Negative Impacts on Society

Hitchy~I have to say that I am not in disagreement here. Students at my high school, when complained about what was being taught as portion of the adminstrative-regulated curriculum, angered me as much as it did the teacher. I remember many times wanting to stand up and say, "shut up and let the teacher talk!"I have learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones over the years. In other words, I can learn a little something from everybody--without swallowing everything they say--even if I disagree with them on one or two topics. Being that teaching high school science is a career that I have never attempted to pursue, I can sit here at my computer and tell you, with great honesty, that I have high respect for teachers who put up with so much b/s coming from uneducated students who only want to learn what interests them. Evolution and creation is a topic that interests me like crazy--like most controversial issues--to the point where if I hear the people behind me on the airplane talking about it I would feel inclinded to lean over the armrest and participate in their discussion.I understand also that creationists are often viewed from the secular world as being narrow-minded and having tunnel-vision to real science. The truth is, creationists and evolutionists alike have contributed to modern science (every high school science teacher I know is an evolutionist) and yet Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, Thomas Barnes (U of Texas), Samuel Morse, Johnathen Wells (doctor from Berkely) and many other scientists are either creationists or at least carry heavy criticisms of evolution. That leads me to the conclusion that is pertinent to this thread: taxes should not further nor hinder the cause of any theory of origin.What I have said to many people in a face-to-face discussion on the topic of government and education is this: "want a great comprimise? How's this: nobody gets what they want!" Evolutionists, for the most part, want to rid all public schools of the discussion of creation as a valid theory; likewise, most creationists I know want evolution taken out of school science classrooms. I myself want both to be discussed through a non-government-regulated cirriculum. Sounds a little far-fetched, I know, but truly if evolution and creation were both taken out of context, the science classroom would flourish (I believe) on the study and observations and the advancements of true science (keeping in mind that "Science" = "knowledge gained through ovbservation and experimentation").Just a few thoughts. Sorry if I seem confrontational (just voicing my opinion on how the schools should regulate the science classroom).Sincerely,
Servant

I am not trying to force, Or impose--as you put it, creationism on others. In other words, I am not trying to force creationism into the schools. That is for the simple reason that school teachers (even science teachers) have the legal right to discuss it.Despite popular opinion, sep. or church and state and the first amendment does not forbid it. The first amendment ("congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...") does not forbid teachers from discussing it. Granted, forcing children to pray is wrong, and so is forcing them to take part in any particular religion. However, there is a difference between a teacher saying: "let us all bow our heads in prayer," and a teacher saying, "and this is a basic overview of what the Christians believe..."The former is unconstitutional, while the latter is an example of how a teacher can, legally and constitutionally, approach the theory of creationism from a non-ridiculing perspective.The western science may have a firm grasp on the theory of evolution, but since it is an extrememly controversial topic and will NEVER be proven %100 percent (face it, we will never be as certain of the theory of evolution as we are that the earth is flat because every century the common theories and hypotheses of science have been altered or dropped altogether). And what could make anybody assume that, even though science has been under constant reproof and re-correcting for over 20 centuries, all that is going to change THIS century at the feet of evolution? OR to put it mildly, why is it that evolution is such a "FACT" today when indeed the idea that the sun orbits the earth was such a "FACT" ten centuries ago? After all, like the theory of evolution is today, the theory of the sun orbiting the earth was based on observations and resources available to us AT THE TIME. Therefore, we can never know for sure that the theory of evolution will be discarded in the future science world and therefore can never know for sure if the theory of evolution is proven.That brings me to the perspective of church, school, and government.First off, the idea that money spent via churches to further their "superstition" is NOT wrong legally, morally, or constitutionally. Whether the money spent in and by churches was a half-billion or a half-trillion, the money belongs to the churches (which are generally NOT under 501-C3 corporation status and therefore not liable to owing the government in taxes or in upholding any county restrictions or building codes). The money also belongs to the people who GIVE it to the churches on their own recogniscance. Therefore, the money spent on churches and the Christian cause goes, therefore, toward however the church sees fit and the government is restricted from ruling over the church in such a way (you have to remember that the whole separation of church and state ALSO applies to the government not being allowed constitutionally to meddle in the church's business, provided the churchgoers are not breaking any federal laws).Now then, I was not trying to use that list of creation-believing scientists to argue that creation "must be valid because scientists believe it." Although that is how you misinterpreted the way I was mentioning them. You see, I was just simply providing a small list of scientists who do not necessarily believe in evolution for the purpose of proving that it DOES NOT require believing in evolution to get further in the field of scientific research. I have known plenty of people, even in my personal experience, who have made ample additions to modern science WITHOUT the aid of evolution, or even believing thereof. My grandfather was a chemical scientist, and graduate of Oregon State University, and yet a creationist (who subscribed regularly to Nat. Geographic, Scientific American, and a few peer-reviewed magazines without ever being swayed into the belief in evolution). My father is a veteran with a degree in Physics from West Point Academy (FYI West Point is tax-funded) and yet my father believes in creation as firmly as I do. Two of my cousins are students at Texas A&M majoring in science-related fields who are not evolutionists. One of my friends' father is a Phd-chemist who believes in creation. Many of my high school teachers were creationists. The physician whom I seek medical advice from when in need is a creationist. My brother and I are both creationists, which by the way we have studied both sides very in-depth and are yet happy with our system of beliefs. My brother's girlfriend--majoring in Sociology at Carroll College in Wisconsin--is a creationist. Several other friends, relatives, and aqcuaintances hold B.S.'s if not Ph.D's in their fields and yet believe in creationism.I mentioned all that for one reason and one reason only (so DON'T misquote me):It is not imperative that students believe in evolution in order to get a good-quality science education--for that they may recieve nonetheless. Therefore, if not to believe in creationism, at least try to understand the idea that it is important not to indoctrinate students with one theory exclusively over another, ESPECIALLY if it conflicts both with their beliefs AND is supported by their tax-dollars.As I have asked before, how do you think the theory of evolution would survive without tax support? Honestly, if the theory of evolution was to be supported by ONLY private organizations and funding the same way creationism is being supported, do you think it would last? After all, the belief in ID may be ridiculed in the science world but it is very prevalent in society; so, if creationism was allowed to be supported by taxation--or if evolution were to be demoted to the same sources of funds as the creationists use--would the theory still prevail in the world of education, government, and society?Sincerely,
Servant

Greetings Schrafinator:Sorry for the delay (busy schedule as you may imagine).[That's pretty much in evidence in your posts so far. (Not trying to be a jerk here. Being blind to science doesn't mean you are a bad person. Just calling it like I see it.)]What are you implying, really? I LOVE science; it's just that evolution is supported by popular opinion among scientists but not by actual first-hand research. First off, I am constantly asked to read peer-reviewed publications, but what's the point if they are going to speculate a theory based on THEIR interpretation of the evidence beforehand? As you may understand, majority opinion means nothing to the actual truth--is it true that the Aryan race is superior and further-evolved than the African-Americans or Semites? (Not being disrespectful to African-Americans or Jews, it's just that the majority opinion in Germany followed the ideology that Aryans are the superior, "fittest" race based on THEIR understanding of science at the time). Likewise, the majority believed, in the 18th and part of the 19th centuries, that being ill was a result of having bad blood and that partially-draining the body of blood would heal the patient. The majority of Catholics believed that the Muslims were evil during the time of the crusades (mind you, I would agree THOUROUGHLY that that was a time in which the Christian church performed many acts that were non-Biblical and not setting a good example for Christians). Majority consensus--whether seconded by peer reviews or not--can often blind people to the truth just as much as religious ideologies.I am not bias AGAINST peer-reviewed work, (I believe there are many great scientific advancements being made as well as good observations). The problem is that when the majority of the population among ANY group of people decides to follow a specific belief (theory/doctrine/etc. depending on the context) I make it a firm point to try and understand what they believe, why it is what they believe, and if there is any logic against it or in favor of it. Thus, since I would never take the word of ANY scientist over first-hand observation of scientific processes (and I advise others to do the same) I conclude that the theory is often based on the interpretations of the evidence rather than the actual evidence.[Well, Mendel and Newton don't count for two reasons; they do not invoke the supernatural to explain a single thing in their work as any good scientist today, and they did their work before Evolution was as well-documented and understood as it is today.As far as I can tell, Thomas Barnes also did not invoke the supernatural in any of his legitimate scientific work during his career.Jonathan Wells has credentials, but when was the last time he published any peer-reviewed work rather than popular press books and articles? Also, does he invoke any supernatural entities in his peer-reviewed work?]I was merely pointing out that it is not imperative to believe in evolution in order to maintain a credible science career, recieve and accredited education in a science field, or provide for the world of science a compilation of legitimate research. Like I said earlier, most people I know, in my family and string of friendships, who hold a degree in a field of western science also believe in ID and have disregarded ToE.[Origin of life or origin of species? These are two different topics.]Well, I would not argue against speciation (obviously, if the observation of new species emerging from similar species has been documented in the last century in some cases, it would not go to prove that this speciation has been going on for millions of years.) It is entirely possible for speciation to have occured in some observable cases and yet the concept of young-earth-creation still be possible.[Anyway, if a theory is scientific and has lots of evidence to support it suc as the Theory of Evolution, it should be taught in science classrooms regardless of how any religious sects feel about it.]Like I've said, the theory of evolution and natural selection--as Darwin put it--was not based on evidence but on his interpretation of the evidence. Likewise, could you be so inclined to prove to me that the theory of evolution is based on evidence RATHER than yours (and most other scientists') interpretation of the evidence?[Which theory of creation? There are hundreds.If you mean which scientific Theory of Creation, there has never been one as far as I can tell.Even the Federal Supreme Court has determined that Creation science bears no resemblance to real science in the least.]We're talking about the most prevalent two theories of origins of the earth, life, and species: The theory of evolution (Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) and the theory of creationism (The Bible's first several chapters).Also, the supreme court and people on it are part of government and are not scientists. Thus they are no more fit to make an assumption on creationism than they are to put a label on, for instance, the credibility of Galileo, Dr. Libby, or Judas Iscariot.[Why should a very robust and very well-supported unifying theory of Biology be removed simply because some religious people don't like it?]For one, Evolution and common ancestry are from the interpretation of evidence and not based on real observable evidence. Moreover, at least half of the population--based on a 2002 poll from MSNBC--believe in creation (Intelligent design) and that means that half the people who pay taxes so that evolution can be taught to their children do not even belive evolution is true. People who pay the money should have a right to control what their money is going to support--to an extent--and parents who pay local taxes for their school system to teach evolution should have the right (and do have the right) to request that their student be exempt from any instruction of origins that is inconsistent with their morals (a notary public will notarize a form and sent to the school requiring the classroom to recognize the parent's wish for the student to not be forced to study creation--provided the parent is a tax-payer and the student is in a school that is tax-supported and thus the parent may bring up a lawsuit against the school if the student is quizzed or tested or given any assignments pertaining to evolutionism).[The fact that religious people have always tried to control what is taught in schools in order to IMPOSE their particular religious dogma UPON ALL CHILDREN, it is imperative that our secular government regulate what is taught. Children used to have to recite and memorize Christian Bible passages and also participate in school led Christian prayer.] (Emphasis added)If evolutionists want their theory IMPOSED upon children, they should withdraw from tax-support and open private schools where they can teach evolution all they want.[when discussing where nylon-digesting bacteria came from, or why whales are sometimes born with hind legs, what explanation do you propose we tell children accounts for these events?]First off, nylon-digesting bacteria are still bacteria--evolution FROM a bacteria to a more complex-than-bacteria organism has never been observed and therefore only proves a mutation has occurred (not necessarily a mutation that will lead to production of a new genus).Also, whales being born with hind legs is a HINDRANCE-related mutation and is not beneficial to the animal, just like turtles being born with two heads. That is not evidence for evolution (it's the OPPOSITE of beneficial advancements through mutations).Till next time,
Servant

quote: "no one has offered the slightist hint of another scientific theory based on this evidence that explains the evidence. If you think you have another one you could open a thread to explain it. You can list a representation of the evidence that you are including (there is much to much to list all of it) and then show a cohesive alternative explanation."What? Correct me if I'm wrong, but evolutionists do not generally agree to discussing and studying young earth creationism as an alternative theory, so why would you expect me to give an alternative explanation.I understand that your statement above was to provoke me into providing intelligent design as an alternative way of explaining the observations made in science. Nevertheless, all it takes is looking deeper into creationism and you may discover answers to puzzling questions you once thought could only be answered from an evolutionary viewpoint. In fact, if all it takes is being able to explain the evidence from a non-evolutionary viewpoint--as you implied in so many words--then I'm wasting my time at this website because creationism is a whole lot more credible than we had originally thought. Pseudogenes (and the similarity between seperate phyla thereof), the fossil record, geologic strata, the Green River formation, canyons, dinosaurs, chance mutations, and radioisotopic measurements can all be explained in great detail from a creationist perspective (lest we forget the Bible describes the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the Fall of Adam, etc. as the reason for there being such a different world today than there was 1000's of years ago) and therefore the only matter of whether evolution or creation is the acceptable theory is a matter of people's opinion, which is to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Or in other words, if you're agreeing that evolution is based on one interpretation of the facts--which you seem to have implied--then creationism, being another interpretation of the same facts, can and does explain the puzzling processes of nature. Besides, there are indeed many processes of nature that cannot be explained by scientists with an evolutionary perspective--namely the lack of transitional fossils (and old argument, I KNOW, but the explanations scientists have given is merely based on speculative judgements and propositions of the scientific nature), the decay of radio-carbon in our atmosphere which--if decaying at a constant rate--would limit the earth's age to less than 30 thousand years, the puzzle of life not being able to arise from nonliving matter in neither laboratory conditions NOR in nature, etc.quote: "Evolution having occured is, of course, is the very real observable evidence. The theory (interpretation of the evolutionary changes we see) is based on this observable evidence. So your sentence above doesn't seem to make sense.To simplify, at various point in time spread over nearly 3.5 billion years the life forms on earth have been different. The nature of the changes with time supplies samples of life forms with a particular kind of pattern through both time and geography."Excuse me? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the only OBSERVABLE evidence of evolution having occurred ever is the few chance mutations we see in nature today. In what way does that prove that life has been changing from one kingdom, phyla, genus, species, etc. for the past 3.5 billion years. Or in other words, just because we OBSERVE chance mutation today does not prove that humans and apes share a common ancestor and does not prove that humans and bananas share a common ancestor and CERTAINLY does not prove that the earth is not 7000 years old and does not PROVE that the Flood occurred and the changes in life we see today are the result of a fallen creation (i.e. the world was perfect once but has since been screwed up).quote: "You need to explain this pattern. Then you need to explain the relationship of living things to past life. Then you need to explain the relationships between extant living things. When you have it all sorted out then you have an alternative interpretation which you may put forward for testing against the current one."So, let me see, if evolution is ONE interpretation of the science out there, why is it the ONLY interpretation taught in public school? Oh, of course--silly me--it's the only correct interpretation, right? Well now, how do you go about providing irrefutable arguments that creationists' interpretations of the "evidence" is wrong and yours is right? That is what every evolutionist I have ever discussed this with has yet to explained to me in a manner that has compelled me to believe that the Bible is wrong and evolution is justified in taking over the science classroom. It sounds like, if an evolutionist cannot CONVINCE me of their side, I might be close-minded, but it's not true. After all, I used to believe in evolution too but was convinced otherwise because I was presented with MUCH MORE compelling arguments in favor of creationism than you have given me AGAINST it.Till next time, Sincerely,
Servant

Before I forget, could you please remind me how to create a quote box? I apologize for my last response appearing to be confusing, but I had trouble remembering how to put the things you said inside a quote box.Just wondering,Thank you,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

[qs] put qs in square brackets [ ] at the begining of the quote, & /qs in the same at the end./qsokay, let's take a shot at it:
here goes nothing!

okay, something's not working here. Let me try again:

Hey it worked!Thank you, Mark. Computers have never been my strongest point.Thanks again,
Servant

Abby, I would agree that making something up or citing a wrong source is not the proper way to win an argument. Nevertheless, could you please provide for me an example of when a competent creationist (competent meaning somebody who speaks on their own accord on the topic and has published work--like Robert Gentry, Henry Morris, Ken Ham, etc. and not just somebody in this website) knowingly threw false information out into the open to further their cause. If somebody is going to throw out such a claim against creationists (or even evolutionists, for that matter) which would seem to include ALL people of that particular group, it should be supported with examples--lots.Not trying to argue with you (really) it's just that I would like to hear of a time when a fellow creationist did that.

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

Hi everybody:Thank you all for the examples. Interesting reading.I'll be straightforward with you, I am a Christian (as you may have guessed by now) but I believe as strongly as you do that creationists should not used out-dated, known-to-be-false, or inconclusive arguments to try and sway the popular consensus. Nevertheless, I have seen falsified, misunderstood, misquoted arguements by certain evolutionists every bit as much as the some creationists. It bothers me as much as the former bothers you guys, I would assume. Ernst Mayr, for instance, misquotes the Bible in his book "What Evolution Is" on many occasions. He still uses the argument that Genesis 1 and chapter 2 are two seperate versions of the same story of creation!Thanks again!Sincerely,
Servant

Hi DC!Yeah, it's pretty amazing the increase of discussion of the topic of evolution when one goes from high school to college.Nevertheless, it's interesting to read quotes--and even competent scientific observations that have been documented--that deal with yet such a controversial topic. I myself believed in the ToE for most of my earlier school years (meaning up till high school). I even read books on the subject (not something that usually interests an 8th-grader).Interestingly enough, It was just a more in-depth study of science that led me to begin believing in creation. In fact, it was something as simple as looking at the observations and documented evidence through a different perspective that compelled me to question evolution (no amount of quotes BY OR AGAINST evolution was enough to make me buy into the theory of creationism... I had to see the evidence and MORE than just a Christian's INTERPRETATION of the evidence). Likewise, creation and evolution are two different interpretations of the same evidence... some evidences are more difficult for one side to explain thoroughly than the other, but it becomes easier to see BOTH sides as relatively credible in theory all depending on HOW you examine the evidence and HOW you try to explain what the observations that we observe indicate.Therefore--since this is the education forum I'll try not to continue off-topic (sorry )--my advocation is for fossils, natural processes, observable changes in life and the environment, and the quintessential elements of nature to be presented in the science classroom (and THEN to build up interpretations/conclusions to support, respectfully, evolution AND creation, regardless of which belief the students decide on in the end). Sorry if somebody disagrees heatedly on that, but THAT is the summarized version of the reason why I believe that creationism CAN seem credible from a certain point of view and should be DISCUSSED (atleast if not IMPOSED) in the science classrooms. Granted, no law should forbid--or FORCE--teaching creationism, but it should be left up to the school board of each regional district to decide which theories are to be discussed and on what level of depth.That is--ideally--the way I believe the United States education system should approach such a controversial topic that can hit home on such a personal level (I've seen students in school OFFENDED beyond reason by this issue). Now I wonder, if evolution is credible and well-documented, then why should creationism be shunned from discussion--if nothing else--in the classrooms (I mean, neoDarwinists should have nothing to fear or get angry by if they know that their theory is so well-supported that creationism won't stand up if presented in public school science classrooms)?Just a question of curiosity, really. Sorry if it sounds confrontational (I couldn't think of any other way to word the question to make it less offensive to evolutionists--which offending you guys is something that I try to avoid at all costs).Thank you, Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

Sorry to disappoint you here, but you still havent answered my question.Furthermore, you only attacked something that I said (and without supporting it with arguments... only "you word" that I was wrong).Sincereyly,
Servant

Hi Schafinator:Sorry for the delay (busy week-schedule). I'll try to be more "on top of things" a little in the future. I did not say that evolutionary biologists don't do any first-hand research. Of course they do!What I DID say was that one aspect of thier concentration--the theory of evolution--is merely an interpretation of their research (which means that the research published in scientific journals neither proves nor disproves evolution; rather, it offers an explanation to the observations made utilizing a Darwinian-evolutionary mindrame) Please don't try to put words in my mouth. If I misled you into thinking that I don't read scientific publications, I am sorry. Fact is, I do... Nevertheless, as I've said before, I think that peer-reviewed journals--in terms of what they have to say on evolution--is only one major way of looking at the facts, and therefore the realm of reality extends beyond what the panel of scientists that decide what to put in their journals think. Again, you seem quite quick to draw assumptions on behalf of: since I don't have a multitude of praise to offer the scientific literature, I must be ignorant of it. Or in other words, I don't believe it therefore I must not understand if (come on, you don't seriously think you can sway popular opinion with that argument, do you)? No, it is not. Peer-reviewed literature is where you will find the majority consensus on what the current scientific principles are, and essentially, what is widely-believed to be the explanations for current/recent observations. So you're saying, the reason the theory of evolution is true is because of the fact that it is the simplest method of explaining the evidence we see?If I chose to believe in evolution, it would definitely NOT be because it offers the quickest and easiest path to INTERPRETING the evidence before me. (Lest we forget, interpretations can be very misleading... whenever a person's mind "runs away" with an idea their logic can become blurred and confused). That works in terms of both creation AND evolution (which is why I never take the word or any evolutionist over Gould, Hawking, Dawkins, or Darwin... Likewise, I never take the "word" of any scholar over the Bible itself). So you're saying that genetic similarity offers evidence that the theory of evolution stands up to scrutinizing tests?Well, okay. Nevertheless, creationism gives leeway (it has to, given the true proofs we see in science today) as to the changes--and similarity--of both modern and ancient phenotypes. Therefore--when looking at simply this and nothing more--both evolution AND creation seem credible (afterall, creation = common creator... evolution = common ancestor... enough said). So you're saying that nutritional therapy (which by the way produces a much higher survival rate of certain diseases than conventional medication) has made no beneficial contribution to healthcare worldwide?Or likewise, you're suggesting that cross-bred genetics has not helped us understand the patterns of genetic botany and producing "thorough-bred" crops within the produce industry (as devised by Mendel, the "father of genetics", who was a creationist and working in the mindset of trying to learn more about "God's earth" and the inhabitants thereof)?These are only TWO examples, but I hope you will understand my point in saying that the ToE itself does not contribute to the advancement of society (it hasn't helped us fight diseases, get to the moon, discover other planets, predict earthquakes, etc.) First off, the burden of proof is on the speculator (i.e. the person presenting us with evolution theory) and therefore it is up to evolutionists to produce evidence that speciation has been going on for millions of years.A plant breaking the boundary of science's definition of species neither proves that process has been going on for millions of years any more than it proves intelligent design, granted.How about a different approach: let's assume the Flood of Noah actually happend (~5000 yrs ago)...
Now, it might be possible that the changes in a genus of organism may be changing at an exponential-decay rate. In other words, the first fish to have survived the flood were either salt-water or fresh-water and have had to adapt as the oceans have gotten saltier--or to the freshwater lakes--following the flood. Such changes were drastic and rapid at first, but the changes have minimised (exponential-decay) gradually as the NEED for such adaptation and mutations in our environment has decreased (afterall, the theory of evolution suggests that the mutations of natural selection are based on the idea that such changes are prompted by environmental conditions... so how is it proven that these speciation-events that we've observed are any more than the adaptations made to fit current conditions following the flood)? Granted, I was not trying to prove the flood to you, but I WAS offering a hypothetical, creation-based explanation to the select few speciation events lately-observed. Or, why would some cows be born with two heads if it did not evolve from a two-headed creature.Okay, sorry, that was a stretch and I admit it. Nevertheless, evolution by means of natural selection offers only one of the possible explanations. Similarly, some human babies have been born with certain birth-defects deemed disturbing (long arms, fewer than ten fingers, etc.) That proves only one thing: mutation has occurred, but does not prove that Genesis chapter one is wrong and Charles Darwin was right.Okay, I have to go. Sorry, but I'm in a bit of a tight hurry.Catch you all later,
Sincererly,Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

No, I have not. First of all, it is not MY job to present the case and all the facts thereof. If somebody has some real evidence for their theory, I'd like to see it; but such far all I have seen (on this site, at least) is speculation and hostile attacks, not science.I have read scientific journals and articles therein with far better conclusions drawn than that found on this site (granted I'm not trying to attack anybody here, just prompting you). Scientific journals are published and reviewed by only a fraction of all the scientists out there. The research found in them covers every topic from the same framework. First of all, the whole purpose of my being on this site is to discuss evolution and creation and the observations that link science to both. It is YOU who have not presented me with irrefutable evidence for your theory. I want to discuss evolution and creation scientifically, but what has served as the hindrance thereof is the fact that all I do on this site is try to answer personal attacks (I have a great passion for studying science, but evolutionists--not the actual ToE--has been my hindrance). What's the point of answering your remarks if I'm not dealing with scientists--only people who latch onto their theory so tightly that they consider anybody who does not believe in evolution to be so terribly mistaken? If I chose to bring up any scientific principles of my own accord, you would not consider them to be valid or credible on behalf of my being a creationist. Therefore, I'm only going to say that this site has yet to offer empirical evidence of evolution. Yes, but I am NOT saying that that allows one to speculate a common ancestry. Yet again, you attack me personally by trying to claim that I'm avoiding scientific discussion. It's YOU who avoids it. Let me explain... when I bring up a topic for scientific discussion, the FIRST thing that generally happens is a close-minded person (not all evolutionists are close-minded, just the ones who I'm addressing in this case) will reply by saying that the topic I brought up for discussion has already been refuted and debunked elsewhere on this site. If I bring up a topic that has already been *attacked* on this site, I am doing so because I may believe the topic needs further discussion. So it's not me that avoids the discussion. Notice how you used words such as "react," "adapt," and "mutation." These are processes that do not prove random speciation or the idea that chance mutation creates new animals unlike any preceding thereof. After all, adaptation and mutation are processes in nature that are necessary whether creation OR evolution be true. Then why is it that "rebuttals" to the comet argument (ie the Oort Cloud), the magnetic field decay (ie magnetic "reversals"), and carbon-14 equilibrium have been attacked and dismissed without the use of true empirical proof to demonstrate that these such arguments--that would otherwise suggest the earth's age is limited to 10-15 thousand years--are faulty.First off, the latest scientific arguments and articles STILL only offer nothing more than speculation to the existence of an Oort Cloud, magnetic reversals, and any rebuttal to the problem with carbon-14 equilibrium.Such arguments are used as attacks against young earth creationism and not based on science (once again, "science" = knowledge gained through that which is observable and empirical, NOT knowledge based on speculation and interpretations). Try following your own advice on that one, before offering refutations against the creation model.By the way, if you truly claim that I am trying to avoid discussing scientific principles, then offer the latest and greatest evidence for your theory and I'd love to prove you wrong.Thanks again,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...

First of all, you misunderstood my argument in the above post.I was NOT talking about radiometric dating. The difference-ratio between C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere is increasing exponentially. The problem for the earth's speculated age is that equilibrium has not been reached in the atmosphere (the ratio has not equalized). Thus, unless a true, scientific rebuttal exists out there that nobody is willing to come forward with, the equilibrium problem poses an issue for evolution. First of all, science derives from the Classical root word meaning "knowledge." Today, "science" = knowledge based on facts and processes that can be observed, tested, and demonstrated. Therefore I should not have to paste evidence that supports my claim. I am asking for an argument from you (which would require you to stop doing what you've always done). By the way, you are assuming that I don't want to discuss science, yet you don't present anything worthy of discussing, so your faulty assumption that I'm avoiding your claims is taken as a personal attack. First of all, since you offered no scientific references to your arguments that the coelocanth living today is not the same species as the one that "died out 50 myo" I reached the reasonably-thought-out conclusion that your rebuttal was based on speculation and/or word of mouth. Living crossopterygian fish such as the coelocanth match startlingly close with those found in the strata at and below what is thought to be 50 myo. There are no such crossopterygian fish found above the 50 m.y.-mark in the sedimentary strata upon South Africa and Madagascar; thus it had been speculated (until the crossopterygian fish was discovered still alive) that the coelocanth had been extinct for 50 million years.Even if the coelocanth of today was quite different from that of "50 million years ago" the fossil record shows a gap between 50 myo strata bearing coelocanths and living representations today, with no such fish in the same family in between.Sincerely,
Servant

---

Open minds and open hearts... seeing what the world chooses not to see... seeing what no one else sees...