Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 3:40 AM
24 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,785 Year: 8,821/19,786 Month: 1,243/2,119 Week: 3/576 Day: 3/50 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   If evolution is wrong, is Creation right?
MPW
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 64 (82046)
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


If evolution is wrong, is Creation correct? Or is there a theory that we haven't come up with? By the way I'm new here, I'm 15 years old and a scientist. No, I don't work in a labratory. You see the definition of science is basically knowledge. More specifically knowledge gained by study, experimentation, etc. Check any dictionary. So 'scientist' can thus be defined as a person in pursuit of knowledge, thats me! So, with that said, I will ask the question this forum section discusses: Is it science? If evolution is true, everything MUST be explained by science, which is impossible. If Creation is true, God is the inventor of science and anything can be explained. So, is evolution scientific? To define "scientific" I mean something that we can observe, test, and demonstrate at any time. Evolution is divided into six groups: (you've probably heard this before, but its worth it)
1.Cosmic evolution. The origin of time space and matter. (The big bang)

2.Chemical evolution. The evolving of higher elements from the two gasses that the big ang produced; hydrogen and helium.

3.Stellar and planetary evolution. No one has ever seen a star form.

4.Organic evolution. Life evolving from non-living matter. This has never been observed.

5.Macro-evolution. The changing of one kind of animal to another. This has never been oberved.

6.Micro-evolution. Variation within kind. i.e. A wolf to a coyote to a poodle...still dogs. This one has been observed and happens all the time.
I actually wouldn't call that evolution, rather, variation.
So evolution, the first five meanings anway, is not scientific, it is not observable, testable, or demonstratable. As for creation, it does not need to rely on science for everything, it relies on the creator of science. However, God likes order, so he made a set of scientific laws we can trust. But I have just disproven the common belief that creation is religious and evolution is science. Evolution is just as much a religion as creation, and takes more faith to believe in my opinion. Now if you want to believe the theory thats fine. But I just don't want our tax dollars being used to teach only one of these religions in our public schools. In conclusion, I believe that it is logically and scientifically possible to prove that God exists. Don't think so? I'll try that in another thread another day....
Thanks,
Mike.
edit: only spelling corrections!

[This message has been edited by MPW, 02-01-2004]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:03 PM MPW has not yet responded
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 10:15 PM MPW has responded
 Message 4 by Asgara, posted 02-01-2004 10:30 PM MPW has responded
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 02-01-2004 11:38 PM MPW has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 02-02-2004 7:41 AM MPW has responded
 Message 14 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 9:21 AM MPW has not yet responded

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 64 (82047)
02-01-2004 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


Sorry, I noticed after typing furiously that the topic does not match the rest of my post. Oh well, reply to either of them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:00 PM MPW has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 64 (82048)
02-01-2004 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


Evolution is divided into six groups

No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution is a strictly biological theory that explains species diversity on Earth, and that's it. The rest of your list encompasses cosmology, geology, and organic chemistry. These are not biological sciences.

Surely somebody who styles themselves as a scientist is familiar with the division of scientific fields. It is true that evidence from all these different fields contradicts the Creation story. But these fields are not evolution. Evolution is strictly biology.

5.Macro-evolution. The changing of one kind of animal to another. This hasbever been oberved.

6.Micro-evolution. Variation within kind. i.e. A wolf to a coyote to s poodle...still dogs. This one has been observed abd happens all the time.

There's several errors here that betray your standing as a "scientist."

Firstly, there's no such thing as "kinds". Kinds is not a functional category of living things. There's no way to tell if any two given animals are in the same or different kinds. "Kinds" is not a term scientists use in biology because it has no meaning.

Therefore it's inaccurate to draw a distinction between micro and macro-evolution, and the reason is simple: It's like trying to draw a distinction between walking to the store (micro-walking) and walking to the next town (macro-walking.) There's no difference because it's the same process occuring for different time periods.

But I have just disproven the common belief that creation is religious and evolution is science.

What you've disproven is that you're motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. Instead you've proven that you're all too willing to post already-refuted Hovind-esque nonsense to further a preconcieved religous agenda. You're not the first 15-year-old creationist to post this stuff. Maybe you'll be the first to be able to defend it, but I doubt it. I predict - because that's what scientists do, make predictions from data - that you'll post maybe 20 times and then abandon the board and all your arguments.

In conclusion, I believe that it is logically and scientifically possible to prove that God exists.

Huh, funny. I believe that it's possible to prove that an all-powerful, benevolent Godas that described in the Bible doesn't exist, and moreover, have done so in several threads. By all means, let us discuss.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:00 PM MPW has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:43 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 8 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-01-2004 11:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Asgara
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 4 of 64 (82049)
02-01-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


Welcome MPW,

I'm glad to hear you think of yourself as a scientist. Science is wonderful isn't it?

One thing I'd like to touch upon in your post is the list of six groups of evolution. The Theory of Evolution (TOE) only deals with the evolution of living things. Specifically, common descent with modification over time. The process of natural selection, working on genetic variation to produce a change in a population over time.

The other groups you list are all interesting science topics in their own right, (and we have forums dealing with all of them), but they have no bearing on the TOE.

Since as a scientist, you are in pursuit of knowledge, I hope you stick around and discuss the issues in a less dogmatic fashion. Dogma has no bearing on science either.


Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:00 PM MPW has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:56 PM Asgara has not yet responded

  
MPW
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 64 (82050)
02-01-2004 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
02-01-2004 10:15 PM


How do you do those quotes? Oh, well, I'll use (lots of) quotation marks.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution is a strictly biological theory that explains species diversity on Earth, and that's it. The rest of your list encompasses cosmology, geology, and organic chemistry. These are not biological sciences.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Cosmic, Stellar, chemical, and organic evolution MUST I repeat MUST be addressed for evolution to be a theory of origins!!!! Otherwise you might as well throw the whole theory in the garbage! Evolution is NOT strictly biology, I don't know where you come up with that.
You don't want to address those subjects (Cosmic, Stellar, chemical, and organic evolution) because you know they are NOT scientific.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""There's several errors here that betray your standing as a "scientist."

Firstly, there's no such thing as "kinds". Kinds is not a functional category of living things. There's no way to tell if any two given animals are in the same or different kinds. "Kinds" is not a term scientists use in biology because it has no meaning.

Therefore it's inaccurate to draw a distinction between micro and macro-evolution, and the reason is simple: It's like trying to draw a distinction between walking to the store (micro-walking) and walking to the next town (macro-walking.) There's no difference because it's the same process occuring for different time periods."""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""''"""

The first paragrapg is irrelevant to the discussion. Now with KINDS I mean the dog kind, the cat kind the horse kind and the monkey kind. No, I do not know the fine line between some of them, that would be a good area of study. I'm not done exploring here on earth yet!! And your example of micro walking to the store is completely off the wall, it does NOT compare to evolution. Your magic ingredient is time. But there is a limit! Animals can change and vary and adapt but they can NEVER be something else! A banana will not change to a caterpillar if you give it trillians of years. A bug will become resistant to a pesticide, but never to an axe!
It has never been observed, and it is completely unreasonable. Actually, sitting here thinking about it, I know where the line is between micro and macro which further disproves your walking to another city example! Variation within "kinds" is using the genetic information ALREADY PRESENT in the gene code. This information can be scrambled, but we have NEVER observed any NEW information being added. You can lose genetic info, but never gain any. A fish could never get lungs.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""What you've disproven is that you're motivated by the pursuit of knowledge. Instead you've proven that you're all too willing to post already-refuted Hovind-esque nonsense to further a preconcieved religous agenda. You're not the first 15-year-old creationist to post this stuff. Maybe you'll be the first to be able to defend it, but I doubt it. I predict - because that's what scientists do, make predictions from data - that you'll post maybe 20 times and then abandon the board and all your arguments.""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Tell me one thing that has been refuted that Hovind teaches.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Huh, funny. I believe that it's possible to prove that an all-powerful, benevolent Godas that described in the Bible doesn't exist, and moreover, have done so in several threads. By all means, let us discuss. """""""""""""""""""""""""""

I didn't say an "all-powerful, benevolent God" I said just God! An all-powerful, benevolent God is next and yes, it requires faith. But its easier to believe "In the beginning God" than "In the begginning dirt". Too late now, I'll start another thread sometime this week.
Mike.

[This message has been edited by MPW, 02-01-2004]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 10:15 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Asgara, posted 02-01-2004 10:56 PM MPW has not yet responded
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 11:20 PM MPW has not yet responded

MPW
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 64 (82052)
02-01-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Asgara
02-01-2004 10:30 PM


Sorry, I posted without seeing your post.... This is the first I have heard of evolution being only living things. Evolution is a theor of origins. I mean, where did we come from anyway? Is there a new theory about that? As for being dogmatic, beats me, I'm just writing what I think and TRYING to be polite.. We are talking about SCIENCE Evolution has never been demonstrated or observed. Nothing has ever been added to any gene code that we've seen.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Asgara, posted 02-01-2004 10:30 PM Asgara has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 11:31 PM MPW has not yet responded

Asgara
Member (Idle past 465 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 7 of 64 (82053)
02-01-2004 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:43 PM


A fish could never get lungs.

Except there are already fish with lungs...
http://www.whozoo.org/Anlife99/lashawn/africanlungfishindex4.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/sarco/dipnoi.html

Tell me one thing that has been refuted that Hovind teaches.

Maybe you can take each of ol' Kent's claims and bring them up in the proper forums.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-dr.html

We could discuss polystrate fossils, probability of evolution, how bout the ica stones or dinosaurs and man coexisting.

We have forums on the flood and geology, radiometric dating, cosmology, human origins....take your pick

(added by edit) if you hit the edit button underneith a particular thread where someone is using a format you dont' know how to do, you can see how it is done. Also to the left of the reply window are links called HTML is ON, and UBB Code is ON. These links can explain all the formatting used on these forums.

[This message has been edited by Asgara, 02-01-2004]


Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:43 PM MPW has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3723
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 8 of 64 (82056)
02-01-2004 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by crashfrog
02-01-2004 10:15 PM


quote:
No, it's not. The Theory of Evolution is a strictly biological theory that explains species diversity on Earth, and that's it. The rest of your list encompasses cosmology, geology, and organic chemistry. These are not biological sciences.

Yes and no. The "default" definition of the "theory of evolution" does refer to biological evolution, but other varities of evolution also do happen. Why, I even have a textbook entitled "The Evolution of the Earth".

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 10:15 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 64 (82058)
02-01-2004 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:43 PM


Cosmic, Stellar, chemical, and organic evolution MUST I repeat MUST be addressed for evolution to be a theory of origins!!!!

Yes, you're absolutely correct.

That's why the Theory of Evolution isn't a theory of origins. It's a theory that explains species diversity. It's hardly the theory's fault if you don't know what it's supposed to explain, right?

You don't want to address those subjects (Cosmic, Stellar, chemical, and organic evolution) because you know they are NOT scientific.

No, I don't want to address them because they're not my area of knowledge, and they have little relevance to the theory of evolution.

Now with KINDS I mean the dog kind, the cat kind the horse kind and the monkey kind.

No such thing. You might be thinking the dog genus, the cat genus, the horse genus, and the monkey order. None of these are "kinds" because there's no such thing as kind.

I notice that you haven't even tried to define "kind". If you're able to provide a functional definition of kind, you'd be the first ever to do so.

Your magic ingredient is time. But there is a limit! Animals can change and vary and adapt but they can NEVER be something else!

Says you. Care to provide evidence?

A banana will not change to a caterpillar if you give it trillians of years.

Why not? The only difference is genetics. And mutations change genetics. So the change is possible, however unlikely.

A fish could never get lungs.

Except, of course, for the fish that have lungs.

Tell me one thing that has been refuted that Hovind teaches.

Well, his claim that human cytochrome C is more similar to a sunflower's than a chimpanzee's has been demonstrated to be wrong on a number of occasions, though he has never retracted the statement.

He's claimed the Paluxy River Tracks are actually human and dinosaur footprints side-by-side. Obviously this is impossible under evolutionary timelines. Moreover, even the Institute For Creation Research and the Answers in Genesis group don't think those tracks are valid.

His best-known lie is his ridiculous quarter-million "bet" that he can't be convinced that evolution is true. Firstly, he doesn't have the money. Secondly, all he has to do to avoid paying the money is not allow himself to be convinced. Sounds like a bogus bet to me.

When I say that his arguments are "nonsense", it's only because he's the biggest, most dishonest charlatan in the Creationist movement. If you care at all about actually doing some good for creationism, as well as acting like a good Christian, you'll do whatever you can to distance yourself from this clown, just as the ICR and AiG have. Do you think Jesus wants you to lie for him?

I said just God!

Oh, well it's perfectly reasonable to believe in a do-nothing, powerless God. But why would you want to? And how could such a God create anything? But as long as you agree that the Christian God is contradictory to the evidence... and as a scientist, surely you can't deny evidence, can you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:43 PM MPW has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by mike the wiz, posted 02-02-2004 9:31 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 64 (82059)
02-01-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:56 PM


Evolution has never been demonstrated or observed.

Sure it has. In fact, another poster has often posted an experiment in evolution you can do yourself:

quote:
Here's an experiment you can do in the privacy of your own bio lab. It doesn't cost very much and the materials can be acquired from any decent biological supply house.

Take a single E. coli bacterium of K-type. This means the bacterium is susceptible to T4 phage. Let this bacterium reproduce until it forms a lawn. Then, infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right, plaques should start to form and, eventually, the entire lawn will die. After all, every single bacterium in the lawn is descended from a single ancestor, so if the ancestor is susceptible, then all the offspring should be susceptible, too.

But what we actually see is that some colonies of bacteria in the lawn are not affected by the phage.

How can this be? Again, the entire lawn is descended from a single ancestor. They should all behave identically. If one is susceptible, then they're all susceptible. If one is immune, then they're all immune. This can't be an example of "adaptation" because if one could do it, they all could do it.

But since there is a discrepancy, we are left with only one conclusion: The bacteria evolved. There must be a genetic difference between the bacteria that are surviving and those that died.

Indeed, we call the new bacteria K-4 because they are immune to T4 phage.

But we're not done. Take a single K-4 bacterium and repeat the process: Let it reproduce to form a lawn and then infect the lawn with T4 phage.

What do we expect to happen? That's right: Absolutely nothing. All of the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor that is immune to T4 phage. Therefore, they all should survive and we shouldn't see any plaques form.

But we do. Plaques do, indeed start to form. How can this be? Again, all the bacteria in the lawn are descended from a single ancestor that was immune to T4 phage, so they shold all behave identically. If one is immune, then all are immune. There must be something else going on.

Something evolved, but the question is what. What evolved? Could it be the bacteria experiencing a reversion mutation back to K-type? No, that can't be it. Suppose any given bacteria did revert back to wild. It is surrounded by K-4 type who are immune to T4 phage. As soon as the lawn is infected, those few bacteria will die and immediately be replaced by the offspring of the immune K-4 bacteria. We would never see any plaques forming because the immune bacteria keep filling in any holes that appear.

So if it isn't the bacteria that evolved, it must be the phage. And, indeed, we call the new phage T4h as it has evolved a new host specificity.


Nothing has ever been added to any gene code that we've seen.

See above. And search PubMed.org. You can see plenty of scientific, peer-reviewed papers about mutations adding new genes and capabilities. It's actually pretty common. You yourself have probably between 10 and 50 mutations of your own.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:56 PM MPW has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 64 (82061)
02-01-2004 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


In answer to the question of the topic title:
quote:
If evolution is wrong, is Creation right?

And the answer is: (envelope please )

No.

Creation (at least that defined as an instantaneious creation of all life forms 6,000 years ago) has been demonstrated to be wrong as a scientific issue. Therefore if "evolution" is wrong that leaves us with no explanation for the diversity of life.

You should also note that showing that the theory of evolution (that is, how evolution happened) wrong would still leave us with the fact that life on earth has undergone evolutionary change. We just wouldn't understand how it did that.


Common sense isn't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:00 PM MPW has not yet responded

Peter
Member (Idle past 2085 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 12 of 64 (82087)
02-02-2004 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


quote:

If evolution is wrong, is Creation correct?

No. They are two separate explanations for how we all came
to share this strange little mud-ball. One says nothing about
the other.

In fact it would be possible for both to be correct. Some god
or other poofed the universe into being, dumped a few dozen
microbes on a planet or two, and then let his/her/its universal
rules run riot -- with evolution (as we understand it in a
biological sense) operating to diversify the extant critters.

What the theory of evolution (biological) does do, is to cast
doubt on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of
creation.

quote:

Evolution is divided into six groups...

What we are largely concerned with here is the Theory of Evolution
first put forward by Charles Darwin, and elaborated/ammended over
the intervening years. This theory attempts to explain the
diversity of life we observe around us.

quote:

6.Micro-evolution. Variation within kind. i.e. A wolf to a coyote to a poodle...still dogs. This one has been observed and happens all the time.
I actually wouldn't call that evolution, rather, variation

Allowing tha you might be using the term 'kind' very loosely
(rather than have a specific concept of what that means), variation
within a kind is caused by micro-evolution (I don't like the
micro macro distinction in any case) they are not synonymous.

quote:

I believe that it is logically and scientifically possible to prove that God exists.

You stated that for something to be scientifically acceptable
it must be 'observable, testable, or demonstratable' ...
please apply any one of those to a proof of God (I assume you mean
the christian god ... but any god will do).

quote:

Evolution is just as much a religion as creation

Except that no-one I know accepts the theory of evolution as
correct simply because that's what they have been told.

One must not confuse the loose, colloquial usage of the word
'beleive' with the religous connotation.

People who accept evolution as the best current explanation for
the extant diversity of life do so because they find the evidence
compelling.

quote:

But I just don't want our tax dollars being used to teach only one of these religions in our public schools

I thought you weren't allowed to teach any religions in US schools
(I assume you are from the US please say so if you are not).

Evolution is not, in any case, religous in nature.

You may have been force fed lines of argument that seem to suggest
that, but you'll likely find people here who have refuted those
lines often .... ad nauseum even.

Evolution is observable, testable and demonstrable -- as
someone pointed out with an experimental description.

It is supported by multiple lines of corrobaratory (is that
a word?) evidence from different fields of study.

The weight of evidence for stacks pretty high -- the evidence
against is sparse (and that's being kind). Some of the details
might be wrong, but the framework fits what we can observe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:00 PM MPW has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 02-02-2004 8:01 AM Peter has acknowledged this reply
 Message 20 by MPW, posted 02-02-2004 10:19 AM Peter has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 64 (82088)
02-02-2004 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peter
02-02-2004 7:41 AM


corrobaratory (is that a word?)

If you're really worried about it, take it from a grammar Nazi - the word you probably want to use is "corrobarating."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peter, posted 02-02-2004 7:41 AM Peter has acknowledged this reply

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 64 (82091)
02-02-2004 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MPW
02-01-2004 10:00 PM


Now where have I heard all this before...?

And while we're on the subject of Hovnid...


"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MPW, posted 02-01-2004 10:00 PM MPW has not yet responded

mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4656
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 15 of 64 (82092)
02-02-2004 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
02-01-2004 11:20 PM


I notice that you haven't even tried to define "kind". If you're able to provide a functional definition of kind, you'd be the first ever to do so.

But he did offer you an explanation. He shown how an animal never becomes a different one. Can you show under experiment a human change into another kind?
Are you saing there is no humans because there is no kinds. Come on Crash - you wouldn't say that just for the "kinds" debate would you?

Why not? The only difference is genetics. And mutations change genetics. So the change is possible, however unlikely.

Yes. But like you - he can't believe this unless he sees it. You know, like that God person you seek evidence for.

------------------------------------------
Dear Mike---
Welcome to the forum. A lot of people have said if evolution is not the truth Creation can't be. But if they're honest - they can't possibly know that for sure.

An evo once told me " we all believe in abiogenesis "

It's rather amusing since I believe in Genesis - You know, that original word = Creation. SO, Creation is a "absolute certainty" whereas evolution can be called a mere fact. Infact I personally would just call it a theory - as I have never seen it happen. People may say you're dogmatic e.t.c - it's best to shrug things like that off and stick to your guns, I can't see anything wrong with what you've said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 02-01-2004 11:20 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 02-02-2004 9:47 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 17 by Dan Carroll, posted 02-02-2004 9:52 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019