Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with that statement is that creationism has nothing that can be studied because it has no subject matter. I've been posting on this forum for close to a year now and I've seen all of the creationism websites and references to Biblical explanations but none of them have any substance. For example Noah's flood is something that creationists try to explain with some very far fetched ideas but there's nothing in the field of geology that someone can research and discover that indeed there was a global flood a few thousand years ago. Science follows the evidence while creationism follows the Bible. You're deceiving yourself if you think that scientists are ignoring important evidence that would topple evolution and support a young earth creationist point of view. No such evidence exists.
The whole of every natural thing that you see around you is a subject matter that can be studied. The problem is that an evolutionary scientist only attempts to prove his myth of evolution no matter to what extremes he has to go to. He won't even consider a different perspective. The tools that he uses are error filled such as the so called "fossil record" and the totally made up geologic column (which doesn't exist anywhere on Earth and is just a prime example of circular reasoning). Carbon dating is filled with flaws to the point of needing to be completely thrown out.
The evolutionary scientist starts from a predetermined mindset and then tries to place "evidence" in place to confirm it. This is wrong, immoral and deceiving and certainly isn't real science!
There is nothing wrong in using the Bible as a source of information. Every piece of evidence should be considered even if it goes completely opposite of your mindset.
The areas of medicine, genetics, astronomy, geology, biology, written history accounts, and mathematics all easily dispute the claim of evolution.
You mentioned Noah's flood. I'll create a new post for that because there is a multitude of evidence for the global flood and a young earth.
The whole of every natural thing that you see around you is a subject matter that can be studied. The problem is that an evolutionary scientist only attempts to prove his myth of evolution no matter to what extremes he has to go to. He won't even consider a different perspective. The tools that he uses are error filled such as the so called "fossil record" and the totally made up geologic column (which doesn't exist anywhere on Earth and is just a prime example of circular reasoning). Carbon dating is filled with flaws to the point of needing to be completely thrown out.
The evolutionary scientist starts from a predetermined mindset and then tries to place "evidence" in place to confirm it. This is wrong, immoral and deceiving and certainly isn't real science!
There is nothing wrong in using the Bible as a source of information. Every piece of evidence should be considered even if it goes completely opposite of your mindset.
The areas of medicine, genetics, astronomy, geology, biology, written history accounts, and mathematics all easily dispute the claim of evolution.
You mentioned Noah's flood. I'll create a new post for that because there is a multitude of evidence for the global flood and a young earth.
The only 'scientists' I've ever seen that do what you describe are creation 'scientists'. Evolutionary biologists don't do all the testing by themselves... *cough* *cough* which is probably a lot more than can be said for Creation 'scientists' who have performed little to NO testing at all. Now, do tell me, how can you even consider it science without doing testing? Oh, wait, let me guess... real science has already done the testing, they're just reinterpreting the data, right? And what mold might that data be fitting??? Isn't that the same thing you're accusing science of doing??
Edit: One last thing... the Bible, is in no way, shape or form something that should be used for scientific literature. I suggest that you also apply equal time to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well. It defies all logic, but according to you, we have to examine the evidence for it, right?
The evolutionary scientist starts from a predetermined mindset and then tries to place "evidence" in place to confirm it. This is wrong, immoral and deceiving and certainly isn't real science!
Let's look back at the beginnings of evolutionary theory and Charles Darwin. Darwin studied the natural world and made a number of important observations. He was just following the evidence and the evidence suggested a process in nature that no one had even conceived of. Darwin didn't have a predetermined mindset to use your words because it was a totally new concept that stunned the world. If his theory had been wrong it would have been overthrown by now. The Origin of Species was written before the Civil War and the evidence is now so overwhelming that evolution does occur that the only opposition is not from scientific evidence or those who are seeking the truth, it's from those who still cling to a literal interpretation of the Bible. You have every right to believe as you choose but your beliefs have been left in the past by a century and a half of human progress.
Some kinds of human knowledge are subject to verification and other kinds are not. Verifiable knowledge can be subject to various methods of verification, some inductive and some deductive. For instance, there is formal knowledge, such as mathematics, which is subject to the techniques of mathematical proof. Science deals with verifiable knowledge about the natural world.
Some aspects of human knowledge are not subject to verification but can be based more or less on facts. A scientist organizes the facts that are relevant to a given inquiry based on the dominant theory that encompasses that subject matter.
An opinion that a person holds about some question can be based on all sorts of evidence, including the testimony of, and/or opinions held by, others. However, an opinion can be considered either well founded or poorly founded based on the set of facts that are the basis for the opinion.
Short of having formal training in science and biology, one may have to fall back to having merely an opinion about the theory of evolution, but as with all of a person's other opinions, it should be based on relevant facts in order to be considered a well-founded opinion. The Bible does not offer all the relevant facts that would support a well-founded opinion about the theory of evolution for a person living in the 21st century.
The more rattlesnack bites are most likely due to humans moving into the areas where rattlesnacks live (I'm not saying that we shouldn't be there) and they are quite aggressive by nature. Grey squirrels also live in the deep woods away from cities. I'm not sure about what the reference to a pigeon flying like a chicken is about Anyhow, none of these demonstrate evolution in any way. They could be showing natural selection which was first a creationist argument not an evolution one. It is the method that God designed to protect the purity of the created kinds.
Madagascar has "millions" of years of missing fossil evidence of any kind. The fossils that are there don't show evolution in action. We do apparently see a decrease in mammal size, this is only a variance.
Would you please explain the term "throwback" ?
darwin coined the phrase natural selection, I swear your one of those who I realy wonder if your just yanking our chain, you can't realy be that shut off from the world.. I double dog dare you to read the origens of species, and I read your post so dont even claim you have. I dont mean read it like you do the bible, but realy read it, start at the front and and end at the end. personaly I'm thinking you arn't serious, but just being rude.
and btw.. it seems alot of you on both sides need to actualy read that book. he did a good job of making it easy to fallow, the languge is down to earth
darwin coined the phrase natural selection, I swear your one of those who I realy wonder if your just yanking our chain, you can't realy be that shut off from the world.. I double dog dare you to read the origens of species, and I read your post so dont even claim you have. I dont mean read it like you do the bible, but realy read it, start at the front and and end at the end. personaly I'm thinking you arn't serious, but just being rude.
and btw.. it seems alot of you on both sides need to actualy read that book. he did a good job of making it easy to fallow, the languge is down to earth
While I realize this whole endeavor is unlikely to get any response, I would recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for an understanding of the modern Theory of Evolution.
The Origin of the Species is somewhat limited in that it was written before we had an understanding of genetics and at a time when we had less fossil evidence.
While I realize this whole endeavor is unlikely to get any response, I would recommend "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins for an understanding of the modern Theory of Evolution.
Well, I'll respond to it, I've read it and think it's an excellent book. You're also right about what was known in Darwin's era. Some of the early fossil hunters did a very poor job of analyzing what they dug up and their main goal was just to collect as many bones as possible as fast as they could. Nothing was known about dna and genetics so of course we've come a long way in the last century and a half. I've also read many of the books by Stephen Jay Gould. His writing style was very different from Dawkins but he had some interesting perspectives on many aspects of evolution.
Well, I'll respond to it, I've read it and think it's an excellent book. You're also right about what was known in Darwin's era. Some of the early fossil hunters did a very poor job of analyzing what they dug up and their main goal was just to collect as many bones as possible as fast as they could. Nothing was known about dna and genetics so of course we've come a long way in the last century and a half. I've also read many of the books by Stephen Jay Gould. His writing style was very different from Dawkins but he had some interesting perspectives on many aspects of evolution.
Agreed. As a matter of fact, I just finished reading TBW last week. I thought it was a fascinating book with a lot of insight. Perhaps it's just me, but I thought it was really interesting that he wrote that book in 1986 and many of the scientific predictions he offered are now proven.
Agreed. As a matter of fact, I just finished reading TBW last week. I thought it was a fascinating book with a lot of insight. Perhaps it's just me, but I thought it was really interesting that he wrote that book in 1986 and many of the scientific predictions he offered are now proven.
Interesting. I thought pretty much the exact same thing after reading it. It has become one of my all time favorite books.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyhow, none of these demonstrate evolution in any way. They could be showing natural selection which was first a creationist argument not an evolution one. It is the method that God designed to protect the purity of the created kinds.
