hammer01

I once had hope for humanity. Now that I have read this, I no longer have hope.

I'm not going to patronize you by asking you if you know what 'Google' and 'research' is, I assume you know.

Go onto Google and starting researching. Congratulations, you're conducting secondary research - well done. Now, why don't you use this research to support and further evince the points you are trying to make in your post instead of just talking a load of cobblers.

Honestly, you could save yourself and others a lot of time here if you actually did some research. There is no point in arguing here, you're clearly too closed-minded to accept that you're wrong. Just start looking at some existing research into both sides, you will come to see that you are literally talking out your ass.

I cannot possibly see what enjoyment you derive from continuously spewing out the same ____ over and over again. What kind of egocentric pathology compels you to do this? If you cannot accept that sometimes you might be wrong then you shouldn't even be in a debate thread, my friend.

 

Can I ask you what good insulting people does?

Sarkly, please stop, please stop ignoring us when we say, you are wrong about the second law of thermaldynamics. Just stop using that argument, I have stated why that argument is wrong so many times, I have stated what the law means so many times, and you still ignore it.

Please do not use that argument anymore if you do not accept that you are wrong about it. The entropy of a closed system can only incresse, but if the system is open the entropy can decresse. Face it, that argument is made without proper knowledge of what the law trully means.

But the universe is a closed system... how hard is that to undertstand?

To the Market!

 By your reasoning, you've already lost... there is more than one shred of evidence against creationism...

...No... only if evolution is true can creationism be false... so far, it has not been proven true...

 You cannot make logical points when you

have beforehand made logical fallacies, it's like basing facts upon

assumptions. Big Bang carries more proof than God even exists. God does

not exist just because the Big Bang, according to you, did not happen.

I said if the big bang theory is proven false it brings us closer to proving that there is a God. CLOSER. not all the way there. And from now on, im going to say Prime mover instead of God, because God makes people think Christianity, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.

 You have not disproven a single bit of

my Evolution for Dummies, nor made it explicit enough to do so. I would

really like to see you find something which would disprove it though.

We dock none of your arguments, each argument you place down, we refute as much as there is to refute...

Go back to the last page and read the section on mutation please.

 Funny thing is, people that believed in

that were actually believing in what religion said... not any theory

formulated by any scientist. You are saying, 'Belief in HYPOTHESIS does

exist' which is not what we are talking about.

You understand what im trying to say... don't twist my words here...

 Funny thing is, you are trying to disprove

evolution using the bible, yet, you say we will talk about it later? No.

The Bible may have been written over 2000 years... what does that

matter? I could start a legacy of a science fiction series, make a giant

book over a couple millennia... that doesn't make what's written in it

true. The bible also contains many scientific discrepancies so, don't

use it as proof.

When have I used the Bible? Please tell me, because im pretty sure I have not been doing so...

 The original Big Bang theory was created by a priest.

To be honest, I have nothing against the Big Bang theory. Except that somehow nothingness created something. The Priests words were twisted to say that. All things that have a beginning had to have been caused by something...

You can't prove the existence of a transcendent God because a transcendant God is transcendant.

I can try!

 There's a difference between "God created the universe", which is as

good a reason as any, and "Genesis is a literal account." If I were a

benevolent God, I wouldn't make a wasp that paralyses tarantulas and

lays its larve inside the tarantula, which is put through unimaginable

torture as it is eaten alive by larvae that specifically avoid its vital

organs so it lives in torture for as long as possible.

Im afraid I dont understand what this has to do with what I said about being one step closer to prooving that there is a God, or as i should have said, "Prime Mover".

 Earth being the centre of the universe is not a theory in the

conventional sense any more than The Earth is Flat is a theory. What the

person you are attempting to rebut means is that once a theory is

disproved beyond all reasonable doubt it is discarded, like the Plum

Pudding model of the atom which was disproved by Rutherford, and the

theory is then adapted or replaced. It is objective. Faith, however,

seems to have a tendency to adapt the evidence to the theory rather than

the theory to the evidence. You need only look at the twisting of the

Qu'ran by Islamist terrorists to see how, with enough overinference and

'intepretation', you can make anything 'mean' almost anything. It is

subjective.

Those used to be theories... and they turned out to be false, yet they were believed. Thats all I was saying.

Christianity is no more supported by fact than Judaism and Islam.

Besides, out of those three, I'd say Islam's probably the most credible,

as it claims the Qu'ran to be the literal unedited word of God. Any

account written by man will be corrupted by human bias and corruption.

Give a man enough power and he will abuse it. Communism is theoretically a completely fair society, but it requires the man at the top not to go beserk with power.

But the Qur'an has many contradictions in it, whereas the Bible has none. In fact I could probably refute any so called "contradiction in the Bible" right now...

EDIT: ill talk about jistumas post after homework...

I have seen many silly things that I got bored reading the last 5 pages. They were filled with recurring arguments written in different ways. They are not going to work just because wording is different... reasoning is false, thus argument is false.

 

(I was talking about the Creationists)

 

Problem I

The Creationist side is not understanding or making an effort to understand the Evolutionist side.

To debate properly, you have to put yourself in our shoes, don't just post things over and over again, without even trying to refute our arguments. All you do is give us things to counter, but you don't counter anything we say in return.

 

Problem II

The Creationist side is making many logical fallacies.

I don't see how by just saying that there is one inconsistency in the evolution theory, that being the Big Bang, which by extension has nothing to do with evolution in itself, means that Evolutionists are all wrong.

 

Problem III

The Creationists are docking logical arguments they cannot refute.

I still have that post, "Evolution for Dummies", I made in this thread... And nothing has been said against it, for everything which was said was logically refuted and thus the post I wrote still stands as fact and as long as it does, you cannot prove evolution wrong...

 

 

Problem IV

Creationists are mistaking the sense of belief, faith and theory.

Theory is not what the creationists think, what they are supposing it is, is a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something made before the theory is created, the theory can only be created once a single piece of proof is placed upon the table. This theory strengthens which each element of proof added. Taking the expression of "Theoretically...", here we see the express meaning of a theory. It is not 100% fact, however it is something which can be used to generalise.

Belief in a theory does not exist. Belief and faith are both attributed to something which is not proven, such as legends or myths, or religion. I'm just going to trump Creationists with my next argument, using their term of belief.

 

Problem V

Creationists are for the most part, religious. And we all know what Religion was invented for...

Let me put it quite clearly. The Bible is a book, as 'holy' as it could possibly be... Did you know that before Christians and modern day religions, there were the Roman and Ancient Greek religions. Does the bible explain why these existed? On that point, did you know that it has been proven that the greek gods and titans were all thought up to explain certain Terran phenomenons? Indeed, each god was attributed to something which people couldn't explain. Vulcan for volcanoes, Eos for Dawn, Zeus for thunder. Let me also point out that religion has forever tried to restrict the development of science, burning people speaking true, now proven, facts. If we take the modern religion, it's the same, only with a single deity which explains everything...

 

Not making an effort to look at it from your perspective? I am, believe it or not! I do not need to work to counter your arguments, because the only way to disprove a theory is to give one shred of evidence against it! If we can do that, evolution has to be tossed out the window!

We may be making logical fallacies, but we are also making some very logical points as well. Big Bang is a way to explain the beginning of the universe without God. If we can kick that off, we are one step closer to proving there is a God! If we can show that there is a God, that brings us one step closer to proving creation! So, we arent really being illogical here...

You yourself are docking some of our arguments! If we cannot refute some, then that does not neccesarily prove Evolution, just that you do have some evidence going your way. Your Evolution for dummies does not prove anything either, and if you looked at the quote i quoted, you will see that i have in a sense responded to it.

Belief in theory does exist! People believed in the theory that the sun revolved around the earth, right? Whats the difference here?

The Bible is composed of 66 books writen over 2000 years all pointing twoard the same thing. Coincedence? I think not! The Bible also has many many prophacies that have come true! We believe not to explain certain phenomenon, but rather to find the truth! Right now, we are trying to disprove Evolution. Once we have done that, we will talk about the bible...

You just got the first two laws of Thermodynamics wrong.

The first law is that the amount of energy (and it assumes mass to be a form of energy) in an isolated system is constant. It cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in form. It does not state that there is a finite amount of energy. We've no way of measuring that, let alone proving it to the point where we call it a physical law.

If energy is a constant it cannot be infinite. Infinite is not a constant. Thus energy cannot be infinite!

The second law is that an isolated system advances towards entropy, it becomes "less ordered". It does not state "the amount of available energy is always decreasing."

This website says that: "the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." Thus it is decreasing!

Assuming your versions of the first two laws of thermodynamics are correct, then surely whatever creates the universe also cannot exist as it is also confined to those laws? If not, then you have an example of those laws being broken, destroying the entire premise that they cannot be broken.

He would be outside of the laws of this universe, because he is not in this universe! Thus these laws would not apply!

Finally, I will ask, what does this have to do with the subject of the topic?

If you actually read the whole quote, you would understand that it is also attempting to show that God has to be out there! Read the whole quote and find out!

If you cannot express it yourself, then you cannot claim to understand the points it makes. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.

So... let me get this straight.... You wont even reply to a post I make because you think I dont understand it? Well tell me tell you this: I do understand it, probably better than you do. It is stating hard logical evidence against evolution that, because of your stalling, it seems you cannot counter. That much I know.

The universe cannot have made itself because nothingness cannot make something. The universe cannot be infinite because due to the first law of thermodynamics, which states that there is a finite amount of energy, along with the second law of thermodynamics which says that the amount of available energy is  always decreasing. Thus, if it were infinite we would have no energy at all left in the universe. Logical conclusion: Something had to have made the universe.

Needless to say, I understand it. Why cant you give me the benefit of the doubt? Just because im not a good writer does not mean that I do not understand it. The only reason I copy-pasted it was because I am not a writer. As such, I would probably just confuse you guys about what im trying to say.

Your post is a very large number of opinions. Assuming they hold more weight because of who says them is an inherent logical fallacy. Put it into your own words. Then we'll see how well it stands up to scrutiny.

 

Or perhaps would you prefer it if I gathered one hundred articles off of Google and set you onto debunking each one?

I only posted one article. If you want me to put it my own words, it would be saying the exact same thing, so why not quote this? Plus, I wouldn't get it across nearly as effectively as this does. I merely want to know what you think about it. Right now it only seems as if your stalling...

For a start, I think we need a hard and fast rule that people cannot copy stuff off of Google that they don't understand. If they do understand it, they can put it in their own words.

 

But you have no answer for my post do you? It all makes complete sense to me. Why, if you can see error in the reasoning here, cant you clearly state why what I quoted was wrong?

Im just going to copy-past this page:

Firstly, let's consider some of the broader questions the theory of evolution needs to try and answer ...

If a theory says that humans have come into existence by evolutionary processes, the theory must also attempt to explain how the following came into being.

1. The sun and the earth (without a planet and a star there can be no first cell.)

2. The first self-replicating (living) cell (without the first cell there can be no other life.)

3. The formation of all other living things

In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell
all came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes. 
Living things are able to adapt to changing environments through the
process of natural selection. Even so natural selection has no targets
or plan in mind. It is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations
which are also random, mindless and blind.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design,
Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law
such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at
Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical
physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and
will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like
something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”¹¹

Lennox
explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence
of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the
existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically
incoherent."¹² Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”¹³

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes;
"What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains
nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists".¹⁴

The universe cannot have created itself!

Ravi Zacharias and John Lennox discuss Stephen’s Hawking’s ideas in his latest book entitled The Grand Design (4 part audio)

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been
thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics
show the universe must have had a beginning. 

The First Law of
Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the
Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually
decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available
existing energy would have already been used up.

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence.

EVIDENCE 2:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always
go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence
to organize it.

World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another
way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly
getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all
about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself
it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never
enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses,
and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to
let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and
everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by
itself - and that is what the second law is all about."¹

As
Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates,
collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete
opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second
Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution
would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when
left to themselves!

Some people argue that the earth is an open
system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply.
Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the
Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above,
the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system
makes things more disordered!

The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin
who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very
good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and
benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so
non-sensical that I cannot put it into words." ⁹

As Dr
John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known
violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second
law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally
well to open systems. …"⁷

Evolution has no plan or outside intelligence and, according to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, can never take place.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution?

EVIDENCE 3.  Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things

To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing.

Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed.

A
Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every
organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from
nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as
we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the
principal of biogenesis." ⁸

So when it comes to real
science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and
experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came
from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying
something repeatedly doesn't make it true!

Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit'

In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical
absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural
processes he was suggesting in his theory.  Darwin’s own deductive
reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only.

We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.     

Darwin said: "To
suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting
the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of
light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration,
could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest degree." ³

No mechanism has
been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the
human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection
and mutation.

A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live
and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory,
circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to
survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be
functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the
same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years.
Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming
about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully
functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction
could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be
pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in
perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both
worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement!
Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as
well.

There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such
systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be
thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive
system could have evolved bit by bit over time!

Can evolution be the source of life in all its complexity?

EVIDENCE 5:   The Missing Links are Still Missing

If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate
fossil organisms present in the fossil record.  Despite over a hundred
years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the
'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'.

Evolutionists
such as Stephen Jay Gould reluctantly concede this when they say, "The
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips
and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable,
not based on the evidence of fossils." ²

What does the fossil record teach us about evolution?
Who's who & what's what in the world of "missing" links?
Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes?
Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?

EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution

Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on
genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW
genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of
organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed
for evolution to proceed.

For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.⁴
This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to
be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human
terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly,
they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly
the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly
wings or stubby wings.

Mutations are an example of the Second Law
of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more
disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put
forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take
place!

A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation)
and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without
the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution
(things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more
disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!

Mutations are not a friend of evolution but an enemy that ultimately cuts the theory down and destroys it!

Can genetic mutations produce positive changes in living creatures?

EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution

Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The
chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and
chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a
junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'"⁵

In
a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life
could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the
odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one
against …”¹⁰

A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9^th power. BUT
the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200
amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power
of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types
amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in
the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino
acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce
even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell.

Read our answer to the question: "Does evolution of life in reality have anything more than just ‘sheer higgledy-piggledy luck’?"

Let's now put this in its larger context.  Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

*
The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly,
with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.

*
The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature
red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The
constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike
the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from
minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and
extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior
are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of
other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it
associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!

Probability Arguments in Why Is Abiogenesis Impossible?

Great scientists from the past and present talk on Evolution and God

How Antony Flew (an outspoken atheist for 60 years) came to believe there is a God

Four Things That Two Ex Sceptics Got Wrong

THE LINK BETWEEN MODERN SCIENCE AND BELIEF IN A CREATOR

C.S. Lewis who was a novelist, poet and academic showed the very
strong connection between the development of modern scientific thought
and the belief the scientists held in a Creator (Lawgiver) when he
said;. “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature
and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.”¹⁴

GREAT SCIENTISTS FROM THE PAST

"Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie
around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it
into words." (Lord Kelvin)

"I am a Christian ... I believe only and alone ... in the service of Jesus Christ ... In Him is all refuge, all solace." (Johannes Kepler)

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Science brings men nearer to God." (Louis Pasteur). Pasteur strongly opposed Darwin's theory of evolution because he felt it did not conform to the scientific evidence.

Robert Boyle believed
in Jesus Christ's "Passion, His death, His resurrection and ascension,
and all of those wonderful works which He did during His stay upon
earth, in order to confirm the belief of His being God as well as man."

"Order is manifestly maintained in the universe … the whole being governed by the sovereign will of God." (James Prescott Joule)

"There
are those who argue that the universe evolved out a random process, but
what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the
human eye?" (Werhner Von Braun)

"Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things, praised be all Thou has created." (Carl Linnaeus)

"I am a believer in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." (Sir Joseph Lister)

"Atheism
is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at
the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat
and light. This did not happen by chance." "The true God is a living,
intelligent and powerful being." (Sir Isaac Newton)

Michael Faraday was careful to "Thank God, first, for all His gifts."

Taken from the book 21 Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible by Ann Lamont published by Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge D.C., Queensland, 4110, Australia, 1995.

PRESENT DAY PhD SCIENTISTS

"The evidence points to an intelligent designer of
the vast array of life, both living and extinct, rather than to unguided
mindless evolution." (Nancy M Darrall, Speech
Therapist at the Bolton Community Health Care Trust in the UK. She holds
a PhD in Botany from the University of Wales.)

"Evolutionary theories of the universe cannot counteract the above arguments for the existence of God." (John M Cimbala, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Pennsylvania State University. John holds a PhD in Aeronautics.)

"The
correspondence between the global catastrophe in the geological record
and the Flood described in Genesis is much too obvious for me to
conclude that these events must be one and the same." (John R Baumgardner,
Technical Staff Member in the Theoretical Division of Los Alamos
National Laboratory. John holds a PhD in Geophysics and Space Physics
from UCLU.)

"We have already seen that no such system could
possibly appear by chance. Life in its totality must have been created
in the beginning, just as God told us." (John P Marcus,
Research Officer at the Cooperative Research Centre for Tropical Plant
Pathology, University of Queensland, Australia. John holds a PhD in
Biological Chemistry from the University of Michigan.)

"The
fossil record is considered to be the primary evidence for evolution,
yet it does not demonstrate a complete chain of life from simple forms
to complex." (Larry Vardiman, Professor from the
Department of Astro-Geophysics for Creation Research, USA. Larry holds a
PhD in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University.)

"I …
have no hesitation in rejecting the evolutionary hypothesis of origins
and affirming the biblical alternative that 'in six days the Lord God
created the heavens and earth and all that in them is'. (Dr Taylor
is senior lecturer in Electrical Engineering at the University of
Liverpool. Dr Taylor has a PhD in Electrical Engineering and has
authored over 80 scientific articles.)

"I believe God provides
evidence of His creative power for all to experience personally in our
lives. To know the Creator does not require an advanced degree in
science or theology." (Timothy G Standish is an
Associate Professor of Biology at Andrews University in the USA. Dr
Standish holds a PhD in Biology and Public Policy from George Mason
University, USA.)

"At the same time I found I could reject
evolution and not commit intellectual suicide, I began to realise I
could also accept a literal creation and still not commit intellectual
suicide." (AJ Monty White, Student Advisor, Dean of Students Office, at
the University of Cardiff, UK. Dr White holds a PhD in the field of Gas
Kinetics.)

"So life did not arise by natural processes, nor
could the grand diversity of life have arisen through no-intelligent
natural processes (evolution). Living things were created by God, as the
Bible says." (Don Batten, a research scientist for
Answer in Genesis in Australia. Dr Batten holds a PhD in Plant
Physiology from the University of Sydney and worked for 18 years as a
research scientist with the New South Wales Department of Agriculture.)

"In the words of the well-known scientist, Robert Jastrow, 'for the
scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story [of
the quest for the answers about the origin of life and the universe]
ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is
about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final
rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there
for centuries." (Jerry R Bergman, Instructor of
Science at Northwest State College, Archbold, Ohio. He holds a PhD in
Evaluation and Research from Wayne State University and a PhD in Human
Biology from Columbia Pacific University.)

Taken from the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F Ashton PhD, New Holland Publishers, 1999.

And here is the page.

Personally, I hope we weren't created by evolution, which isn't meant as an insult to those of you who do believe that evolution created us. It just scares me a bit that if I die that there's just nothing.

Well, if you read back a few pages, there are some pretty good proofs that Evolution is false and that there is a God...

7/10

interesting..

How is creationism scientific? A Creative Force for the universe must exist. The universe cannot be infinite, that much creationists and evolutionists alike agree on. The evolutionist, however, cannot explain where his "infinitely dense point" came from. This point WAS the universe. It follows the same laws. I can't have been eternal. Even if that was true, something had to put it here. This necessitates a God.

 

Lago, stop calling me racist. I'd like an fm to support me on this one, if they could. Please refrain from needless insults and flaming. Anyway, the fact that you need to shows that you don't know how else to respond to a God being logically and scientifically necessary and Evolution being logically and scientifically impossible.

Has it been civilly, we're discussing Slavery, the Holocaus, we're getting nowhere, and we're not even being civil

...does it matter that we are getting nowhere...? And i do think most of us are being pretty dang civil...

What does this prove? Nothing much... all it shows that even if there ever were to be a consensus on this forum whether or not Evolution is true (which in my opinion will never happen. It would be like an argument on the Multiverse theory, though, Evolution has WAY more proof), there will always be stubborn fundamentalists and radicals at both ends, like in any issue EVER. Plus, as said, I don't believe we'll ever come to a consensus, since everyone posting on this topic has an agenda, even those who say to not be bias and are just mediators, creationists want to believe their religion knows all, supporters of Evolution want to see it become a law... I seriously think, at this point, the topic should be locked, since all this will be is a continuos flame war against others' beliefs.

Doesn't mean we cant discuss this civilly...

Maybe you should've read the comment I put next to the video saying to watch from 2:54 on for 3 minutes. That's where the kids start talking about why Creationism isn't included in the school curriculum (stupid, I know...). Watch THAT part and you'll understand what I'm saying. He is truly "making fun of" the stupid fundamentalist christian kids who were in the original video, but no offense, they should have saw it coming for saying such B.S...

I did... But what does this prove? nothing....

....

 

This honestly doesn't prove anything... It's just insulting Christians....

Do I hear an echo in here?

I think someone requested the link to the gun control topic... well here it is... but its kinda dead...

Check this out, my thoughts exactly on Evolution vs. Creationism (GO AmazingAthiest!): 

 

(Watch 2:54 on for about 3 minutes or so)

...absolutely none of this proves creation or evolution and is literally just insulting Christians.

EDIT: Question: do you see any Christians calling people names because of what they believe?

The only reason I responded with that, is hammer01 was saying how when Christianity WAS the norm, there was no conflict. NOT AT ALL true, as I said. I didn't mean Christians act like that today, I mean some do, but now the idea is looked down upon, fortunately. 

I didnt say there was no conflict... my point was that back then, people didnt have an excuse for the way they acted. Now, with evolution, they do...

Uh... I'm Jewish...

What he is saying is your logic is faulty...

This is very simple, the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is only a theory because of all the "scientists" out there that don't realize it's factuality and are more concerned with proving their belief. Only a moron (like Paul Brown on the Science Committee, U.S. , and all the other stupid, stubborn creationists out there) can't understand Evolution is a proven scientific fact, take a look at early homosapiens and the REST of the overwhelming amount of proof out there that shows Evolution is sound. Seriously, all this bickering is stopping ACTUAL scientific progress to occur, everyone argues about creationism and Evolution (when they truly know Evolution is very much proved), that no one is able to make ANY scientific progress. The same with Gay Marriage in the US, protesters against gay marriage are just stubborn and foolish being too idiotic to even understand ANYTHING, just like fundamentalist creationists. THERE, that's all that needs to be said. EVOLUTION IS PROVEN, stop whining about it, and go do something that's actually productive!

 

Paul Brown's Stupid, yet very pathetic speech: 

 

TheAmazingAtheist's video on stupid Gay Marriage protesters (as stupid as stupid Evolution protesters): 

Way to insult creationists...

Fact: This Conversation will get more posts then the votings for president obama, until someone ends it a with a final word.

 

Fact: There is no live, there is only space.

 

Fact: The Evolution gives us a reason to think about our live and why we are on this world.

 

Fact: The word creation is the most used word by Lego.

Answer 1: Your probably right.

Answer 2:What you just said makes no sense.

Answer 3: Explain please.

Answer 4: Irrelevant.

No theory is designed to create or construct morality within man. The Theory of Evolution helps us to understand the function of nature and everything within.

 

Morality is derived from what a man believes, and this is not just limited to his religion, but his entire outlook on life.

Click here for more.

Im just saying its a side effect... if we are just smart animals, then we should be able to get away with anything, because, hey! there is no punishment after death! Before evolution Christianity was the norm. People had morals. After evolution, people could get away with anything...

Snip

I think what you are trying to say is that Evolution makes for no morals. And I think you are right in that...