Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!

did you just imply that you're taught nonsense in church?

---

sure he was. as is anybody else who claims to believe in god, and believe that god created the universe. i'm a creationist. jar is a creationist. at least half this board are creationists.but it's entirely dishonest to claim newton because his various religious beliefs and statements -- but deny the others here who make the same claims. newton was a scientist and a mathematician, and he searched for natural explanations and laws for things. and only when he was unable to find them, would he leave it up for god. newton was a god-of-the-gaps kind of person, and his famous statements about god putting the planets in their orbits, and having to readjust them occasionally demonstrates that.

---

well, the onus was on the evolutionist, 150 years ago. now that it's pretty well demonstrated, the onus is on the people who fail to understand the evidence or are ignorant of the evidence to back up their interpretations.and yes, we do need to show the evidence, not insult people. but after a certain degree, if a person simply refuses to see the blindingly obvious, it's also no longer our faults that they are ignorant. ignoring the implications of directionality, it is. just not by you. "cats into dogs" is such an old creationist strawman, and really all it demonstrates is that the person making the argument does not understand evolution at all. in fact, if such a thing were done, it might require significant modification of the theory of evolution as it stands. here is some suggested reading. i have suggested this book to other people on this board before, and it is quite a fantastic overview of the history of life on this planet.it is nice and thick, full of a pretty good range of known vertebrate species. not a lot of information is given, as it is an overview. so you won't see things like reconstruction information, and it will not explain to you every principle of paleontological study employed by people who spend their lives studying it. you won't see proofs of things like geologic time or the law of superposition (take a geology class). but the drawings are fantastic, and there are so very many of them. flipping through, you should easily get a sense of how things are related.it is not the tree itself or the work-in-progress catalog of every last fossil (i can link you to a website with about half a million of them, which is some very small percentage and still really difficult to comprehend).but i promise you, there is a lot you're simply not aware of in evolutionary biology, and paleontology.

---

at the end of the day, people have to recognize that "objective" is the opposite of "subjective," and objectively there are such things as "right" and "wrong." objectively, one side wins.sorry if this is news to you. but objectively creationism has lost. they have lost the battle scientifically, and they have lost the battle legally. an objective arbiter points out when one side is, in fact, wrong.i'm sorry that the facts come down agreeing with one side over the other. but that's what "objective" means. if you were looking for some place where all beliefs, including wrong ones, are weighted equally, the word you should have looked for was "subjective." you're right. there is no point. why do you? no, because people who think like you do exist. the forum exists because the discussion exists -- even if one side is, in fact, wrong.Edited by arachnophilia, : typo, subtitle

---