Creation Evidence Museums...

1) The Big Bang is nothing to do with evolution. THereofre yourt point only confirms that the First Law of Thermodynamics has no relevance.2) The second law of thermodynamics says nothing about "some sort of utopia" and neither does evolution.3) You may long to hear an evolutionist tell lies to please creationists but that is unlikely to happen. Blind faith in human interpretations of the Bible is not science and never will be. It can be said to be idolatry, however.4) Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens.
What "missing link" are you talking about ?
The evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs is pretty strong and growing. The only serious alternative is that the birds split off a more basal group of archosaurs (as Feduccia claims),
Humans did not directly evolve from amphibians (although we have plenty of evidence of animals in between). There are far more than a handful of transitional fossils as you would know if you had investigated the facts. And I dare say that the only books on evolution you actually read properly are written by creationists.
If you want to convince me otherwise you are going to have to convince me that you have read and understood your reference to dogs in context - which on the face of it is clearly not the case.

quote:

---

5.MATHEMATICAL LAWS OF PROBABILITY - Showing that life occuring by chance are effectively zero.About 1 to the power of 165,000 (So thats a 1,with 165,000 zeros after it).

---

Rrhain can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure one to the power of anything is still one. He must mean "one times ten to the power of 165,000." And are there any laws of probability that aren't mathematical?regards,
Esteban "Cream Pythagoras" Hambre

You don't think, maybe, that a position of ignorance is not a great position to be arguing from? Again, the argument from ignorance.The culture that gave us the printed word and paper money was China. The culture that gave us medicine and astronomy - including the names of the stars we use to this day - was the Muslim world.The culture that wallowed in ignorance and superstition for a thousand years was the Christian Church. The claim is, when you try to push the Bible as a science textbook, what you get is the Dark Ages - a thousand years of superstition, witch-burnings, and death. Instead of an essay, why don't you participate in the debate? It's not that I fear any of your arguments - in fact I salivate at the very prospect of addressing them - but the forum we're on has rules about what we can talk about and where, and I'd like to follow those rules. Your points are worth addressing - sort of - but you should separate them into individual threads for each one. Well, I'm not much of a Bible scholar, but I'll try. We should do it in the Bible threads, though, not here.Just so we're clear, what you're saying is, if I can prove to you that the Bible isn't any less fallible than any other book, you don't have any other support for creationism? Again, just so we're clear, what you're saying is, you're a creationist not because you're convinced by the scientific evidence, but because you believe that the Bible is literally true?I'm not really sure how to respond to that. To me it's obvious that science - of any stripe - is the best way to find out about the world. Especially compared to a 2000-year-old book that turns out to be not much more accurate than anything else. I'm surprised to find someone who would readily admit to placing the words of the Bible over the reality percieved by their own senses.I'm not sure we'll have a lot to talk about, but I'll try.

The big bang has nothing to do with evolution? Its your entire theory on how the universe came to be.Without it evolution could not have possibly occured.You must agree with this surely?The 2nd law does is also relevant.Evolution contradicts it because evolution supposedly evolves into better things yet.We know that the universe and its resources are getting more and more disordered.Quite the oppositeThe evidence for dinasaur-bird i dont think ive read much.But the fact that one is warm and the other is cold blooded can make it very difficult indeed.I do not belive its been proven where humans came from i belive the missing link is still missing.Homo erectus has been declared by many evolutionists to be fully human.Studies show that they walked straight like us and brain size were just about identical to ours.The bodies and nature were very similar to neandethal.This is still a theory because it is not a fact that we descended from homo erectusAnd as for the Chinese and Muslim thing well today there are millions of Chinese and Arab Christians.The reason people were confused about the Bible is because Darwinian type men were promoting something else as scientific fact.Its really hard for a Christian to stand up for the Bible at a time were Scientist and even Christians were saying "Look theyve got all the evidence there,The Bible cant mean what you say".Most of that evidence of course isnt even used by Evolutionists nowadays like i said in another topic about the Scopes trialI have no problem with the debate.It kinda sucks writing a argument then waiting and waiting for a response (Vice versa) but im down for anything.Yes all you have to do is prove that the Bible isnt unique to any other book etc.Like you said.But of course after you give me your evidence i must give why i think the Bible is Gods word..Agreed?My belief is not blind faith.Men like Ken Ham use real science they just use the Bible as there referent..Just like evolutionists use there evidence with there Evolutionary framework and time scale..Its the same thing..(Remember the science of one vs the science of the other)We should have quite alot to talk about actually..I will try too..May God (No pun intended) have mercy on us all...This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-05-2004 07:44 AM

Without a universe then there would be nothing capable of evolving so I guess that you are trying to argue that the universe doesn't exist.And if you want to show that evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics you have to understand both of them. At present you understand neither - the "better" of evolution and the "disordered" of thermodynamics are not even opposites - and even if there were thermodynamics allows local increases in order (like a refrigerator).It is far from certain that all dinosaurs were cold-blooded. The idea that at least some were warm-blooded has been around since the '70s and so far as I know it has not been proven either way.Homo erectus is not a fully modern human and no "evolutionist" says that it was - it is a seperate species. And no, the brain size is NOT equal to that of a normal modern human - even the earliest speciments identified as our species ("archaic Homo sapiens") have smaller brains than that of an average modern human. Some *creationists* have claimed otherwise.

Irrelevant. There were none at the time these cultures made the advances I mentioned - refuting your point that Christianity has a monopoly on science.Moreover, now that there's all these Chinese and Arab Christians, how many advances in science come from China? Or from the Middle East? ?In the dark ages? I think you have your timeline a little mixed up. The dark ages were over 400 years before Darwin's time. Actually, it's the other way around. You have to support the assertion that the Bible is the literal word of God. Then I get to present evidence to the contrary and attempt to contradict your argument.This is because "The Bible is the word of God" is an extraordinay claim, and it takes extraordinay evidence to support. Creationism isn't science. When you start with a conclusion and filter the evidence to fit, that's not science.Remember too that evolution was developed by creationists. Remember that flood geology was disproved in the 1800's by creationists. These people came to the conclusions they did because they're better scientists than you and Ken Ham - they accepted the conclusions of the evidence no matter what they were.Ken Ham and his ilk won't accept any evidence that doesn't agree with the Bible - they won't even look at it. That's not doing science. That's closing your eyes to the truth.

Dont forget where the origins of the Bible came from..The Middle East..Muslim faith however arose a long time after the bible with no clear fullfilled prophecy of Mohammad..Also borrowed ideas from the Bible.Well in our version Jesus did this etc (False religion!)..I dont have the research on Christian influence on science but its here somewhere..All i can remember now is how God was what told man that the earth is real,consistant and possible to investigate..Evolutionized man i think would not be interested in such things except his instinct,Its quite obvious that man has Body,Soul & Spirit..These things do not come from matter..But thats a whole whole other topic..Anyway like i said theres alot to talk about..Anyway moving alongAm i wrong about the Dark ages thing? ok then well i dont know what to say..Well doubts arose and thats why the dark ages were like that..People starting doubting which leads to full disbelief..I dont think this topic is relevant though is it?...If so tell me why plzOk you want me to start with Bible proof..You mentioned before about putting it in the Bible forum?..You want me to write a proof of the Bible thread there?..If yes then it will be up asap..You want overwhelming evidence well i promise you that the only way you can reject is willfully not because the evidence isnt thereWhat you need to understand is that facts do not speak for themselves..Facts are interpreted..When scientist find dinasaur bone still fresh with blood cells still there (Yes its happened) They dont reject the idea that Dinasaurs existed 80 million yrs ago..When it is obvious that the bones would have decayed by now..More over again there are so many Dragon legends in cultures (The word Dinasaur wasnt invented yet,They were called dragons) Yet evolutionists to not accept that fact..Because they have a framework!...Creationists and Evolutionists are indeed both scientists with different opinions..Yes its true Ken Ham only accepts it if it fits the Bible but Evolutionists only accept it if it fits there framework and ideology..I hope your starting to realise how it really is science vs science..Once we get to that stage its all a matter of which ones right..Because arguments like it doesnt matter because thats just religion arent valid and dont fit the facts...We can continue the debate here or wherever just say what you want..I will try to get my Bible Proof thread up asap

If the Muslims had not been there you would not be having this conversation.If you remove the contributions of the Muslims, you would not have the Internet.And the Bible certainly got much of the Old Testament by borrowing earlier stories. Why the whole Flood myth was simply cribbed.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh? Burning jews and witches at the stake as heretics don't sound like the actions of a culture with doubts about its beliefs. It sounds like the actions of a culture so certain they're right, they become fanatics. Indeed. And that's my point: there's two competeing interpretations. One stems from assumptions that have lead to medical science, techological breakthroughs, longer lifespans, less hunger, less crime, and al the benefits of science.The other interpretation - creationism - stems from assumptions that had their time to be dominant: a time of suffering, plague, genocide, and ignorance.Almeyda, why would you want to go back to that? Moreover, if you hate science and it's blessings so much, why are you sitting there using a computer? No, it didn't.

You still dont get it..And until you do we wont get nowhere..Evolution is based on assumptions and does not carry the same authority as practical science..I am not against science and Creationists are not againsts it.We are against Evolution since its not based on facts we can argue and reinterpret the evidence for the Bible the SAME! way Evolutionists interpret there evidence to fit there framwork!...We need to get clear on this that its Science vs Science...Creationists are not against scientific breakthrough,technology all every day things no we are againsts Evolutionists who put there theories and teach them at school as fact when in fact they change consistantly and cannot be proven.Dinasaur bones have been found well preserved.Rapid buriel through water..Consistant with the flood..But this does not fit a evolutionary view so they cant accept it..Once again do you see the similarities?..Im not trying to con you or force you im just telling you how it is..We all must realise it is not Science vs Religion!..The Bible and Creationists are not against Science! We are against Evolution and Evolution only..

No, I get it. You're desperate to undercut the scientific footing of evolution - so desperate you'll redefine "science" to your own purposes.Well, over 300 scientists say that you're wrong - that evolution is good science. And that's just the guys named Steve. And that's not counting the hundreds of accredited universities that affirm that evolution is the basis of modern biological science. And that's not counting the philsophers of science who repeatedly affirm that evolution is science. And that's not counting court case after court case where evolution has been upheld as science.In other words, I have an army of scientists, educators, and learned folks - including my wife - telling me that evolution is good science. I'll take their words over some anonymous internet crank any day - especially because they're the folks that do science. What science have you ever done? Ok, let's test your creationist interpretation.As you go up in the geologic record, starting from the lower sediments, there's a pattern of increasing complexity - simple plants on the bottom, more complex plants on top.What's the creationist "interpretation" of this pattern? Remember that your hypothesis must be consistent with all other creationist explanations.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-06-2004 05:04 AM

First of all i acknolegde that Evolution is science, I acknowledge its hardwork, I acknowledge that there trying to discover our origins.However Creationists base there evidence on a God that was there when it happened!. And the evidence we find cannot be so bad because the Bible which has not changed and Evolutionary theories change constantly well the Bible still stands tall.It hasnt won the battle of course but it never is disproved except by Athiest/Evolutionists with somewhat closed minds. It is a type of science. It is not general science. And no im not redefining it, Its Evolutionists who claim ours is scientific while theirs is just religous. Now thats redefining. Creationists however acknowledge both are science just interpreting the facts to different theories. Thats all!. It really isnt hard unless you willfully reject it. Until you acknowledge this we will continue debating with no foreseable outcome. Majority vote does not prove Evolution. Evolution has taken over scientific communities because they classed it as scientific. Creationists love to point out Evolutionists similarities to religous beliefs. There is faith involved. It is a belief system. Evolution is a way of life that most people want to live. Independant of God free from his law which resticts man in his pursuit of happiness!. So the world has embraced it. However it does not matter what people think. It matters what the truth is. And here is where the battle rages on. (In relation to your last challenge im completely lost ive never studied that but AiG have extensively covered it so im sure there are plenty of points to add from a creationist perspective)

All scientific models change, because science is a constant quest for more accurate models.Contrast this with the Bible, which is demonstratably wrong, and because it never is allowed to change, will always be so.I'd rather be almost right and getting righter, than eternally and unchangingly wrong. But I guess you have a different view - you don't care if what you believe is right or wrong, just that it doesn't change. Creationists reject facts to fit their "theories." They start with a conclusion and filter the evidence. That's just not science. You did some filtering yourself, in regards to the fossil plant question, I see: If you could show me wheare the AiG website covers the evidence from paleobotany (fossil plants) in regards to my question, I'd appreciate it. I've been looking there for a while and haven't been able to find anything. As far as I'm aware it's a situation they refuse to address. Maybe that's why you don't know anything about it - creationists are sweeping it under the carpet?

But dont you realise that why then would the Bible keep giving such a hard time for Evolution? Why are so many Evolutionists refusing to give live debates with Creationists?. The Creation museum will show many the truth. You just have to be willing to accept God. The Bible does not change and survives all . Creationists a giving overwhelming evidence (Jus subscribe to Creation magazine). Im sure you guys disagree with all they say but look where its coming from. The only person who was actually there when it happened. Kinda reminds me of a passage in the Bible"Because that when they knew God, They glorified him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain
in their imaginations & their foolish heart was darknened, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleaness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is forever blessed amen" Romans 1:21-25

Why would a research biologist have the skills of showmanship and rhetoric needed for a debate?It's the same reason NASA engineers don't debate the guys that say we never landed on the moon. Creationism is such junk science that it should never, ever be even suggested that it be worthy of being placed on the same level as evolution. Agreeing to a debate would legitimize an entirely illegitimate movement. I get it every month. The claims are regularly unsupported nonsense, not to mention glaring errors every month that could have been prevented by an intern using Google.It's a laughable magazine, and it's clear who they write it for - barely literate folks with no training in the sciences. God's a person?The problem with your explanation is, God doesn't exist. That's a pretty glaring problem with creationism right there.