Creation science

He he he...
No way I'm letting you have the 100th reply in this thread!
Thank you, come again!

By the way... yes, science is a house of cards in some ways, but only if you consider facts not the absolutes some think them to be, but propositions about nature that we take as true, until newer ways to observe tell us otherwise.
In that sense, yes, science is a house of cards, and is supposed to be that way.
You may have read me encense(sp?) science in this thread, but I did repeat more than once its frailty, its non-absoluteness.

DARN!

Now there is NO POINT WHATSOEVER of going on!

Well, I guess I'll be able to be 100 in another thread...

No you won't

"I'll answer your post more in detail soon"

Don't bother. I very much doubt we'll come to any sort of a consensus.

"I do have to mention here that this thread was started by an adept of Creation "Science", QB"

Yeah. I believe I acknowledged that certain comments weren't directed to me... still, I took a careful look at that part where you talked about "your misuses" of the second law of thermodynamics...

See what I saw.

"Hey, you want me to give ya a course in astrophysics?"

You started out with a CLEAR rhetorical question directed at me.

"Want me to tell you"... "I prefer to send you"... "Then YOU come back here"... "to debunk your misuses of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"

Do you see the progression?

As far as all that stuff about ICR, I've never met any of the people there, and I haven't seen any of their credentials.

In fact, I'd evaluate the page at about a 15 or 20 percent chance of being a pre-prepared straw "man".

"So it is normal that my answers in this thread have been primarily directed at ICR's Creation "Science", since the creationist argument only came from them."

I do understand this.

As far as this thread goes, I've chosen to more or less (there are some exceptions) avoid direct argument on specific points in capital, bolded C Creation because I really am not interested in it. I don't make my challenges as part of a group... I make them as an individiual, based on my own rhetoric, my own opinions. Do I borrow from others? Yes. Do I adopt their policies as my own? Not really.

I've more or less done my two spiels, and responded to what you had to say about them.

(Aside from the Matrix thing, which is a great deal of fun.)

"So, since you say you are not among ICR followers after all, then I guess I'll have to counter-argue on two fronts..."

You might as well get used to it. My normal operating procedure was to adopt the going perspective of one of the sides, but I decided not to here.

"please understand the context of this hot debate!"

I do. I merely resent it when people make direct allegations to me of which they have no proof.

I had a third spiel thought out, but I forgot it last-minute. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Niffiwan, I'm not responding to you because I'm tired. Tired of this thread actually. I'm addicted and can't stop getting my daily dose of it but I've certainly had enough I could respond up to a point, though quite frankly your field is not one that interests me.

As for the age of the universe, distance of Galaxies, etc, I'm not sure of my view on this. I was an amateur astronomer before I was a creationist, but I've since learned that half the stuff astronomer's believe is theoretical bs (don't wanna flame, but I don't think there are any astronomer's here, and I'm still an amateur, so I can't flame myself )

The ICR is, IMO, correct in SOME PLACES. I try to touch on these, but when it comes to there political views as well as there views of who the evolutionists are I run away

Juntel, when is evolution ever counter argued or refuted by anyone who actually believes in it? Creation Science is, sorry, but you have a lot of miss information on who creation scientists are, you only know about one group.

When does evolution come up with a new argument juntel? Not in recent years at least. All they do is change other arguments so they make sense when evolution is constantly being bombarded by proof that it's wrong. I'm too tired of this thread to prove this, but I'm sure you can do my research for me

juntel, you defend evolution like a religion, despite the fact that you insist you're open to change. Are you really? Sorry, doesn't seem that way.

I don't know about the length of the days in creation. I don't think they were millions of years long, but I really don't know.

The flood idea, etc. are not recent juntel, they're ancient, older then evolution as a matter of fact. How can you say that that was thought up just to argue evolution?

Taimar, a short leap of faith is riteous? I won't respond, as it would be nothing but flames, and big ones.

Now I'd like to bring something up, something the scientific comunnity influenced, which in my mind is an example of the same kind of influence that evolutionists have on other scientists (deny it all you want, it's true.)
Early in this century a couple girls took pictures of fairies, or what they thought were fairies. I don't know what they were, maybe angels, devils, who knows. But these girls were amateurs. They "borrowed" (typical kid borrowing if ya know what I mean) a camera they hardly knew how to use to take the pictures. It wasn't till recently that an expert insisted these pictures were a fake. In my mind I see no way that they could be. These girls knew nothing about photography!!! It baffled the experts for years!!!! And yet "science" says it's not true, and I think it's because "science" doesn't wanna accept that there are things it can't understand, and never will.

Yeah... I heard of these picture... do you know the girls later in their lifes (Damn, hey Juntel what's the word for "avouer") [Put Juntel Answer or anybody else's here] that they faked it. The "fairies" were painted paper intalled here and there.

Remember that photographies were far from precise then and that you had to stay without moving 'cause this was not todays camera film.

Fairies? I doubt so.

That's all I had to say about it.

I'm currently studying photography. They may not be fairies, but those girls didn't fake those photos, it's a coverup, much like evolution. And it's because scientists REFUSE to admit that there's anything they don't understand. juntel, you can't deny this, you're an intelligent person, you may not be like this but sadly the majority is.

About the fish example...
No, it wouldn't matter. However, suppose if once in a while you took all of the fish in the whole world out of the ocean, then put them back in before they could suffer serious damage. If you continued this for millions of years, then perhaps they would become amphibians. And if those amphibians were safer on land than in the ocean, then perhaps they would slowly start to develop lungs in order to stay above water more, and become reptiles. And if those reptiles needed to be faster to catch prey, then perhaps eventually they would develop a body-temperature-regulating system and fur. And perhaps if some of them found that clinging on to trees was a good way to catch insects, they would over millions of years evolve longer legs, etc. Perhaps they would become something like gliders, and they might eventually perfect this technique by becoming bats.

There, that's evolution's view of it.
The "fish" was a very bad example.
Evolution is not about one fish, but about the whole species. Evolution's point of view is that if a species needs something, it will adapt in order to be able to achive it.

I'm finally going to get into this.

The points of issue I have with evolution are as follows:

1) Something from nothing - life springing from non-living items.

And, perhaps the bigger problems:

2) Feasibility - life surviving.
3) Advancing - life changing forms in an overall advantageous manner.
3. a. Parallel advancing - multiple changes simultaneously.

Due to time problems, I can't go into depth now. Does anyone have any questions to ask before I begin to talk about these tomorrow?

OK, this is being written off-line in response to the points brought up over the weekend. After I post this I'll check and see if anything else needs commenting on. I made a list of notes as I read through the posts I hadn't seen, and I'll work from that list now.
Juntel's falsification challenge. Trust me, my friend, a 1 billion-year-old human fossil would NOT be the end of evolution. It would just usher in the latest version of the theory, as has happened other times. In fact, what is more likely still is that the 1 billion year old fossil would be rejected as a true human fossil, no matter HOW good the evidence was. That's what happened when human footprints and dinosaur footprints were discovered in the same deposit near Glen Rose, Texas. In places the footprints crossed. Because humans and dinosaurs coexisting would have completely destroyed the accepted evolutionary timeline, the official evolutionary position on the matter is that the footprints were made by an unknown non-human creature which happened to have human-looking feet. So don't worry, Juntel, there is NOTHING that could be discovered that would constitute a falsification of evolution to the committed evolutionists.
As to what I would consider falsification of creation (I'll use the lower case 'c' from now on, to try not to aggravate you). Easy. The discovery of a fossil of a true transitional form between invertebrates and fishes. By 'true transitional form' I mean a form with a central spinal column IN THE PROCESS of forming from a shell or whatever it formed from. Evolutionists don't have a clue which marine invertebrate might have been the ancestor of fishes, only the usual unfounded speculation. And this was a transition that supposedly took 100 million years. So I'm not worried that such a form ever will be found; but if it was, I would consider creation falsified. Sorry if I disappointed you by actually having an answer for your challenge.
Speaking of transitional forms: time to stop ignoring Niffiwan!
Last I heard, the cynodonts were considered fully reptilian. I hadn't heard the claims made in your posts before. My gut instinct is that this is just one more case of evolutionists misinterpreting the evidence in their zeal to provide evidence for evolution. Any animal that had the mammalian jaw and ear structure must, from the evolutionary standpoint, have already under gone a long transitional journey, and could not be considered a reptile despite the way it may have run or used its tail. But even if what you cite is true, you still describe traits that are fully formed and functional, not transitional. The creature you described would almost certainly have to be classified as a 'mosaic' form, an animal that combines traits from more than one major class. A true transitional form between reptiles and mammals would have, in this case, jaw and ear bones IN THE PROCESS of changing. This kind of creature has never been found between any of the major classes of animals.
Archaeopteryx is also a mosaic form, not a transition. Lots of evolutionists still CLAIM it to be transitional, but many others (Gould perhaps most notable among them) acknowledge this interesting creature as what it was: a curiosity, like the Duckbilled Platypus, not evidence for evolution. The platypus, btw, is a 'nasty poser' for evolutionists. How do you explain the evolutionary origin of an animal that combines characteristics from mammals, reptiles AND birds? No easy answers for that one!
Your observation about the Hoatzin not being the kind of animal that would be created is interesting, because you probably answered your own question when you brought up 'devolution'.
Let me take a brief break here to address another point, because it is related: the observation that evolution within species means evolution does happen. We must differentiate between 'micro-evolution', the natural variation within species that occurs because of already existing genetic information, and 'macro-evolution', the big transitions which require huge changes in the genetic structure. What we OBSERVE is 'micro-evolution'. Creationists totally agree that this happens. In fact, it is a prediction of the model, because an intelligent Creator would give his creations the capacity to adapt to a wide variety of conditions without going extinct. But it is a HUGE jump from this to 'macro-evolution'. There is indisputable proof that the former happens. There is no shred of real evidence that the latter ever has, or even could.
In the same way, there is strong evidence of 'micro-devolution'. There are many examples of fossil animals that are far larger than their modern descendants of the same species. The giant insects are perhaps the most fascinating (some fossil dragonflies have three-foot wingspans!). Again, it comes back to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (sorry, Juntel!). The effects of the Second Law over time are there for all to see. So since many kinds of animals have unquestionably gotten smaller through the millennia, it's certainly conceivable that some animals were affected in other negative ways by the same forces: small mutations that weren't fatal, but did cause mild impairments in one or more functions. On the other hand, there are many non-flying birds, so perhaps Hoatzin is just one more variety that the Creator made to make his creation interesting. In any case, this creature is certainly not evidence for evolution.
Speaking of mutations, that provides another nice transition. No, make that SEGUE.
I've never read 'Voyage of the Beagle', but I have read about Darwin's discoveries in the Galapagos Islands. I've never heard that the varying beaks on the finches were the result of mutations, and I don't believe they are. They are the result of variation and specialization: one species producing the kind of wide varieties that the Creator built into their genes, and different varieties finding different places appropriate for their specific characteristics. Over time, the finches 'specialized', forming subspecies that are almost species unto themselves. This, btw, is the OPPOSITE of classic evolution, because it involves the LOSS of some of the genetic capacity for variation.
As for the E coli, I would think again that this is a case of variation, not mutation, but bacteriology is one of my shorter suits, and I would need to do some more reading on this matter to really comment on it.
Radiometric dating. The various techniques cited by evolutionists as proof of an old earth are fatally flawed. They are based on a series of assumptions, all of which can be shown to be invalid. The system must have been closed, for example, and no system of that kind is. None of the daughter elements can have been present at the beginning, and that is impossible to know one way or the other. And even the assumed unchanging rate of decay is shaky at best.
It should be noted that, contrary to what has been said here, the long-term radiometric dating techniques (e.g. the uranium-lead methods, rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon) CANNOT be used on fossils or fossil-bearing rocks. They are only usable on igneous rocks. Usually what happens is that evolutionists decide what the date of the rock SHOULD be based on the fossils contained in the nearby sedimentary rocks. Multiple dating techniques are then used. These almost always return widely varying dates, and the date that is accepted is the one that comes closest to what they thought it should be before they ran the tests. (Juntel will, of course, deny this, but that is essentially how the techniques are used.) The really interesting thing is that when these techniques are used on rocks of KNOWN age from recent centuries, the dates invariably come back far too high, usually in the millions of years. These techniques are not in any way reliable, but evolutionists are not about to admit this, since they need those billions of years to make evolution even SEEM possible.
This brings up another interesting point. Juntel keeps talking about how creation isn't science because it has an unchallengable assumption at its root. I've pointed out that evolutionists are just as dogmatic about THEIR basic assumption. Both groups pursue research based on these assumptions. There is disagreement on specific issues among creationists just as there is among evolutionists. Neither side is objective in their research. However, there is at least one area in which creationists can be far MORE open-minded than evolutionists, and that's in the matter of the age of the earth.
While creationists do believe in a young earth (for which there is plenty of evidence; see my initial post for the biggest examples), creationism could still exist in an old-earth context. It would involve some major adjustments, but it wouldn't kill the idea of a Creator. On the other hand, the evolutionists CAN'T consider evidence for a young earth, because their theory depends completely on all those billions of years. Evidence to the contrary MUST be rejected. So don't believe for a second that evolutionists are these objective researchers that Juntel says they are.
Just a couple more things. First, Juntel, thank you for your compliment about my presentation of the case for Creation. Unfortunately, I must reject it. Although I am fairly well informed for a lay person, by comparison I am a rank amateur at this. There are many others able to debate this issue far more effectively than I, most notably Dr. Duane Gish, ICR's head of Biology and the world's leading creation debater. He has consistently defeated (based on post-debate polls) evolution experts from ALL fields in his many debates. It's the fact that someone like me can debate this issue with SOME degree of effectiveness against a better educated person like you that is more significant.
IP: "Science - a principle that is established AFTER support has already been observed and outlined, though not absolutely proven."
Let's see, what support did Darwin have for his notion when he wrote 'On the Origin of Species'? Fossil support? None. He admitted that. He thought that the lack of transitional forms was only because of the relatively small number of fossils that had been discovered at that time. He was wrong. He also had no evidence to support his proposed mechanism for evolution, and this was also proven to be completely wrong. The few things he did cite in support of the idea of evolution were observations that are equally compatible with special creation.
So evolution became a mainstream theory WITH NO SUPPORT WHATSOEVER HAVING BEEN OBSERVED. Thanks for your help, IP, in establishing once and for all that evolution is, in fact, a religion.
I meant that last sentence in a 'friendly needling' kind of manner, btw. If anyone has interpreted anything I've posted in this thread as 'flaming', I apologize for not being more subtle. Flaming is never my intention. My disagreement with some of you on this issue doesn't mean I don't still like and respect you as people. I hope we can all continue to be friends long after this thread is over.
Finally, I can't help commenting on what Tater posted, specifically: "I am very grateful to this thread, it's come at a time when I am questioning my own spirituality, and it is helping me to reaffirm it."
This may come as a genuine surprise to some of you, but I really don't like these debates. They always involve confrontation, and I'm not by nature a confrontive person. I much prefer to get along with people. In no case have I ever started one of these discussions out of the blue. I only 'run with the ball' when someone else brings it up (I know I started this THREAD, but the subject had previously come up elsewhere. I simply moved the discussion to the appropriate place). I do this because since I learned the truth about the scientific case for special creation, I've felt an obligation to share that information with others when I have a legitimate opportunity. It can truly be life-changing. When I get a little worked up during these discussions, what is bothering me most is not the intellectual disagreement. It's seeing people like Juntel, who Christ died for just as much as for me, doing battle ultimately not against me, but against their own eternal salvation. It bothers me that people reject the God of the Bible in the name of false intellectualism. It hurts and frustrates me when I can't persuade them of the falseness of their beliefs. I want to see them understand the truth, and be saved.
This is the fourth such debate I've participated in on posting boards, and there have been others at informal gatherings in the 'real world'. Sometimes I wonder if all the mental and emotional expenditures are worth it. So thanks, Tater, for letting me know that I didn't start this thread in vain! You made not only my day, but my whole summer!

Tater:

"I've since learned that half the stuff astronomer's believe is theoretical bs"

All I can tell you here is that I hope in the future you go learn by yourself if this affirmation is true or not; you can accept other people's opinion right now of course, but please do go seek in the future your own knowledge and understanding of that matter.


"when is evolution ever counter argued or refuted by anyone who actually believes in it"

Any new piece of information that we learn from nature has the capacity to refute evolution and some theory of evolution.


"you have a lot of miss information on who creation scientists are, you only know about one group"

I was directing my arguments towards one group, because the arguments from you and QB did come exactly from the one group.
I do know there are scientists who believe in creation; I even named a few notorious ones (check my early posts).


"When does evolution come up with a new argument"

Evolution has not as yet been shaken in any way; theories of evolution though are still being hotly debeted among the proponents of evolution.
So much so that ICR believe that this is a sign that evolution is false!


"[evolutionists] change other arguments so they make sense when evolution is constantly being bombarded by proof that it's wrong"

There are as yet been no real proofs that it is wrong.
As also there can't be no real proof that it is absolutely true.
Science doesn't deal in such absolutes; and yes from its own nature science is an ever changing beast, simply because learning changes us.


"juntel, you defend evolution like a religion"

Mostly what I have done is counter-argue what I believe are falsely based argumentations coming from the ICR group (the arguments you and QB used do come directly from them...)
Am I a firm believer in evolution, and in the theories of evolution that try to explain it? No.
You would be surprised how far my agnosticism can extend itself to other areas of human affairs...

My main point of interest is that I defend evolution as being a scientific explanation of things, whereas ICR's Creation "Science" is not

Something being a science doesn't make it absolutely true, of course; this is something that I did say in this thread.
And something being a religion doesn't make it absolutely wrong; this also I have been saying in this thread.

What irks me is when ICR's Creation "Science" and their defendants want to consider their model as scientific.


"The flood idea [is] ancient"

I don't disagree with that.
I think I gave my opinion on that adequately in one earlier post.


*About the faieries:
Shanamir, I'll let that one to you; you seem to handle it well.
Be carefull though, as people will try to make this issue more "real" by saying that the great novelist (Arthur Conan Doyle) supported it.


"scientists REFUSE to admit that there's anything they don't understand. juntel, you can't deny this"

I do deny it.
They don't understand exactly how the universe came to be,
...they don't understand exactly how life came to be from non-life (as ...they believe from nature's indications),
...they don't understand how exactly how one simpler form of life can evolve into more complex life-forms,
...they don't exactly understand mental illnesses,
...they don't exactly understand human behaviors,
...and I could go on, and on, and on, and on...
(and when I use the word "exactly", it's because scientists DO try to explain these, and have some ideas about it, rather than just try to say that "God made these things that way from the beginning"; this last quote (which isn't from you) may be true, but the question I have addressed in this thread is: is it scientific)

------------------

Lurker:

"I merely resent it when people make direct allegations to me of which they have no proof."

I indeed did not have proof that you were of that group; as I said before, I wrongly assumed it. Your resentment is justified.
I merely want you to understand why I (wrongly) acted so; you came out with (justifiable) questions about evolution's integrity about its ideas in ways resembling ICR's, in the middle of a debate where I was fending off ICR's arguments.

"This underestimating is growing tiresome."

As are blanket statements.
But I guess I've made my own in this thread.


"I hit the public library once every three months, and my last run was a week ago, so it might be a while"

You seem to be reading more than I do these days...
I guess we should both change that ....................... (nah!)


"In fact, I'd evaluate the page at about a 15 or 20 percent chance of being a pre-prepared straw 'man'"

I don't understand... what is a "straw man"?


"You might as well get used to it [counter-argue on two fronts]"

To make things clearer for me, can you tell me if you do support creationism (not ICR's necessarily)?
And if you do, do you contend that creationism (your own brand) is part of science?

(Again let me emphasize, as I've done elsewhere in this thread, that being a science doesn't make something true, and religion doesn't make something false. So I'm not trying to say creationism is false, but that it isn't science).

----------------------

Quickbeem:

* The Glen Rose "footprint" thing was debunked... by an ICR devotee himself! Why don't you say that to the people here?

* "there is NOTHING that could be discovered that would constitute a falsification of evolution to the committed evolutionists"

Yes there is. The 1 billion year old petrified human skeleton would, whatever you may try to say.


"By 'true transitional form' I mean a form with a central spinal column IN THE PROCESS of forming from a shell or whatever it formed from"

So you try to define what would be a true transitional form, as if the theories of evolution never predict any continuous morphing between one form and the other.
Transitional species between reptiles and birds have been discovered (Archeoptorix (sp?)), but when pointed to it, ICR's adepts go: "No, this is a true bird, it has feathers!".
So, when a transitional species IS found, ICR just try to define what would be their own idea of transitional species.... oops, I should have said "transitional 'kind'", 'kind' beeing one of their favorite terms... Entmooters may see that one coming soon...


"Juntel will, of course, deny this, but that is essentially how the techniques are used"

Of course I deny it.
The simplest way is to get a nice little book with a nice explanation of how this is really done, and every one will see that ICR's way of describing the dating of stratta is wrongly made.
Stop just relying on ICR's way of showing things QB, stop just reading just quotes they take from their own bibliography.
QB, take the textbooks written for these scientific fields themselves, read what they have to say, and then, and only then, do judge if their methods are wrong or not. Up to now, you have sang to same song, with tune and words and all, that ICR has been singing. Don't you make your own independent research on these things, from sources independent of ICR?


"Although I am fairly well informed for a lay person, by comparison I am a rank amateur at this"

Apart from subjects touching maths (probabilities and its uses) and some physics (thermodynamics), when it relates to biology, archeology and the like, ie all those other fields that try to support evolution and the theories of evolution, in these fields I am also an amateur like you.
So we both (and all of us) must depend on the readings we make, other peoples' ideas, research and results.
I do try to diversify my readings (when I do read! ICR's positions I've read before, and the science/non-science debate as well), and I think this thread may enrich us all.

"[Darwin] also had no evidence to support his proposed mechanism for evolution, and this was also proven to be completely wrong"

Hmmm... "Proven" by whom? ICR? (false!) Saltationists?
Natural selection as a theory of evolution is still alive and kicking.
Diversify your sources please; don't just rely on ICR's comments.
One way would be to read SJGould, one of the proponents of punctuated equilibrium: he never "completely" dismisses natural selection.


"I hope we can all continue to be friends long after this thread is over"

Never had a problem with that. Me and Tater did exchange some friendly emails even.


"I really don't like these debates"

You should. It continually happens in science, it is an important ingredient to science (from personal experience).
These debates are a confrontation of ideas, not basically a confrontation of life-values; only in the later do I personally feel bad about.


"It's seeing people like Juntel, who Christ died for just as much as for me, doing battle ultimately not against me, but against their own eternal salvation"

It is a very disturbing thought that not believing in the exact literal truth of the bible could cost me salvation. And what about my christian and jewish friends, who do not believe in pure evolution, but who do not believe in a 5000 years old universe, created in a 6 24hour-day? Is their salvation lost also?

"It hurts and frustrates me when I can't persuade them of the falseness of their beliefs"

Maybe it's your beliefs that are false.
Maybe all beliefs are false.
I don't even believe in the absolute truth of science, as I've told more than once in this thread!

It is my feeling that it is the seeking of these absolutes that make people so hurt and frustrated.

I must say, juntel, it's frustrating how you're stealing all my potential thunder on this thread, leaving me nothing to say!

I'm tempted to bring Descartes into this, but I'm too lazy...

Hey! There's no limit on who can add anything here!

Do bring Descartes; he may be usefull for the Matrix.

The ironic thing about Descartes was that while he was a firm believer in God, and certainly not a blind follower (that would be about as far as possible from the truth), is that his arguments actually serve as a workable founding basis for most arguments of agnotism...

And yes, Descartes' theories almost define your entire hypothetical "Matrix scenario"...

More to come when I have time (or effort).

ok..
Juntel: Archeopteryx

QuickBeam:

It's seeing people like Juntel, who Christ died for just as much as for me, doing battle ultimately not against me, but against their own eternal salvation. It bothers me that people reject the God of the Bible in the name of false intellectualism. It hurts and frustrates me when I can't persuade them of the falseness of their beliefs. I want to see them understand the truth, and be saved.

Did I hear you say that none of your arguments come from the bible earlier in this thread?
ok... I was going to say something about the first part of your message, but there's no point.
And about the "false beliefs"... Does that mean that everybody except Christians will "not be saved"? Isn't that a bit harsh... don't you think? Even nice people who did almost nothing wrong in their lives?
You know, Cristians are not the only ones who believe that their religion is the "right one". Every other religion in the world believes that too. So how do you know that your religion is right? You don't, but you want to believe.

ok...
I'm sorry. It's just that I thought that this thread was supposed to be "theory vs theory", not "religion vs science".
Please correct me if I'm wrong...

I'm running out of time so I'll make this quick...
one more point, I have a little theory that the fact that humans still have a "tail bone" that they don't use is proof to their ancestors as monkeys.
Prove that wrong, please, thanks.
Sorry, I would write more but I have to go...

Not believing in evolution ain't gonna save your soul! Believing in it won't damn you! God, this very idea is sad.

Juntel:
My opinion of astronomy is my own, and goes against basically everything I've been told.
I keep using the word "proof" instead of "evidence". Sorry, I'll keep trying to avoid this.
There is so much evidence (wahoo! ) that the flood was not small floods all over the place but a huge, earth changing flood. I believe it was PBS that had an awesome special on this a while back. I'll see if I can find out what it was called, it's very interessting.
Why would someone accept the photos those two girls took simply because Conan Doyle did? Everyone knows he was practically insane at the end of his life.

Juntel, you insist that evolution is not treated as a religion. Look around you, yes there are some scientists who know what they are doing, but when it comes to evolution the MAJORITY treat it like a religion. I know you deny this, but it really is true.

Can you support the assertion that people treat evolution as a religion with evidence?

"You seem to be reading more than I do these days... I guess we should both change that ....................... (nah!)"

Actually, I'd be hitting the library a fair deal more often, if only all their Clive Cussler novels weren't "Adapted For Young Readers" or something... or if they had more than three Tom Clancy novels...

Come to think of it, I still have to return my copy of... what was its name? It was one of the Power Plays series... quite interesting, but I prefer the pure Clancy stuff.

"I don't understand... what is a "straw man"?"

The general term of a "straw man argument" also known as arguing ad hominem, refers, in the most specific sense to...

Attacking a weak argument that was set up to be defeated.

As in, if I was to go out and make a web page that said something to the effect of "Evolution is true because Science says it is and Science is never wrong", and then argue against YOU, with the unspoken assumption that this page represented your views.

Since people have vouched that this ICS is a real organization, I won't assume it's a "straw man", but such things do exist.

Another form of a "straw man" argument is when you attack a third party's, presumed to be on the side of your opponent, statement, when this third party holds no credibility.

The term "straw man" refers to the targets - either the weak argument or the third party - in these arguments.

It's a very dirty debating technique.

"To make things clearer for me, can you tell me if you do support creationism (not ICR's necessarily)? And if you do, do you contend that creationism (your own brand) is part of science?"

For your benefit, I'll outline my basic viewpoint here. I will provide logical (or, if demanded, factual) support on demand.... However, this whole thread is becoming somewhat tedious... and when it becomes a chore, rather than a pleasure, is usually when I leave.

-------------------------------

Part 1: The things that I will forever believe.

God does exist.
God did cause the Universe to come into existance.

Part 2: The things that I will debate.

My working assumption will be that of a young Earth in the style of the KJV book of Genesis, until there is sufficient doubt - by my standards, and mine alone - that these verses were intended to be interpreted in a literal fashion.

Man was created independantly of all the other animals, microbes, bacteria, viruses, etc., etc.

I will consider - and debate over - the old Earth theories, but as far as I am concerned, not only have they not been supported to an acceptable extent, they also contain SEVERE logical errors.

Furthermore, it seems that there is a great deal of housecleaning required - and perhaps a bit of demolition - in certain branches of science.

Part 3: Requested by you.

I have previously stated that science is merely mankind's take on the natural world. And so, to answer your question, no, I do not contend that it is part of science. However, I do feel it overlaps with the natural world in many places.

-------------------------------

"Yes there is. The 1 billion year old petrified human skeleton would, whatever you may try to say."

I must beg to differ here. Either the dating on the skeleton would be "discredited" and replaced with something more compatible with the theories, or else the theories would be changed to accomodate it (cycles of evolution and devolution, perhaps?), or both.

I very much doubt that the theory of evolution would be entirely dumped - just tweaked, changed, twisted, and warped.

"About the faieries"

It's garbage. That's all there is to it.

"So you try to define what would be a true transitional form, as if the theories of evolution never predict any continuous morphing between one form and the other."

Science makes definitions to suit the theory-du-jour as well. Not precisely an excuse, but asking for a better example of a transitionary form isn't exactly taboo, is it?

"and I think this thread may enrich us all."

I personally doubt it, speaking from past experience... People rarely change their minds in threads that I choose to participate in. However, this one has remained quite... amiable by comparison, so maybe we'll get lucky and not have anyone get really angry...

I guess your literary suggestions might count as some enrichment.

"Natural selection as a theory of evolution is still alive and kicking."

"Hobbling around" would be the mannerism I'd use...

Since you made those suggestions for reading material for me, I'll make two for you. I hope you'll put an earnest effort into finding it, as I will for yours.

The book's full title is "An easy-to-understand guide for defeating Darwinism by opening minds", by one Philip E. Johnson. It's published by InterVarsity Press. Don't let the title fool you - it's not some sort of philophobic rant. I won't say that I stand behind everything in this book, but it does have some very interesting - and convincing - arguments. It won't hurt you to read it if you can get your hands on a copy. It cost me $11 or so CDN, so it's not too hard on the wallet if you can't find it at the library.

The second is "The Lost World", by Michael Crichton. Not only is it a good novel (beats the heck out of the movie), it has a great deal of interesting material on evolution, science, etcetera. In fact, my problem 3.a. with evolution (Simultaneous advancement or something) was provoked partly by this book. Oh, and the ending is absolutely magnificent.

You shouldn't have any trouble finding this one at the library - just don't settle for the movie.

""I really don't like these debates"

You should. It continually happens in science, it is an important ingredient to science"

I don't really know why I got involved in this one... I guess it doesn't hurt to put your thoughts into words, but I have my reservations of thinking that this will accomplish anything.

On the other hand, if I can make you question your beliefs, then I guess that's worth a bit.

"It is a very disturbing thought that not believing in the exact literal truth of the bible could cost me salvation."

I don't think that that was what he was referring to... I hope he'll clarify what he said.

"And about the "false beliefs"... Does that mean that everybody except Christians will "not be saved"?"

If that wasn't just a rhetorical question, and you actually want an answer, you should probably read Romans 2 (specifically, verse 14, but you'll want some context and explanation for it).

"Even nice people who did almost nothing wrong in their lives?"

*ROFL*

"You know, Cristians are not the only ones who believe that their religion is the "right one". Every other religion in the world believes that too."

Incorrect. Have you ever heard of the Bahai Faith? They have made a (more or less unsuccessful) attempt to accept all religions as different paths to the same goal. Obviously, there are religions which make themselves impossible to be included in this manner (read John 14:6 for the "exclusivity clause" on the Bible).

"So how do you know that your religion is right? You don't, but you want to believe."

Oh, my, no.

I know that I am justified in my faith, in the same manner that I know I'm sitting on my chair right now. I don't have to see it... I can feel it. Not in the physical sense (except for the chair), but I can feel it right there nonetheless.

I'm not interested in a religious battle right now, which is why I've tried to keep these short. If you do want such a battle, make a new thread... whether I show up or not is up to me.

"It's just that I thought that this thread was supposed to be "theory vs theory", not "religion vs science". Please correct me if I'm wrong..."

I don't know which. Some of juntel's posts would suggest that this is about whether creation is a science, not which theory is more valid... *shrug*

"I have a little theory that the fact that humans still have a "tail bone" that they don't use is proof to their ancestors as monkeys. Prove that wrong, please, thanks."

Firstly, "prove that wrong" is a loaded phrase, and your argument has a great number of presuppositions.

I'll give it a shot anyways.

Firstly, did you know that monkeys don't HAVE tailbones? Only TAILLESS apes have them.

Maybe you don't use your coccyx, but I do. It plays a part in the support that my spine gives me as I sit here and type. And as far as I know, it also protects the bottom of the spinal cord from impact on the rare occasion that I fall flat on my derriere.

"Can you support the assertion that people treat evolution as a religion with evidence?"

Not without an accurate definition of "religion".

Most of the ones I got (off of dictionary.com again) had to do specifically with the supernatural, but the fourth is this.

"A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

It's quite vague... my football playing could possibly fit into that.

I'll await his response.

Well, it seems this thread is finally starting to wind down a bit, at least as far as new things I need to respond to.
Let me just say this again in case one or two of you missed it in my last post: many evolutionists, including Stephen Jay Gould, admit that archaeopteryx is a mosaic, not a transitional form. In addition, 'true birds' have since been discovered in strata just as 'old'. If what you say about evolutionists being willing to correct their beliefs is true, you will give up the idea that archaeopteryx is a transitional form. It is clearly not.
Moving on, I fail to see how an animal with an external skeleton like a shell, or no skeleton at all, could evolve into a fish without ever having a central spinal column in the process of forming - unless you're going to invoke Goldschmidt's 'hopeful monster' theory, which I assume no one here would. There would have to be a LONG period in that 100 million years where this sophisticated new bone structure was slowly mutating into its current form. I don't see how anyone could possibly deny this, or that there would have to be many stages in the migration of the reptilian jawbones into the mammalian ear structure, any one of which would be just as likely to be fossilized as any other reptile or mammal of the period. Your suggestion, Juntel, that these transitions could take place without these intermediates existing is amazing to me. It seems to be a particularly powerful strain of the standard evolutionary 'how much we don't yet know' quasi-argument. No offense intended, just an observation.
Niffiwan: I indeed did say that I never used the Bible in my arguments, here, and I most certainly did not. My comments at the end of my last post were not part of the scientific case for creation, as you well know. You seem to be really reaching to try to find a point to make against me. But I forgive you.
Lastly, at least on the scientific side: Darwin's 'mechanism for evolution' that I referred to was the idea that little things in the blood called 'genomes' (I think that was the term) transmitted information to the sex cells. What he theorized was that when, for example, a relatively short-necked animal stretched out it's neck to reach leaves on trees to eat, the genomes would carry to the sex organs the message that the next generation needed a longer neck. Over many generations, the long neck of the giraffe thus evolved. (I know that's an oversimplification, but it sums up the basic idea.) This WAS proven completely wrong, which is why modern 'mutation and natural selection' evolution is known as 'NEO-Darwinism' (emphasis mine). 'Neo', of course, being a prefix that means 'new'.
I didn't know about the Glen Rose evidence being debunked. As I understood it, the discovery was filmed as it happened, so I don't see how it could have been faked in any way, and I've seen photos of the footprints. But to be fair, I'll back off on that one. Look it up for yourselves, gang, if you're interested, to find out what if what Juntel says is indeed true. I'll look into it more too. For now, at least, cross that one off the list of evidence for creation.
OK, now from this point on I'm NOT debating the scientific evidence any more in this post, so please nobody use what follows against me in that context.
When I said 'I really don't like these debates', I should have been more specific. The intellectual part is challenging and fun. It's only the verbal or literary 'crossing of swords' that I'm uncomfortable with.
Yes, I do believe that only those who confess Jesus Christ as Savior will be saved. I must. The Lord Jesus, God the Son, came down to earth in human form and died to pay the price for all human sins. If it's possible to attain eternal life without Christ, then He didn't have to die in the first place. The Apostle Peter observed, "And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under Heaven given among people by which we may be saved." (Acts 4:12) Good works can't earn a ticket to Heaven. Only accepting Christ's sacrifice gets you past the gate. I strive to do good works not because I want to try to earn my way to Heaven, but because I'm so thankful that, as undeserving as I am, my place there is nonetheless already reserved. That is what Biblical Christianity is all about. If that offends anyone, I'm sorry, but God's offer of free salvation is open to anyone. No one HAS to believe in something different. It's up to each of us to choose.
I'm guessing there will be question about that that will be raised in a subsequent post, but I'll wait until it comes up to answer it. I'm done posting here for tonight!