guy know about the theory of evolution?*

Oh, I don't know...

--- Dobzhansky, Theodosius
Pronounced As: dôbzhänsk , 1900-75, American
geneticist, b. Russia, grad. Univ. of Kiev, 1921. He
emigrated to the United States in 1927 and was
naturalized in 1937. Dobzhansky taught at the
California Institute of Technology (1930-40) and was
professor of zoology at Columbia (1940-62), leaving to
become associated with the Rockefeller Institute (now
Rockefeller Univ.). He conducted much research with
Drosophila and is known for his basic work in
genetics. His writings are of considerable significance
and include Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937,
3d ed. 1951), a challenging summation of
contemporary knowledge of genetics; Evolution,
Genetics, and Man (1955); and Mankind Evolving:
The Evolution of the Human Species (1962), which
with great wisdom deals with cultural as well as
biological evolution.---

*They are not subject to natural selection in the same way that living things are, and they have no innate capacity to reproduce.*

Ah, the theory of evolution develops a slight crack.

*I disagree with this use of the word evolution. When an astronomer talks about the evolution of a star, he means no more than the process by which the star changes over time. There is no implication that some type of natural selection process operates on the star. The word "evolve" is being used in a completely different way. Saying that this type of evolution is the same as biological evolution is misleading and inaccurate.*

Who's saying that?

---ev·o·lu·tion n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.---

Just a "sound" byte from a dictionary.
It seems the astronomer is using the word correctly.

*Who are these guys? If they're writing about this stuff, you'd hope they'd start by finding out something about what they're talking about.*

My sentiments exactly.
"These guys" are the guys who write the textbooks you've been learning this crap from.

[James R]

tony1:

<i>Actually, gravity does have a purpose, just not an anthropomorphic purpose. It exists to keep things together. God created gravity to allow us to walk around on the planet Earth, among other things.</i>

Now that's a weird, backwards sort of way of looking at it. <i>I'd</i> say we evolved legs to cope with the pre-existing gravity. The gravity came first, then the legs, not the other way round. It's quite simple, really.

<i>No one has observed any [intermediate forms etc.] That is the part of the mythology of evolution.</i>

I don't suppose providing references and examples would be of any use, would it? I suspect I'd be wasting my time.

<i>Dobzhansky, Theodosius [snip]</i>

Didn't he go off the rails at some stage and become a Creationist? Or am I thinking of somebody else? If it was him, it was a pity, since he did some good stuff earlier.

I said: <i>They are not subject to natural selection in the same way that living things are, and they have no innate capacity to reproduce.</i>

You said: <i>Ah, the theory of evolution develops a slight crack.</i>

No. As I said, evolution is not concerned with non-living things.

<i>---ev·o·lu·tion n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.---</i>

What comes after the "---"? I'm always suspicious of the Creationist ellipsis.

<i>Just a "sound" byte from a dictionary. It seems the astronomer is using the word correctly.</i>

Yes. Correctly in the context he is using it. I already explained that. Perhaps you should re-read my explanation since you seem to have missed the point.

<i>"These guys" are the guys who write the textbooks you've been learning this crap from.</i>

We'll have to agree to differ on the "crap" thing for now. At the moment all we have is opinions, but I see little evidence. Do you have any evidence for Creationism (as opposed to evidence against evolution)?

[linzeal]

I'll take a supreame power pizza with anchovies on the side hold the watery tomatoes.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
Now that's a weird, backwards sort of way of looking at it.*

I admit it is rather strange to think of gravity as holding things together, but it seems to agree with observations.

*I'd say we evolved legs to cope with the pre-existing gravity. The gravity came first, then the legs, not the other way round. It's quite simple, really.*

Only the simple would think of that, admittedly.
That is the most basic form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

*I don't suppose providing references and examples would be of any use, would it? I suspect I'd be wasting my time.*

Asking for references and examples of something that doesn't exist is definitely a waste of time. That's why I called it part of the mythology of evolution.

*Didn't he go off the rails at some stage and become a Creationist? Or am I thinking of somebody else? If it was him, it was a pity, since he did some good stuff earlier.*

He wrote the books you studied, or at least, that your instructors studied.
Whether he was a creationist afterward wouldn't matter in the least.
You're still crapping on one of the shining lights of evolution.
If you think you're smarter with your line of thinking, you're flying on a wing and a... er... nothing.

*No. As I said, evolution is not concerned with non-living things.*

You're on your own, creating new dictionary entries as you go.

*What comes after the "---"? I'm always suspicious of the Creationist ellipsis.*

I realize that this is difficult for an atheist to grasp, but what's stopping you from looking it up yourself?

*Correctly in the context he is using it. I already explained that. Perhaps you should re-read my explanation since you seem to have missed the point.*

You're missing the point.
I'm not going to redefine the entire English language on your say-so, particularly when there are heavierweights than you out there agreeing with me.

*Do you have any evidence for Creationism (as opposed to evidence against evolution)? *

You bet.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1, KJV).

I can look out the window and see the heaven and the earth.

[James R]

Hi tony1,

<i>I admit it is rather strange to think of gravity as holding things together, but it seems to agree with observations.</i>

It's not strange that it holds things together. It's strange to think that it does it <i>purposefully</i>.

<i>...That is the most basic form of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.</i>

I didn't say gravity <i>caused</i> legs.

<i>He wrote the books you studied, or at least, that your instructors studied. Whether he was a creationist afterward wouldn't matter in the least.</i>

It indicates to me that he must have lost his good judgment at some point. But that's just a personal opinion.

I said: <i>No. As I said, evolution is not concerned with non-living things.</i>
You said: <i>You're on your own, creating new dictionary entries as you go.</i>

I don't think so.

<i>I realize that this is difficult for an atheist to grasp, but what's stopping you from looking it up yourself?</i>

You are assuming a lot about me, tony1. It is interesting that you assume I'm an atheist just because I don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis. Or perhaps you label all non-fundamentalists that way?

<i>I'm not going to redefine the entire English language on your say-so, particularly when there are heavierweights than you out there agreeing with me.</i>

I wasn't redefining anything. I was educating you as to common usage.

I said: <i>Do you have any evidence for Creationism (as opposed to evidence against evolution)?</i>

You said: <i>You bet. ... (Genesis 1:1, KJV)</i>

Oh, I thought Creationism was supposed to be a <b>scientific</b> theory, not a religious one. My mistake. Scientific theories require scientific evidence, but religions don't. Your religious evidence is quite satisfactory to support your religious belief. You'll have no argument from me on that score.

[FA_Q2]

tony1:
I can't remember if you're one of the sticklers for scientific proof or not, but if you are, where would your proof be for such a statement?

That nothing can be created or destroyed. I thought we covered that already.

tony1:
Because if the universe is infinitely old as you say, then it would all be a homogeneous, diffuse gas or ashes or whatever already, not separate planets, stars, galaxies, etc.

No. It was not always in this form (matter/energy).

tony1:
You have a curious definition of "not random."
Random essentially means having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.
That means that "not random" would mean having a specific pattern, purpose, or objective.

In this case the process is random but the outcome is not. The outcome is guided by natural law.

tony1:
It appears that you are restricting evolution to biological evolution.
Other evolutionists don't.
That's OK.

Most do, if they understand the theory. Evolution is exclusive to biology. The idea has been ported into other fields and is the term is used casually. It is not the exact same but a similar concept. They figured others would understand that an astronomer would not be speaking about biological evolution without stating it constantly. Too bad they were wrong.

tony1:
You're funny.
No one has observed any of that.
That is the part of the mythology of evolution.

And that is an example of your ignorance.

tony1:
God created gravity to allow us to walk around on the planet Earth, among other things.

Damn stuck up and selfish I see. Gravity created for people. Sounds just like the Catholic myth that put the earth at the center of the universe.

tony1:
---ev·o·lu·tion n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.---

Now that we know what the word means lets try to understand the theory. The dictionary defines words, not theories.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
It's not strange that it holds things together. It's strange to think that it does it purposefully*

"Purposefully" is an anthropomorphic term.
Gravity exists for a purpose, but it doesn't do anything purposefully.

*I didn't say gravity <i>caused</i> legs.*

Not directly, but your point is that because of gravity we have legs, which is saying the same thing.

*It indicates to me that he must have lost his good judgment at some point. But that's just a personal opinion.*

Since he didn't become a creationist, that would mean his judgment didn't change, therefore I still consider his opinion to have more weight in evolutionary science.
Plus, I suspect he has written more textbooks on the subject than you have.

*I said: <i>No. As I said, evolution is not concerned with non-living things.</i>
You said: <i>You're on your own, creating new dictionary entries as you go.</i>

I don't think so.*

The dictionary makes no mention of living or non-living, except in the case of evolutionary biology, therefore if you add "not non-living" to the dictionary entry for "evolution," you are creating your own entries.

*It is interesting that you assume I'm an atheist just because I don't believe in the literal truth of Genesis. Or perhaps you label all non-fundamentalists that way?*

My bad. I may have confused you with someone else.

*I wasn't redefining anything. I was educating you as to common usage.*

Common refers to everyone, not just believers in evolution.

*Oh, I thought Creationism was supposed to be a <b>scientific</b> theory, not a religious one. My mistake. Scientific theories require scientific evidence, but religions don't. Your religious evidence is quite satisfactory to support your religious belief. You'll have no argument from me on that score. *

Artificial distinction.
If something is true, it is true regardless of the label applied to it.
Besides, I don't think one needs to be particularly religious to notice the sky and the earth.

*Originally posted by FA_Q2
That nothing can be created or destroyed. I thought we covered that already. *

What do you mean "nothing can be created or destroyed?"
What kind of pseudoscience has that for a premise?

*It was not always in this form (matter/energy).*

Well, that's true.
Do you realize that you are paraphrasing the Bible?

*The outcome is guided by natural law.*

You're arguing yourself into a blind alley.
If there is a law, then who is the lawgiver?

*Evolution is exclusive to biology. The idea has been ported into other fields and is the term is used casually. It is not the exact same but a similar concept. They figured others would understand that an astronomer would not be speaking about biological evolution without stating it constantly.*

Only an evolutionary biologist with no knowledge of any other field of science could say that.
Other evolutionists have no problem with the issue, but then they only have PhD's and such.

*And that is an example of your ignorance.*

Brilliant rhetoric.
Only a point is missing, such as an example of a new bacterium which has evolved, as opposed to having been carefully assembled.

*Damn stuck up and selfish I see. Gravity created for people.*

I'm sorry you take umbrage at the fact that we can walk around on the surface of the earth.

*Now that we know what the word means lets try to understand the theory.*

People have been trying since Darwin wrote his book.
What makes you think you're going to be the first to understand it?

[James R]

<i>Gravity exists for a purpose, but it doesn't do anything purposefully.</i>

Pretty silly reason to create a universe, wouldn't you say? Why go to all the trouble of creating billions of galaxies just so a few humans can walk around on Earth?

<i>Not directly, but your point is that because of gravity we have legs, which is saying the same thing.</i>

Actually, it goes further than that. Ever wondered why humans are bilaterally symmetric, yet our top half is different from the bottom, and the front is different from the back? The top-bottom distinction is an indirect result of gravity, and almost all animals have it. The front-back difference evolved when we started moving around purposefully. Animals which drift on the tide tend to have front and back halves which look the same. There is no left-right distinction because there is nothing in particular in our environment which would require the distinction to be made. I can't think, offhand, of any animal on earth which is unsymmetrical in all three directions.

Isn't evolution wonderful? What's your Creationist explanation for this? God wanted it that way? I see.

<i>Since he didn't become a creationist, that would mean his judgment didn't change, therefore I still consider his opinion to have more weight in evolutionary science.</i>

My mistake. I didn't mean to insult him.

<i>Plus, I suspect he has written more textbooks on the subject than you have.</i>

I might point out that writing a book needn't make a person smarter or more authoritative.

<i>The dictionary makes no mention of living or non-living, except in the case of evolutionary biology, therefore if you add "not non-living" to the dictionary entry for "evolution," you are creating your own entries.</i>

The dictionary takes many things for granted. Dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all. Don't rely on them too much, especially in specialised areas, since the writers of dictionaries are not experts in biology. (Come to think of it, you might like to look at a biological dictionary, which <i>may</i> have been written by experts.)

<i>*I wasn't redefining anything. I was educating you as to common usage.*
Common refers to everyone, not just believers in evolution.</i>

Common refers to "most people". My point stands.

<i>If something is true, it is true regardless of the label applied to it. Besides, I don't think one needs to be particularly religious to notice the sky and the earth.</i>

Science requires certain standards of evidence which religion doesn't. As a scientific theory, Creationism doesn't cut it. Even if Creationism is true, which it might be, it will never be a scientific theory. I can't disprove that God created the world and everything in it, complete with memories etc, five minutes ago. That might be true, but it is certainly not science. Creationism is in the same basket.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
Pretty silly reason to create a universe, wouldn't you say?*

Gravity alone would be a pointless reason to create a universe, for sure.
We are the actual point.

*Why go to all the trouble of creating billions of galaxies just so a few humans can walk around on Earth?*

What trouble?
It only took a day.

*Actually, it goes further than that.*

So, you're retracting your original point that gravity causes legs, to say that it causes a whole pile of other things?

*Ever wondered why humans are bilaterally symmetric, yet our top half is different from the bottom, and the front is different from the back?*

I'm guessing the absence of front-back symmetry is so we can tell where we are going.

*There is no left-right distinction because there is nothing in particular in our environment which would require the distinction to be made.*

How about other people saying, "It's on your right side." "No, your other right."

*Isn't evolution wonderful? What's your Creationist explanation for this? God wanted it that way? I see.*

While you have just dealt a crushing blow to all science as we know it with your rapier wit, I'm still leaning toward a need to know which way one is going.

*I might point out that writing a book needn't make a person smarter or more authoritative.*

You might, but it wouldn't help your case.
I'm still not going to flip a coin between your thoughts and his.

*The dictionary takes many things for granted. Dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all. Don't rely on them too much, especially in specialised areas, since the writers of dictionaries are not experts in biology. (Come to think of it, you might like to look at a biological dictionary, which may have been written by experts.)*

Dictionaries are not the be-all and end-all, for sure.
But creating your own entries isn't validated by that.

*Common refers to "most people". My point stands.*

"Most people" do not believe in evolution, so your point sits down to take a rest.

*Science requires certain standards of evidence which religion doesn't. As a scientific theory, Creationism doesn't cut it.*

Well, that is true.
Admittedly, science has such incredibly low standards.

A pro ball player doesn't cut it in amateur leagues, either.
Not because of lack of skill, but because the rules are limiting, in a similar way.

*Even if Creationism is true, which it might be, it will never be a scientific theory.*

Interesting concept.
True, but not scientific.
I think that is it in a nutshell.

[James R]

tony1,

<i>I'm guessing the absence of front-back symmetry is so we can tell where we are going.</i>

The evolutionary explanation is so much more satisfying, isn't it? It actually <b>explains</b> something, rather than begging the question. See the difference?

<i>I'm still not going to flip a coin between your thoughts and his.</i>

I don't expect to convince <i>you</i> of anything.

<i>"Most people" do not believe in evolution ...</i>

Sadly, most people don't know enough about evolution to make an informed choice between alternatives. Including you, it would seem.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by James R
The evolutionary explanation is so much more satisfying, isn't it? It actually <b>explains</b> something, rather than begging the question. See the difference?*

Sure, describing a speculation passes for an explanation.
I'd rather know where I'm going.

*Sadly, most people don't know enough about evolution to make an informed choice between alternatives. Including you, it would seem. *

On the other hand, some people, including me, know enough about evolution to recognize that it is a giant crock of crap.
Mind you, it took years to deprogram myself.

I'm still puzzled how so many people, including myself, could have believed such a pure fairy tale with zero evidence.
My excuse is that I was forced by law to sit in a classroom and I was underage.
The teachers' excuse would have to differ somewhat, since they aren't forced by law, and they aren't underage.

I still get a laugh watching commercials for evolution (public TV) when some stoned ditz stands in a hole and points at some dirt and intones, "This is 100 million years old."

What a quaint simulation of knowledge.

[Xelios]

Gravity alone would be a pointless reason to create a universe, for sure.
We are the actual point.

Yeah, maybe that's why Earth is the center of the solar system! Oh wait, that's right, we're not... we're just another planet in orbit around a normal star which orbits around a normal galaxy which orbits around a cluster of galaxies...

Soon you will see, just as we did before, that we are not the center of the universe. I'd hate for you to be our ambassador to an alien race, no wonder they haven't contacted us, who wants to talk to a conceited and self-proclaiming race such as ourselves?

[James R]

tony1:

<i>I'd rather know where I'm going.</i>

That's the problem with Creationism. It starts with the answer, and then proceeds to ignore all evidence contrary to the original assumption. Science, on the other hand, starts with an <i>open</i> mind.

<i>On the other hand, some people, including me, know enough about evolution to recognize that it is a giant crock of crap.</i>

You've demonstrated no knowledge so far which leads me to believe you are qualified to make that judgment.

<i>I'm still puzzled how so many people, including myself, could have believed such a pure fairy tale with zero evidence.</i>

I could say something similar here on the subject of Young Earth Creationism, but it's too easy. I'll leave the cheap shots to you.

<i>I still get a laugh watching commercials for evolution (public TV) when some stoned ditz stands in a hole and points at some dirt and intones, "This is 100 million years old."</i>

See previous comment. All the evidence is on the side of the 100 million year old rocks. For example, there's that inconvenient (for Creationists) matter of radioactive dating.

[tony1]

*Originally posted by Xelios
I'd hate for you to be our ambassador to an alien race, no wonder they haven't contacted us, who wants to talk to a conceited and self-proclaiming race such as ourselves? *

It would be an easy job, being an ambassador to nothing.
On the other hand, maybe you're talking about being an ambassador to your imagination.
That would be tougher.

Has it occurred to you that they don't contact us because they don't exist?
Besides, If they are so advanced, why would a little conceit be such a huge problem for them?

*Originally posted by James R
That's the problem with Creationism. It starts with the answer,*

Some problem.

*and then proceeds to ignore all evidence contrary to the original assumption.*

Scary thought, until one realizes that there is no contrary evidence.

*Science, on the other hand, starts with an open mind.*

That sounds like a good thing, until one wonders how anything stays in an open mind.

*You've demonstrated no knowledge so far which leads me to believe you are qualified to make that judgment.*

You're using the scientific method, and it fails you when you need it most.
I can look in a toilet and judge that the brown stuff in it is crap, with no recognized qualifications at all.
Similarly, I can look at what passes for evidence for evolution and make a similar judgment.

I think you may be touching on the reason for the insistence on proof, qualifications, scientific methods, etc. in your question.
Anyone can actually discard the theory of evolution with nary a qualm.
The scientific community is trying to say, "You can't do that," by insisting on "qualifications."

*All the evidence is on the side of the 100 million year old rocks.*

Well, they do look old, especially when compared to rocks on a new planet.

*For example, there's that inconvenient (for Creationists) matter of radioactive dating.*

You're right, it is inconvenient.
You have no idea how inconvenient it is, having to point out the flaws in it over and over again.

See, I use testing methods and instruments at work on a regular basis.
I calibrate the instruments regularly.
Radioactive dating should be calibrated before use, too, but it isn't.

[James R]

tony1,

<i>Anyone can actually discard the theory of evolution with nary a qualm.</i>

Yes, but it's much harder once you understand it. Can I ask directly how much you have actually read about evolution? And answersingenesis.com is not a valid source! Have you read any of Richard Dawkins' books, for example? Or have you only read Creationist propaganda about them?

<i>The scientific community is trying to say, "You can't do that," by insisting on "qualifications."</i>

No, that's where science and Creationism differ yet again. Science is not based on credentialism. It does not insist on qualifications. If you're right, you're right. What it <i>does</i> insist apon is evidence for claims.

<i>Radioactive dating should be calibrated before use, too, but it isn't.</i>

Um...Yes it is.