Alternative Creations

It is a theory that extrapolates what it sees onto things one can't see, and assumes them to be correct, when in fact, things don't always work that way.

So, you are likewise skeptical of electricity? Or solar power?

This is an interesting statement. The answer doesn't belong in this thread, of course, but if you would pick some evidence and offer an alternative interpretation that can stand up to the evidence (all of it) that would be interesting.Of course, the "alternative interpretations" thing has been brought up a rather large number of times before. When asked to supply one which is then discussed we get down to (frequently) -- "God made it look like the conventional interpretation is right but it isn't".When all the evidence is considered no one seems to be able to come up with a very interesting alternative. I am not expecting that you will be the first -- surprise me.

That is interesting Ned, while piece of evidence "A" may have a particular, possible, alternate explanation, and piece of evidence "B" may have another possible alternate explanation, I have never seen anyone offer an alternate explanation that covers ALL the pieces of evidence. But this is off topic, so everyone feel free to ignore it.This message has been edited by Asgara, 09-12-2005 10:40 PM

I always find it amazing that people say that it is God that makes things look old, when in fact it is generally our assumptions about things that God has never said, that make things look that way.
However, like you say, that is another thread, which I do hope to get too, after I finish a couple of threads (could take till the weekend at this rate lol).

I didn't say what you see is NEVER true, just that appearances can sometimes be deceiving, that's all.

I still have no evidence that you actually understand what the TOE is - I'm therefore not particularly inclined to grant your viewpoint much merit.

Ok, here's a couple of dictionary definitions, let's see if they have it right according to you...
..."the doctrine of the descent of all living things from a few simple forms of life, or from a single form."
..."continuous progress from unorganized simplicity to organized complexity."
What do you think?

Hi, Steve.I have already written a post in which I explain what the theory of evolution really is. There is a point or two that I would clarify, but overall I'm pretty happy with it.

Well, like any dictionary definition, they are fundamentally correct, but do nothing to address the scope of the theory. For example:Religion is defined as "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. "But does that really explain religion?

At least the genesis account is rashonal!!!WTF? Flooding until land can rise above it? WTF? Why? Why should the land even care to rise above it? There is no explaination for all that crap.At least the bible has a rashonal chronological explaination, even if it isn't true (although I believe it is.)

What's so rational about a person (Eve) being made out of a rib?

I don't understand your use of the term rational.Are you saying that - "Given the internal set of rules within the Bible, the Bible makes sense." ?I would guess that all creation myths make sense to the people who create them. Please understand that I've RADICALLY truncated the myths to fit them here.A similiar truncation of the Bible would be something like this -
"God created everything in a week, and although he is all powerful, he still needed the 7th day for a break."How rational is it that a being that pre-exists matter (and therefore is not material) would need time to rest?