New Questions--moral perspective

"The U.S. Constitution prohibits teaching religious theries as science in science classes, and common sense prohibits teaching pseudoscience or falsified theories as science in a science class."
--JonFActually, the U.S. Constitution disallows, in the first amendment, "a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." but it DOES NOT prohibit teachers from taking class time to discuss alternatives to the evolution theory. By the way, in 1980 the supreme court ruled that the law forbids states to REQUIRE the teaching of creation, but it does not forbid the teaching of creation either. check the lawbooks.Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy (in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom).

First off, Jesus said in Matthew 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you and say all manner of evil against you for my sake, for great is your reward in heaven." Therefore, you might as well save the time and energy it takes to pour your ignorance and arrogant insults into your replies, because all i'm going to do with them is ignore them and thank God in prayer that he is giving me the strength to put up with people like yourselves. Truly, the most ignorant, arrogant, and prideful people I have ever met are Darwinsists, namely the people on this particular site.Now then, can we get back to the topic?
Evolution, as even admitted by Gould, Darwin, Asimov, and many other evolutionists, is nothing more than a theory. It is unproved. Honestly, neither Biblical creationism nor Darwinian evolutionism can be proven by science ("Science" = knowledge through demonstrated evidence and observation). Therefore, if any evolutionist, atheist, or otherwise anti-creationist has an ounce of honesty and integrity, he would freely admit that BOTH viewpoints have to be taken by faith.
After all, with all other points thrown aside, there is no other way that i can think of to say it: Darwinian evolution (origin of life from nonliving matter and progression from simpler to more complex organisms) has never been proven. in fact, the Miller experiment (I'm POSITIVE you have heard of it) only proved that life cannot be created in the presence of oxygen (or else it would oxidize and self-destruct).In stead of waving an arrogant finger at creationists and demanding that they "prove" their theory before they can teach it, why don't you get down off your platform and try to prove YOUR OWN theory beyond a reasonable doubt (by the way, "beyond a reasonable doubt" means creating an argument that cannot be refutted with even our BEST understanding of science).

Also, before I forget...I am a devoted Christian and have spent much of my adult life studying and arguing evolution with friends and family members of different faiths. I have talked with enough evolutionists out there to know that they simply DON'T know how to prove their theory to the open world (otherwise there would not be so much back-and-forth conflict among scientists). Therefore, I would find it impossible for anybody on this website to impress me with their knowledge of science, so don't try. Just stick to the evidence. So, when you are ready to set aside your EXTREMELY, UNFATHOMABLY-BIAS opinions against creationism, then let me know so that we can discuss evolution and creation honestly and openly.Furthermore, evolutionists often try to the tactic of drawing attention away from the topic by resorting to personal attacks (doubting the credibility of a creationist, looking down upon creationists on a moral level, etc.) I have experienced these same attacks and others by individuals similar to the ones who will be replying to this post with their OWN agendas, so please just stick to the facts and ignore the irrelevant material.Thank you.Love,
Servant

"It's been done. Why don't you pick up Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory? Of course, it's 1200 pages long.In the meantime you can explain why the genetic evidence and the fossil evidence correspond so accurately if the evolutionary account isn't in fact true."
--CashfrogActually, you are wrong. Sorry, but there's no kind way to say it.First of all, i've taken a look at Gould's new 1200-page book. but guess what, as i have said before, evolutionists' knowledge of science does not impress me--i'm a realist and a skeptic of western science. And no book is going to make me respect the evolutionary theory JUST BECAUSE it is so long.Also, the fossil record does not contain evidence for evolution. Take a look:"150 years of collected evidence--in spite of such an immense amount of fossil evidence... the deficiencies--the missing links--will never be found."--Ferrell, Vance. "The Evolution Cruncher." 2001. P 424."It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobilogical facts. The fossil material is now so complete that... the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled."--Nilsson, Heribert. "Synthestische Artbildung." 1953. p 1212."Geology assuredly does not receal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against [evolution]."--Darwin, Charles. "Origin of Species." Quoted in David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology" in Field Museum Bulleting. January 1979."And this poses... a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"--Elderedge, Niles. "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution." 1985. p 52Also, genetics does not contain proof of evolution either:"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological, and the few remaining ones are highly suspect... All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."--Martin, C.P. "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist. (1953). p 103"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more... Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2.5 million years."--World Book Encyclopedia, 1966."Living Things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent..."--Kellenberger, Edouard. "The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus," in Scientific American. 1966. p 32"Based on probability factors... any variable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities... would read:480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000...Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond [ten to the fiftieth power] has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence... any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence..."--Cohen, L.L. "Darwin was Wrong." 1984. p 205"I'm not TRYING to prove anybody wrong here. I'm just trying to open your eyes to the idea that creation is more likely than you previously thought."--Servant

How it works is:Evolutionists aren't finding enough fossils to fill the missing links, so they blame it on the fossil record as being incomplete. The truth is, however, that the fossil record is complete as it ever will be (we are finding less and less fossils of different varieties). You might have read this same argument if you took a close look at the people i quoted in my last post.Again, stick to the facts and ignore the rest.(by the way, for those of you who are trying to provoke an argument rather than a creation-evolution discussion, "stick to the facts" means let's not get distracted from everything OTHER THAN back-and-forth exchanges of posts that have to do with evolution/creation and nothing more).Thanks,
Servant

First off, don't make the mistake in assuming that I don't know anything about evolution (I've studied hard at it, and in fact I used to be such a firm evolutionist that I thought the entire idea of creationism was bogus and I would NEVER believe it). In fact, the scary thought is that, with the attitude i'm recieving from you, i probably used to be somewhat like you.Also, what is wrong with quotes. Earlier, when I gave you an argument I was attacked by not showing references. Now that i HAVE, you apparently glanced over the entire list of quotes without contemplating their reasoning and credibility (which DO contain arguments against genetics and fossil record as proving evolution), and moved on to expecting ME to provide you with a wealth of anti-evolution arguments as though i was BORN with all the answers. Honestly, wasn't if from a quote by either a teacher or writer in which YOU first heard of the fossil record? (the only other alternative i can think of is if YOU were the one who discovered and pieced togethe the fossil record... highly unlikely). Again, don't ask for an argument and then ignore its credibility.--Servant

Don't presume to debunk an argument because you don't like where it came from.After all, you referred me to the talkorigns site (which i have been to and even written to and had soon realized that the site is not scientific because it is very biased against any evidence that is non-evolutionary) and yet you expect me to believe it just because of what they say? The purpose of quoting books, magazines, and scientific journals that deal with creation and evolution is the idea that arguing/debating is a method of convincing one of another's viewpoint. Take my quotes and their sources for what they are, but not before you have examined their sources open-mindedly and without a bias, arrogant approach. Also, if you think that arguments are untrustworthy and that we must believe with what we see with our OWN eyes, then ANY INTERNET website that deals with evolution is untrustworthy (afterall, you cannot study the fossil record or any laboratory tests via the internet). Forgive me, but it sounds like you're using a paradox to further your argument--the contradiction that quotes are not credible yet references to a biased website is, for some reason.If you care to end this meaningless drivle, just say the word and I'm there, bro. However, just remember that when an evolutionist tries to fabricate their own debates for the purpose of drawing attention away from what's really important, that is when the evolutionist appears most foolish and wrongfully arrogant.Now, let's talk about the Miller Experiment (if you think that I brought this up as a plan-B because I might be worried that you are cornering me with your meaningless discussion, you're wrong. I merely brought it up because I brought it up earlier and you ignored it). After all, if Darwinian evolution is to prevail, it has to be proven and demonstrated that life can arise from nonliving matter without the aide of intelligent intervention.Thanks again for the time,
Servant

Didn't I tell you earlier that ignoran, arrogant insults are a waste of time and energy?Don't make assumptions about the people you're talking to. I DID used to be an evolutionist, and I understand thoroughly what Darwin's viewpoint is.Also, I believe you are debunking the abiogenesis discussion without any serious thought.First of all, yes the Miller Experiment DID in fact take place in 1953. Nevertheless, didn't Einstein's theory of relativity come out earlier? Didn't Willard Libby create the concept of carbon dating in the late 1940's? Didn't Charles Lyell write about the geologic column in the 1830s? I understand that there is no relevant connection here, but my argument is that you are telling me that using material from the 1950's is wrong or outdated when in fact the majority of "evidence" that supports your theory was developed much earlier and has since been undergoing slight modifications.Anyway, sorry for going off on a tangent. Well now, the idea that life can arise from nonliving matter is VERY important to the theory of evolution (afterall, if it can in any way be utterly proven that spontaneous generation of life is scientifically impossible, then isn't the entire theory of the evolution of life at stake?) Correct me if I'm wrong, but life arising from nonliving matter is the foundation of the origin of life on earth, according to the radical Darwinist. Therefore, biogenesis (the origin of life) is crucial in determing whether or not evolution is a valid theory.Now then, with that established, and all "fallacious arguments" aside, life cannot arise in the presence of oxygen, right? What I mean is, as soon as a macro-molecule catalyzes into an amino acid--a basic first-step to the formation of life--then the amino acid would be destroyed in the presence of O2 (oxygen in the gaseous state). So, if oxygen is present in our atmosphere, then elaborate for me on how it was possible for the first living organism to arise and escape the principles of oxidization.Thanks,
Servant

Also, before I forget,genetic mutations rarely if ever produce beneficial variation. That is to say, evolution requires beneficial mutations to lead to the production of more complex animals, right? But no beneficial mutation has yet been observed.Genetics is a complex topic (and I will freely admit that it is not my area of expertise on the creation/evolution topic) but with or without transitional fossils, there would still have to be demonstrated genetic variations leading to new species, let alone leading to HIGHER species and more complex organisms.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there seems to be a problem here.Once again, the communication process is broken down.Okay, I actually EXPECTED you to tell me that primitive atmosphere had little or no free oxygen. But the problem with that is this:Without oxygen, you don't get the creation of ozone, which blocks an excess of UV light from entering our atmosphere. And as you may know, UV light is responsible for the destruction of Ammonia. And without ammonia, you cannot have life arise from nonliving matter (being as ammonia has to be included according to the researchers of earth's primitive atmosphere). So, WITH oxygen (as we have established already) you cannot create life from nonliving matter because the first self-replicating protein would oxidize and therefore self-destruct in the presence of oxygen. On the other hand, WITHOUT O2 in the atmosphere you could not get the necessary components for spontaneous generation.Also, there are two possible theories that we are talking about here: Either God created the universe or he didn't. Now, abiogenesis IS a relevant topic because the vast majority of scientists who believe in evolution believe in atheistic evolution (darwinsism). And so, if it can be demonstrated that the HAD TO HAVE BEEN divine intervention, then that would damage greatly the scientists out there who don't believe in Theistic evolution.Furthermore, STOP assuming that I know nothing of evolution (I have only been writing in this particular site for a couple days... i have only written a total of a few pages' worth of text, and you falsely keep assuming that i know nothing of Evolution). Mind you, this IS IN NO WAY a contest to see who is smarter (i would freely admit that I am not as intelligent as you in the broadest sense... after all, it is those who humble themselves before God who will be spared from hell). Anyway, my point is this: you have to try and discredit me by insulting my intellect... something you know very little about. so knock it off, please.Now then, beneficial mutations among bacteria are not evolutionary mutation. what i mean is this: a scrambling of the genetic code to create a new line of bacteria that is resistent to certain diseases does in no way prove speciation, an increase in complexity, or any form of evolutionary build-up. Bacteria may become resistent to certain viruses and contamination through mutations; however, such mutation does not indicate origin of the species nor does it indicate that this mutating, over a long period of time, creates new species or genuses. Also, you failed to point out any type of speciation or observable increases in complexity of an organism (and buffing of bacteria would not count as an increase in complexity--it is still the same species of bacteria with the same number of chromosomes and practically the same genetic code).After all, if a human were to be born with 47 chromosomes, rather than the usual 46, what does that indicate? As far as medical science can tell, any increase in the number of chromosomes of humans results in severe handicaps (Down's Syndrome--a severe form of mental retardation and deformity of the brain--is the result of a 47th chromosome). Thus an example of an "increase in complexity" that is devastating to a person.--Servant

Before I forget, It is 3:00 in the morning here and I am somewhat tired. I did not sleep well last night and need this weekend to recuperate.So I will be signing off now.Also, Because of my inordinarily busy schedule, I will not have time for daily posts to this website, so I apologize in advance for any time that one of your replies may go unanswered for a few or more days.I will try to keep in touch as frequently as I can. Thank you for your insight. I understand that there is much turmoil among creationists and evolutionists (I only hope that you could humble yourselves as I have made a prevailing effort to do and discuss this topic without the unnecessary "you don't know this" ... "do your research" ... "give me quotes" attitude).Thanks again for the time,--Servant

Constitutionally, there is nothing wrong with teaching creationism. And if you are worried about the funding of education, how do you think the millions of American Christians out there are feeling about THEIR tax dollars supporting evolution, which is an unproven--and unprovable--theory that destroys the faith of children and collegiates who are not being educated on how to think, but rather on WHAT to think.The "Separation of Church and State" is a phrase made up by Thomas Jefferson in a later to a Baptist pastor in Connecticut in 1802, and he was referring to the first amendment's freedom of religion clause. In other words, "separation of church and state" is not a ratified law--just a liberalist principle--that happens to be based on the first amendment. Take a closer look at the first amendment:"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..."--Constitution.The amendment states, plain and simple, that there will never be a law that ESTABLISHES religion. in other words, the government promises not to REQUIRE religion to be taught in schools by law, but then again Congress promises that the free excercise of religion shall not be abridged. therefore, as long as teachers do not determine a student's grade based on their beliefs, and as long as a teacher does not force a specific religious opinion into a student's mind, then the teacher has no legal fault in providing equal time in class for the discussion of creation AS WELL AS evolution.Furthermore, there exists a great lack of evidence supporting speciation and spontaneous generation, which you have yet to answer to. YES, I HAVE read the articles and arguments of evolutionists who claim to prove beneficial mutations as leading to speciation, but there lies the problem: no new species has been observed in the making since science has been in practice AND there exists no rational reason why life would appear spontaneously--at random--within a mix of chemicals... IT does not make sense statistically OR evidently. Also, if life ever is created in the laboratory (which it hasn't even come close to yet) then that would only further promote my point--IT REQUIRES INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND PLANNING TO CREATE LIFE!!! Now, go ahead and ease your conscience by degrading my post... I figure I have it comming to me...Later,
Servant

I meant "LETTER" not "LATER" in my last reply. sorry... I was pressed for time and not paying close attention to my grammar and spelling.Sorry again, Servant

[Can you please explain to me why any religious group should be given any consideration at all in what is taught in public science classrooms?
]because these religious groups that you speak of pay taxes as well... the same taxes that support the ToE being taught in schools. Furthermore, as i have said before, evolution is not a proven theory. There may exist all the world's best intentions in solving the idea that life originated from a common ancestor, but it stll is not proven.ALso, in regards to your statistics, i mentioned it in an earlier post, in which i was quoting a mathematician who had studied genetics and the likelihood of common ancestry based on mathematical probability.I am once again pressed for time, but i'll try to get to replying to your posts ASAP.Servant

In regards to "evolution is as proven as any other theory," you are wrong. Sorry, but no amount of arguing, essay-writing, quoting "famous scientists," field research, or laboratory observations are going to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution is more than just another "what-if" of science.Also, schrafinator, the sites you quoted are extremely bias and their essays are not supported by scientific observation.Secondly, crashfrog, you "peer-reviewed" magazines are equally bias. The mere fact that they are mainstream magazines based on scientific research does not exclude the fact that they exclude any form of research that conflicts with evolutionary theory. Did you know that the majority (meaning more than half) of all product-dates taken by radiometric dating are thrown out because they conflict with the geologic timescale of evolution? Did you also know that the ceolocanth (as well as other lobe-finned fish) were once the "index-fossil" of the 350-400 myo devonian layer in the geologic column, until a few years ago when the ceolocanth was discovered still alive. Rather than taking the scientific method of analyzing their findings (skepticism of their own theory by means of questioning the validity of the geologic timescale) they took the bias viewpoint of assuming that the ceolocanth had survived for 400 million years.Thirdly, Saviourmachine, please direct your criticism toward the pertinent subject. Thank you for paying attention, but remain to the relevant topic, please.Thanks.Furthermore, look up the meaning of the term "Bias" for me. First of all, mainstream western science teaches that, in order to maintain empirical standing on controversial data, one must be drawn to UNbias reasoning and open questioning of all topics and evidences.That goes for MUCH more than just the evolution aspect. Nevertheless, you need to understand that the arguments you are trying to bombard me with are not rational, scientifically-prove (as in, they do not provide empirical evidence for common ancestry), nor are they in any way openminded or unbias, and therefore the responses i'm getting here are in no way similar to the types of responses I would get if I were to confront a science educator with a degree from an acreditted university in a similar field. And I would know: I have confronted many graduates with post-graduate degrees in sience and biology concentratiosn on the same issue of evolution as it pertains to chemistry AND biology and the true scientists out there who remain humble with integrity and unbias standpionts know how to talk about the subject with agendas OTHER THAN just trying to "Shoot down" the theory of creationism.With that said, this post is a waste of time. This will be my LAST post because I feel honestly that I am not dealing with open-minded SCIENTISTS, but rather with tunnel-vision neo-darwinists who have nothing better to do than throw away any unbiased opinions and prepare for a day of "let's see how many creationists I can insult or 'shoot down' today."Sorry if this upsets you, but it is truly a waste of both mine and your time to just continue with this back-and-forth nonsense. If you would like to continue in a TRUE debate, contact me when you think you're ready. (I do not doubt that you are ready intellectually, just not morally or open-mindedly yet).That is all,Sincerely,
Servant