|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 8:43:09 PM | Pascal's wager is a poor bet, as thoroughly explained elsewhere. There are more than two options, and some of the possibilities could be quite nasty.
Belief in evolution does not require a leap of faith. There is voluminous evidence to support the theory.
Believing in a literal creation however, is highly problematic, as it's far too easy to find things in a literal interpretation which are implausible at best, and well-contradicted by evidence at worst. A "faith" which invests itself in a pseudoscientific creationism is inviting having the entire faith undermined by contradictory evidence. That is the only situation in which faith is incompatible with evolution. Otherwise, believing in science has no bearing on having faith in God, missing out on anything, existing by chance [who's to say God didn't direct evolution?], or living a good life. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 10:06:59 PM |
scorpiomover: Proving something wrong is a good thing in Science. But in practise, this rarely happens. Not because the evidence supports you, but because Scientists don't like to be proved wrong, or challenged in any way.
This is like saying "I don't like people to commit crime, therefore, people no longer commit crime" or "I don't like chocolate ice cream, therefore, other people will not eat chocolate ice cream."
You are right though in that scientists don't like to be proved wrong. Nobody does. But scientific results are tested by an unsympathetic scientific community that loves to find flaws and races to publish them. Anything not supported by evidence is quickly rejected. If a scientist does not want his work scrutinized, it will still be scrutinized. If a scientist does not want others to find flaws, then others will find flaws. Who cares what a scientist wants, people will scrutinize their work regardless.
G. K. Brown wrote that Scientists formulate a theory, then construct an experiment whose results will support it, then draw a hypothesis that supports the theory and the results. They then publish that they formed a hypothesis, gather evidence, THEN determine what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, even if the results contradict the hypothesis.
If the results contradict the hypothesis then even the weakest scientists will discover as much instantly and the work is rejected.
I will grant you, however, that expectations do affect research to a small degree. A hypothesis does have to come from somewhere. But any bias or flawed reasoning is quickly discovered when the work is tested.
pastordave: for anyone to believe in either creation or evolution it is going to take some sort of a faith.
The faith required to believe in evolution is no different than the faith required to believe that turning the key in the ignition will start my car. Evidence has shown that the it starts the car, evidence shows that evolution works - there is no leap of faith required in believing in evolution.
pastordave: really creation or evolution all comes down to what do you want to put your faith in, a God that loves you or that you are just a fluke
False dichotomy. Also, I've never met an evolutionist that considers himself a 'fluke'. If I did, then that evolutionist wouldn't know much about evolution.
This is the difference between a guy like you and a guy like me. You believe what you want to believe, I believe what appears to be true or I suspend judgement until more evidence arrives. I would rather believe an ugly truth than a beautiful lie. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/29/2007 10:52:19 PM | Sorry, was just reading some of the posts in this thread and was a little upset. Promise I won't post anything like that anymore. (Without veiling it in logical argument and an academic writing prose)
 | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 3780 | |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 1:57:38 AM | | I must admit I agree with pen devil. I'm surprised this thread is still kicking around. Evolutionary theory isnt perfect by any means but modern biology can at least show how one creature evolved from another and tries to take a reasoned stance on it. The creations refuse to take a reasoned stance on anything. A new idea to throw into the pot, having just read the OPs post again; why should creationism be taught outside of Sunday school . I cant think of any single reason, ok Sunday school and academic school Religious Instruction classes are fine. But if creationism is going to be taught whats wrong with teaching any of the creation stories from other religions. Surely they are as valid, possibly more so. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 5:35:06 AM |
In all fairness, our kids should learn about all these cultural and religious creation beliefs in science class - its only fair right? By the time they turn 40 they might complete grade 8 science lol.
IMO, this is shifting outside the boundaries of the question because the question leads the reader to answer based on creation with God and evolution based on science. To consider a creation theory by all forms is comparable to a child having to learn all the formulations of mathematics prior graduating.....rather they learn the basics and selected advanced. After learning the basics they then make the choice of whether they want to learn more about that area or specialize....hence college.
With our country being founded on the basics of christianity, there should not even be a question as to whether creation is an acceptable subject to teach. Viewing both concepts as theories, why should one be better than another......after all, it's just a matter of opinion and whether you believe it or not, a theory is just that, a theory.
Rockondon, IMO your response is a shot in the dark and needs to be narrowed back to the actual question.....creation vs evolution. Because creation viewed by most of those you posted is still performed ...but the actual creator is in question, not the act of creation itself. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 6:26:13 AM | | I have one question for all the scores of people who say that there is all of this evidence that proves evolution. If there is all of this evidence then how come it isn't the biggest news story in the world, and how come there aren't people all over the world that are sharing this information and proof in the news, on the internet and everywhere. If it was such hard evidence for the evolutionary theory then I think it would be bigger news. I think the answer is becuase it's all peoples hypothasis. Neither one can really be 100% proven without faith. Like I said in my last post live your life how you want, that's your choice, but who do you think is going to be more sorry at the end of their life if they are wrong, you or me, that is something you can't deny. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 6:51:31 AM | This is the resources listed at ONE University... Harvard Took me about 30 seconds to find it
Biology Links
Evolution
General Evolution Resources
Journals
Software
Academic Departments and Laboratories
Organizations
Museums and Exhibits
Collections
Molecular Evolution
Phylogenetics, Systematics, and Taxonomy
Other
General Evolution Resources
* ActionBioScience.org (Evolution section)
* Evolution FAQs and Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
* Evolution Happens
* Evolution Update: The Evolution Research Center for Students and Teachers of Biology
* The Darwin-L Web Server
* MendelWeb (or U. of Washington mirror site)
* PBS Evolution site
* Evolution by Natural Selection (a bite-size online "book")
Journals
* American Scientist
* Cladistics
* Call for Papers: Evolution, Learning and Instinct: 100 Years of the Baldwin Effect
* Journal of Classification
* Journal of Evolutionary Biology
* Journal of Mathematical Biology Table of Contents
* Journal of Theoretical Biology Table of Contents
* Molecular and General Genetics (MGG) Table of Contents
* Nature
* Science
* Scientific American
* Systematic Biology
* Theoretical and Applied Genetics (TAG) Table of Contents
* Other Lists
o WWW Virtual Library: Journals, Conferences, and Current Awareness Services
o Natural History Journals and Newsletters from UCMP
o Phylogenetics Journals from UCMPP
o The Electronic Newsstand
Articles
* Evolutionary Theories of Aging and Longevity
Software
* CAIC: Comparative Analysis by Independent Contrasts (Andy Purvis and Andrew Rambaut)
* COMPARE: Computer programs for the phylogenetic analysis of comparative data (Emilia P. Martins)
* LAMARC: Likelihood Analysis with Metropolis Algorithm using Random Coalescence (Mary K. Kuhner, Jon Yamato, Peter Beerli)
* MacClade (Wayne P. Maddison and David R. Maddison)
* PAUP Information (David L. Swofford)
* PHYLIP: Phylogeny Inference Package (Joe Felsenstein)
* RAPDistance (John Armstrong, Adrian Gibbs, Rod Peakall, Georg Weiller)
* Spectrum
* TreeView: Tree drawing software (Rod Page)
* Other lists
o from PHYLIP
o from Tree of Life
o from the Willi Hennig Society
o from UC-Berkeley Museum of Paleontology
o Software for Biology
Academic Departments and Laboratories
* The Binomics Institute
* University of British Columbia Evolutionary Biology
* Brown University Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
* University of California, Irvine
o Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
o Science Education Programs (SEP)
* University of California, Santa Barbara
o Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology
o Center for Evolutionary Psychology
* Colorado State University Morrison Research Initiative
* University of Connecticut Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
* Cornell University Division of Biological Sciences
o Ecology and Systematics
* Indiana State University Department of Life Sciences
o Ecology and Systematics Research
* James Cook University Department of Zoology, Australia
* University of Kansas Division of Biological Sciences
* University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada Dept. of Biological Sciences
o Biology 3300 - Evolution
o Botany 4500 - Plant Systematics and Evolution
* The Marine Biological Laboratory
* National Biological Service
* Northern Illinois University Biological Sciences Department
* University of Oregon Department of Biology
o Ecology and Evolution
* Princeton University Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
* The Santa Fe Institute
* University of Stuttgart, Germany
o Institute of Geology and Palaeontology
* Texas Tech University Systematics and Evolutionary Biology Program
* University of Victoria, Canada Department of Biology
o Centre for Environmental Health
o Human Genome Project: Human and Mouse Immune System Genes
o Koop Molecular Evolution Group
* Virtual Courses in Biology
* University of Wisconsin Institute for Molecular Virology
* Yale University Department of Biology
o Ecology, Evolution & Systematics
Organizations
* AIBS -- American Institute of Biological Sciences
* Association of Systematics Collections (ASC)
* California Academy of Sciences
* Chicago Academy of Sciences
* Classification Society of North America
o Sequence Analysis and Comparison: A Bibliography
* Eisenhower National Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education
* European Society for Evolutionary Biology
* FASEB -- Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
* Geological Society of America
* International Society for Evolutionary Protistology (ISEP)
* International Society for Human Ethology (ISHE)
* National Academy of Sciences
* National Center for Science Education (NCSE) -- defends teaching of evolution
* National Institutes of Health, U.S. (NIH)
o NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts (from NYU Medical Center)
* National Research Council of Canada
* National Science Foundation, U.S.
* National Science Teachers Association
* The Palaeontological Society
* The Willi Hennig Society
* Other lists
o Phylogenetics Societies and Organizations from UCMP
o Professional Societies and Organizations in Natural History from UCMP
Museums and Exhibits
* The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia
* Bishop Museum, Hawaii
* University of California at Berkeley
o Museum of Paleontology
+ visit the Exhibits!
* Cleveland Museum of Natural History
* Exploratorium, San Francisco
* Fernbank Museum of Natural History, Atlanta
* Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
* Florida Museum of Natural History
* Franklin Institute Virtual Science Museum, Philadelphia
* Honolulu Community College
o Dinosaur Exhibit
* Houston Museum of Natural Science
* University of Kansas Natural History Museum
* University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology
* Montshire Museum of Science, Hanover, NH
* Musée National d'Histoire Natrelle, Luxembourg
* Museum of Science, Boston
* Natural History Museum, Berne, Switzerland
* Natural History Museum, London
* Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
* North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences
* Oregon Museum of Science and Industry (OMSI)
* University of Pisa Museum of Natural History
* Royal British Columbia Museum
* The Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology
* St. Louis Science Center
* San Diego Natural History Museum
* The Science Museum, London
* Smithsonian Institution
o National Museum of Natural History
* Swedish Museum of Natural History
* University of Vermont
o Charlotte, The Vermont Whale
* Virtual Museum of Natural History
* Other lists
o Natural History Museums from UC-Berkeley Museum of Paleontology
o Science and Natural History Museums from The Franklin Institute
Collections
* The Academy of Natural Sciences
* Association of Systematics Collections (ASC)
* University of California Berkeley Museum of Paleontology Collections Catalogs
* Connecticut College
o Charles B. Graves Herbarium
* Harvard University
o Museum of Comparative Zoology
* Paleontological Research Institution
* Texas Natural History Collections (TNHC)
* Other lists
o On-Line Collections Catalogs from UCMP
Molecular Evolution
* Gene/Protein Databases
o AAA Protein Superfamily Server
o Homeobox Gene Classification
o Human Genome Project: Human and Mouse Immune System Genes (U. Victoria)
o Organelle Genomics (Montreal)
* Organism Databases
o Filarial Genome Network / FilGenNet (Imperial College)
Phylogenetics, Systematics, and Taxonomy
See also Phylogenetics Resources from UC-Berkeley.
* The Tree of Life (Arizona)
* TreeBASE: A Database of Phylogenetic Knowledge (Harvard)
* Virus Sequences, Alignments, and Phylogenetics Trees (Wisconsin Institute for Molecular Virology)
Other
* The Alfred Russell Wallace Site
* The "Intelligent Design" position debated, discussed - from Natural History Magazine
It IS big news. all the time..you just have to actually READ a science website or magazine... only the most inane or "popular" sensational stories make it into the newspapers or TV. | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 7:09:55 AM | | Very well put Raven. The problem with people that tout creationism is that for the most part they are usually members of a religion which means the idea is so ingrained from indoctrination and brainwashing that they could never even begin to accept or entertain an idea other than the religiously accepted one no matter how ridiculous it really is. Religions are just cults that are socially acceptable. They use the same tactics and are just as scary, only on a larger scale. It takes a lot of time and possibly a lot of therapy to escape it. I was in it for years until I took a step back and saw how misleading and destructive religion and belief in a "god" actually were. It's scary to think there's nothing after death but at some point we have to accept reality and get on with life. Evolution is the best explanation we have thus far. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 7:35:33 AM | Becky J Your reasoning falls apart since This Nation was not founded on the basics Christanity. You also have the problem of a seperation of Chruch and State but that is another topic.
You also lack an understanding of just what is a scientific theory. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:31:12 AM | It's not big news. Further evidence is published daily in literally hundreds of journals in scores of languages. It's so common that it's mundane and not newsworthy. The average creationist wouldn't understand most of the information, much less be able to put in context. That's part of why they're still creationists. Lack of critical reading skills IS one of their problems, as the abundant sources have been previously pointed out in this thread and others. Guess you just didn't want to see it [I will excuse not skimming back more than three or four pages].
With our country being founded on the basics of christianity
That's arguable, and has been debated elsewhere. However, one of the principles upon which the USA WAS founded was separation of church and state, with the specific provision that public indoctrination into the teachings of a particular faith was inappropriate and unconstitutional.
To consider a creation theory by all forms is comparable to a child having to learn all the formulations of mathematics prior graduating
Religious creationism is neither theory nor scientific.
Viewing both concepts as theories, why should one be better than another
Because they both are NOT theories. Evolution is observable fact. Evolution by natural selection is solid theory. Creationism is pseudoscience to further a religious agenda.
after all, it's just a matter of opinion and whether you believe it or not, a theory is just that, a theory.
It's not so much a matter of opinion as it is a matter of preference. Regardless of your opinion, evolution is science, creationism is not. This illustrates, once again, something which has been pointed out countless times: a scientific "theory" is not "just a theory". To the layperson, a "theory" is a guess. A scientific theory is not a guess. It is a specific hypothesis which has been repeatedly testing against its alternatives and revised or replaced until it is reliable. A valid theory is one which has never been proven wrong. It's a good deal more than a guess. What keeps it from being "fact" or "law" is that it has aspects which can never be directly observed or tested. In all instances in which it CAN be observed or tested, it works reliably. Evolution is well-established fact. Natural selection is well-established fact. Natural selection as a driving force in evolution is a highly reliable theory. Creationism is founded on a basis of an unknowable and unprovable force operating in unknown ways, in contradiction of observable testable evidence. By definition, it cannot be science, and the only "opinion" to support it is an uneducated one.
Because creation viewed by most of those you posted is still performed ...but the actual creator is in question, not the act of creation itself.
Depending upon your exact meaning, I would tentatively agree. However, the predominant question here doesn't deal with "creation". Evolution has nothing to do with creation per se. To be comparable alternatives, we would have to be discussing creationism or "intelligent design". That being the case, you have two choices - you can choose faith and ID, or science and evolution, since the two are imisceable. Since both creationism and ID depend upon science to [badly] make their case, faith is no longer a valid choice. That leaves science, with two alternate views. Creationism and ID are both pseudoscience. They discard the baby with the bathwater. Scientifically, they are both garbage and can be safely tossed without regret or further thought. If one is going to make a scientific argument, you can't pick and choose what aspects of science do or do not apply.
A popular example from creationism is to discard radiocarbon dating as unreliable or inaccurate. That's essentially false. It's only accurate within a particular time frame, but it DOES work reliably. In time ranges for which it is NOT accurate, other forms of radio-dating are available. Unreliable results are statistically detectable, which allows more appropriate methods to be chosen. These can be selected or confirmed by other, independant methods. Simply stating that it doesn't work or is unreliable suggests that the method itself doesn't work. If that were true, nuclear power plants, atomic clocks, and your computer monitor would not work. These all rely on very predictable and reliable properties of substances and specific types of radioactive decay. There's the flaw. Throw out the science when it disagrees with the religious agenda, but accept it when it's convenient. Very good reason to teach evolution and NOT ID. One is knowledge, the other is garbage. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:42:09 AM | With our country being founded on the basics of christianity, there should not even be a question as to whether creation is an acceptable subject to teach. Viewing both concepts as theories, why should one be better than another......after all, it's just a matter of opinion and whether you believe it or not, a theory is just that, a theory.
Becky J, there are many problems with this line of argument-- enough to be discussed in a few threads, which it has been. You might not be surprised to know that this thread has already addressed some of this. Too bad there isn't an intra-thread search function!
The US was founded by a mix of deists and Christians and the federal government was intended to be secular. As for individual states, that is another matter and another thread. It is definitely questionable whether Creation should be taught in science class, as this very thread proves. Creation is NOT a scientific theory. It is a rather literal interpretation of an ancient poem originally written in Hebrew, as Bear has nicely pointed out earlier. It can be taught in a religion class but has no place in science. It is theology rather than theory. Funny how they have the first four letters in common, though.
Evolution has a place in science because it is a valid scientific subject. It is both fact and theory, much like gravity. It is a scientific fact that it happened, and the theory seeks to explain how it happened. I realize that many don't believe this, but the belief of the general populace is not required for the scientists involved to work in the context that it is established fact. The controversy arises because as it is established scientific fact, it can be taught as such in public schools.
I have one question for all the scores of people who say that there is all of this evidence that proves evolution. If there is all of this evidence then how come it isn't the biggest news story in the world, and how come there aren't people all over the world that are sharing this information and proof...
Pastordave, evolution is not some new, groundbreaking discovery. It has been discussed for at least 170 years. Your question is a testament to the quality of education regarding evolution in the US. As far as modern industrialized nations go, the US is a leader in pop culture and a lagger in lower education science. That should make us weep for the future.
Edit: Hmmm... Frog O beat me to it, and then some. Oh well, just let this be evidence that we aren't pulling this stuff from our collective a$$. "Hello... hello... echo... echo..."
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 9:27:15 AM |
Becky J: To consider a creation theory by all forms is comparable to a child having to learn all the formulations of mathematics prior graduating.....
I wasn't proposing learning math - read my post again. Those were other religions/cultures, all of which just as valid as yours and mine, and with their own beliefs about creation. If its fair to teach one religion's creation belief, then its fair to teach other religious creation beliefs as well.
Creationism is not a theory. It is conjecture.
With our country being founded on the basics of christianity,
Which is why the founding father, John Adams, signed a treaty stating "As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
...there should not even be a question as to whether creation is an acceptable subject to teach.
Well since some of the founding fathers were christians, but more of them were freemasons, do you feel that we should be teaching freemasonry in science class?
It is an acceptable subject to teach. Its just not acceptable in science class.
Viewing both concepts as theories, why should one be better than another......after all, it's just a matter of opinion and whether you believe it or not, a theory is just that, a theory.
I wouldn't view both concepts of theories. Because they aren't both theories.
An observable phenomenon is a law, an explanation of why it happens is a theory. If a theory is accepted by everyone of every faith and creed as fact, if the evidence of its validity is beyond refute, if it is proven beyond any doubt, then that theory is called....*drum roll please*...... a theory. Anyone who implies a measure of uncertainty toward something by calling it a 'theory' is woefully uninformed. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 1:47:21 PM | | I haven't read every single word on here, there's too much inane babble from pretty much everyone on here. But from what I can see I seem to be the only God-fearing Christian who believes in creation. In saying that I'm really wondering why you guys are all debating about this topic when you all agree that it was evolution. Why are you arguing with each other and trying prove each other wrong and yourselves right? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 1:54:40 PM | | I haven't read all I should have here either so forgive me if this has been asked or whatever... Why can't some Christians unite creation with evolution? I don't see the confliction... Hey people believed some crazy stuff over the aeons... So what if Intelligent Design has been debunked? That doesn't mean everything wasn't created... Just that it took some trial and error. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 2:13:32 PM |
But from what I can see I seem to be the only God-fearing Christian who believes in creation.
Not at all. Dig just a tad deeper into the thread replies, if you can stand the inane babbling. If not, then why are you here asking questions, and, furthermore, ignoring the answers?
Why can't some Christians unite creation with evolution?
It negates the idea that God created a perfect world originally, which was subsequently tarnished by sin and rebellion. Because of that rebellion, God needed to send His only son and... I think you know the rest of that. Also check out www.answersingenesis.org. I think they discuss the threat to human morality if evolution "turns out to be true." | |
|
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 5:50:38 PM |
Evolution isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis.
It started as an hypothesis and grew into a theory as it was looked at more substantially.
Darwin himself believed in intelligent design.
Where on Earth did you hear that? If it was prior to his research, I would buy it but I doubt he would believe in something his lifes work proved wrong.
The Bible contains an enormous wealth of scientific fact.
Now that's an odd claim... Care to elaborate?
Science has a consistent track record of "catching up with the Bible" on scientific fact.
Give me two examples of this.
To ignore this, or in other words to not consider it, then plea with others to consider man's non-hypothesis called evolution is ignorant or flat out dishonest.
And what is it when you just make stuff up and call it factual without researching? Blind faith or denial?
Either or, where is this so called pudding? It certainly isn't in the Bible or it would be properly credited. | |
|
Nergal
|
Joined: 4/29/2007
Msg: 3796 | |
| |
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:00:06 PM | I have one question for all the scores of people who say that there is all of this evidence that proves evolution. If there is all of this evidence then how come it isn't the biggest news story in the world, and how come there aren't people all over the world that are sharing this information and proof in the news, on the internet and everywhere. If it was such hard evidence for the evolutionary theory then I think it would be bigger news. I think the answer is becuase it's all peoples hypothasis. Neither one can really be 100% proven without faith. Like I said in my last post live your life how you want, that's your choice, but who do you think is going to be more sorry at the end of their life if they are wrong, you or me, that is something you can't deny.
Outside of the US, the acceptance of Evolution while not universal, is sufficient that it is not a political issue.
I haven't read all I should have here either so forgive me if this has been asked or whatever... Why can't some Christians unite creation with evolution? I don't see the confliction... Hey people believed some crazy stuff over the aeons... So what if Intelligent Design has been debunked? That doesn't mean everything wasn't created... Just that it took some trial and error.
Catholics acknowledge evolution as a valid scientific theory. It's fundamentalists who primarily take issue with it.
The Bible contains an enormous wealth of scientific fact.
Yah I just heard that the sun rotates around the earth. [Ps. 93:1, Ps. 19:1-6, Joshua 10:12-14]
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:06:43 PM |
If there is all of this evidence then how come it isn't the biggest news story in the world, and how come there aren't people all over the world that are sharing this information and proof in the news, on the internet and everywhere.
It was the biggest story in the world...in the 17th century
I think the answer is becuase it's all peoples hypothasis.
The hypothasis it's all peoples answer becuase pastordave found the right line of work (sorry journalism or academia, pastordave is taken!)
Neither one can really be 100% proven without faith.
The only thing proven here is you have no idea what proof is.
who do you think is going to be more sorry at the end of their life if they are wrong, you or me, that is something you can't deny.
No I can't deny that I wouldn't of wasted my life. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution [read OP before posting] *
Posted: 11/30/2007 8:39:35 PM | Ah, there is symmetry and proof that the UNfit DO survive. Geometry is here to prove that ignorance is bliss and no fact should go undisputed. Only hearsay is truth, fact is equivocal, and blind faith shall always trump substantiated evidence. Truly, it is GOOD to live in such an enlightened and brilliantly intellectual universe 
When all else fails, a creationist's last resort shall always be a healthy dose of argumentum ad ignorantiam and argumentum ad nauseum. One for the clueless righteous, and the other for those with at least half-a-brain. | |
|
| |
|
| Page 152 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
