Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Creationism vs Evolution

Here is a link, we have been to this museum and he has an interesting presentation of creationism. http://www.creationevidence.org/

In the same area of the museum, there are places along a small river bed where there are human footprints inside very large lizard prints. These looked too real to have been manufactured. If these are not real they are a very expensive scam as the trails leading to them look very natural. I have done miles of trail walking in my time and the layers where these occur jut straight out from the soil.

Unfortunately, school boards *could* rule any way they wanted to on this issue - you need look no further than the current battle in the Ohio educational circles. And religion (as demonstrated all over this posting) is far to sticky an issue to make clear public policy over - hence the 'separation of church and state' stance in our laws. Evolutionists worry because creationism doesn't have to actually be 'correct' or 'founded', it just has to 'sound good' at the time of the school board ruling.

A prime example of this occured a few years back in Illinois (could be wrong about the state) when the school board wanted to mandate that the value of Pi be equal to 3 because they felt it was much easier for kids to comprehend than an irrational number (3.14159....). Again, the math and science folk were terrified b/c the school board actually stood a chance of enforcing that policy, for no other reason than 'it sounded good at the time' - even though it could be proven wrong in an instant.

Actually, we were created 5 minutes ago..I created it all. All those memories you people have were implemented by me. Everything you see, that would have taken time to be 'formed', I made 'em.

And this is the truth. Believe my word and I won't put you all in a dark pit for eternity.

How about that for a creation theory.. Just try to prove me wrong.

TheMark:

Genesis 7
2 Take with you seven [1] of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,

[1] 7:2 Or seven pairs ; also in verse

With the statement "a male and its mate", I read that as a pair. So Noah took the animals in pairs. He just took 7 pairs of the clean animals.

EdwardC:
You are the one person I would have figured to lay the down most evidence for evolution. The fact that you "will not" give any evidence, because "By doing so, I elevate the pseudoscience of creation to a position that it does not deserve", makes me LAUGH! OH my gosh, that is the biggest cop-out I have ever heard.

Also, I like how you call creationism a pseudoscience, yet evolution is science? As I said before, science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. You have offered no proof or evidence that evolution is testable, observable, and demonstrable. I must admit, you seem to have a great deal of knowledge about real science, but you (along with many other evolutionist) have confused science with the theory of evolution.

Here are some things that scientists say about evolution:

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions."—*Director of a large graduate program in biology, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 26.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but that it is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbuilding, 1954, p. 11.

The odds of accidentally producing the correct DNA code in a species or changing it into another viable species are mathematically impossible (J Leslie, "Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to Explain Life," in Scientific American and Understanding, pp. 53, 64-65; E. Ambrose, Nature and Origin of the Biological World, 1982, p. 135).

I can't remeber were I found this. But some scientist are starting to through out the Idea of evolution, and are saying it was such a small chance of evolution happening that there saying that alliens set us on this earth. I'll have to find this article

So the lack of knowledge is proof of creation?

So intellectual open minded people living 1000 years ago should have all believed in creationism?

Bible ain't any more the truth than a stephen king book.

I will offer up this website as an excellent source of basic information about the many possibilities relating to how we got here. I think it may help to put us all on common ground.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/evolutio.htm

daenku32:

So the Bible is totally fictional, huh? Most reasonable people as least admit that the Bible contains valid historical events. Here is one example from http://www.bible.ca/b-archeolgy.htm:

***********************************
"At the turn of the century, skeptics viewed the Bible as myth rather than real world history. For example, the Bible makes over 40 references to the great Hittite Empire. You see, 100 years ago, no archaeological evidence had ever been found to prove it really did exist. 'Just another Bible myth!' skeptics charged in an attempt to destroy our faith in the Bible. This, however, cannot be said today, for in 1906, Hugo Winckler uncovered a library of 10,000 clay tablets. These ancient records fully documented the long lost Hittite Empire and confirmed the reliability of the Bible. Later excavations uncovered Boghazkoy, the capital city of this 'mythical' empire."
************************************

I have not said that the lack of knowledge is proof of Creation. Matter of fact, as much as I hate to say it, I have not given any proof of Creation, because there is no solid proof of Creation. Nor is there is any solid proof of evolution.

However, I have given evidence discounting evolution, and evidence supporting the view that the universe is not billions of years old. And My main goal of my posts here is to show that evolution is not science, and that it has not been proven as fact. So let's stop taking it as such.

How do you prove old age? Modern scientists would say lets use a dating method...
okay... rubidium strontium, or c12-c14, or potassium argon, or lead-lead, samarium-neodymium, rhenium-osmium, uranium-thorium-lead,lutetium-hafnium, or maybe argon-argon, or even potassium calcium. Remember this folks. CARBON, that is dating works exclusivly on organic samples. The basic assumption to ALL these methods is:
1. rate of nuclei decay has been predictable AND uniform over all time
2. isotope composition or rock samples has not changed, due to other chemical processes
3. the samples have been in a closed area. No leaching of any substance into or out of the test material.
4. We must know the original amount of a given isotope in the sample, at time of death, or burial, or formation.

The popular view is that dating methods prove...
these types of assumptions are simply not acceptable in a court of law as fact.
The measureing of the decay of different isotopes is EASY, and scientific, the assumptions about original composition, and constant rate of decay, and guessing over a sealed sample is simply not scientific.