So, now that Palin is not seeking re-election.....

[dusred]

Do you really not believe in the scientific method?

LOL! Read the posts, buddy. Which scientific method are you talking about? Both sides can be 'somewhat' proved by science. Take your pick which one you want to believe.

[heliochrome85]

i really dont understand what portion of intelligent design, or creationism can be proven by science.

[Kohster]

Dusred, please elaborate on how creationism can survive scientific scrutiny. Also please provide concrete examples.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Which scientific method are you talking about?

There's only one scientific method, genius.

Scientific Method:"Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

Bolded words are where creationism runs afoul of science.

[ishkabibble]

[Cold_Zero]

There is a huge difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. And viruses forming resistance (micro evolution) does not prove macro evolution, that a subject makes a jump from one domain to another. The reason why evolutionists need the Earth to be so old (billions upon billions of years) is because it is statistically impossible for a single celled organism to make the jump (evolve) to a complex celled organism and then to a human in any shorter amount of time. Not to mention that you need to have this evolution happen twice, close to the same period and result (by chance) in the same species, so that they can procreate. And then have it happen for all other species in the domains of life on this earth?

But one of the issues with evolution that really has me skeptical is the fact that we have never seen one species of animal just evolve (macro evolution) into another domain or kingdom as the theory of Evolution suggests. It is very convenient for evolutionists to claim that they can't find the missing link because the world is so old.

The other thing that makes me skeptical is the fact that in almost every case of evolution (genetic mutation) the result is not a good thing. It typically results in a weakness, death or sterility.

Those are just a few questions about statistics and genetics that I have, not to mention a whole host of questions/doubts concerning other scientific subjects. I admit as a kid I just accepted Evolutionary theory because it was taught to me as fact and like most people you just accept it as fact so as to not stand out. But in my older age (I know, I know, I am not that old) I have begun to question what I was taught. Especially the history that I was taught in grade school.

If the Evilutionst could solve these issues, I would be willing to re-evaluation my position.

[Cold_Zero]

Do you really not believe in the scientific method?

Of course I do, I am a geographer by training.

And I resent the implication that being a Creationist means that your case is devoid of any scientific method.

[ishkabibble]

I have never seen a boat big enough to hold two of every species, 40 days worth of their food, and enough staff to maintain the boat and the animals. Nor enough water to cover the Earth magically appearing out of nowhere, and then magically draining away. Nor all of the animals of the Earth being able to live simultaneously in the same climate and in captivity

There is a double standard Creationists apply to Evolution. They will believe the most ridiculous things with pretty much no evidence to back them up, but discount all of Evolution because of a perceived minor flaw or lack of evidence.

[Cold_Zero]

Nor enough water to cover the Earth magically appearing out of nowhere, and then magically draining away.

I guess we can add Glaciation to that list, if seeing is believing. But hey, most civilizations have a Flood Story in their mythology. You don't find that a bit ironic?

[audtatious]

And it seems there is no separation of apes, humans, neanderthals, etc which would suggest a time frame for human evolution either. There is only so much variation that can be changed within a species before it becomes sterile and dies out, as limited by the animals genetic traits which are passed on. Scientists have studied every type of bacteria imaginable (12 minute to 24 hour generations) and put them through all kids of mutations but they are still variations of bacteria and nothing else. Scientists have studied fruit flies for hundreds of years (9 day generations) and they are always the same old fruit flies. Chimps are still the chimps they were as are orangutans. Neanderthal man died out and there are no fossil record of intermediate life forms between ape and man nor any other species actually evolving. Hell, where are the ancestors to things like trilobites, worms and other common fossils? What about mammals? What about transitional growth of the dinosaurs? For each of these we have fossil records with nothing leading up to them but "theory".

[ishkabibble]

I guess we can add Glaciation to that list, if seeing is believing. But hey, most civilizations have a Flood Story in their mythology. You don't find that a bit ironic?

If all of the ice on Earth melted, there still would not would not be enough water to cover all of the land masses.

I guess Noah must have seen the other civilizations' boats on the water, eh? Ahoy!

[ishkabibble]

For each of these we have fossil records with nothing leading up to them but "theory".

So you are stating that, in these specific instances, there is as much of a lack of evidence of Creationism as there is of Evolution?

[audtatious]

There is lack of evidence on both fronts. There is a reason it's the "Theory of Evolution". Neither are proven. Those who believe in Evolution simply dismiss the other side by bringing up Noah or the giant spaghetti monster while pressing forth their own faith in evolution as fact.

What makes one more right than the other when they are both not proven? Because you believe in one and not the other? Is that a valid reason?

[ishkabibble]

What makes one more right than the other when they are both not proven? Because you believe in one and not the other? Is that a valid reason?

Because one is the generally accepted model. There is presently no evidence for another, better model.

Should we throw out the Law of Gravity because it has been disproven? Or should we continue to use it and teach it until we figure out a better model?

Nothing can be "proven" in science. There are only models based on available evidence. The available evidence lends itself far more to Evolution than Creationism.

[audtatious]

Problem is that gravity can be observed today (and still broken when looked at from a singularity standpoint) but evolution nor creationism can be observed as the only changes that happen with current species is via variation and not evolution. From a religious mans viewpoint creationism is valid while from a man of pure science evolution would be his valid viewpoint. Neither are proven and they are both viewpoints. I don't dismiss either viewpoint in that I don't bash the religious person nor the scientific persons viewpoint. I simply don't agree that creationism should simply be thrown out the window and not discussed as if it were a subject to hide children from.

[ishkabibble]

Like I said, there is far more evidence for one model relative to the other, hence its acceptance over the other model. There is pretty much no evidence for Young Earth Creationism.

I don't care what magic stories people believe in or teach their children at home. I just don't want my dollars used to teach pseudoscience as science in schools.

Why do we all not look like Adam and Eve?

[audtatious]

Lots of people don't want their money spent on one thing vs another, does not make your viewpoint the correct one. Guess I'm just more open minded on some issues vs others than the anti-religious in the world.

[Kohster]

I read this somewhere: "To date, the intelligent design movement has not published a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." is this true?

[dusred]

There's only one scientific method, genius.

Thanks captain obvious. I think you 'heard' what I meant.

I'm talking about the the scientific proof of evolution vs creationism. Which do you endorse? Both have scientific evidence that they are true. Just because one has more it doesn't necessarily mean that it is more true. "Scientists" look so hard to find "proof" that we all evolved from apes and they don't even consider that creationism 'might' be true. They already have in their minds what they are going to find.

If all of the ice on Earth melted, there still would not would not be enough water to cover all of the land masses.

Since we're all talking about theory's here why don't you watch the video I posted? There is a man in it with a theory of how it happened. . . and there is some scientific proof that that is the way it happened.

Dusred, please elaborate on how creationism can survive scientific scrutiny. Also please provide concrete examples.

Please explain to me how evolution can survive scientific scrutiny? Please provide concrete examples. LOL! Yeah. . . if there were concrete examples we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[audtatious]

I read this somewhere: "To date, the intelligent design movement has not published a single article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal." is this true?

Why would they when it's not scientifically peer driven?

[Kohster]

Why would they when it's not scientifically peer driven?

Why wouldn't they? Individual like dusred insist that there is scientific evidence that supports creationism, so then why not submit for peer-review?

P.s. Evolution does withstand scientific scrutiny, dusred.

[dusred]

Why don't you watch the video I posted? There is scientific evidence in there proving to some degree the "theory" of Creationism.

How many "scientists" do you see looking for signs that Creationism is true? Not very many, in fact they already "know" that darwin's brain fart is the way things are that they don't even consider Creationism.

If you are a religious person like me, Matt, and Cold Zero and other retarded bible thumpers (sarcasm) you will take the Creationism side of things; but if you are a very smart, intelligent, and allmighty atheist Kohster you are going to pray to Darwin since his "theory" runs with what you believe.

[Kohster]

?

Why don't you post the important points of the video here instead

[Kohster]

P.s. I'm not an atheist, i'm a practicing roman catholic.

[audtatious]

Why wouldn't they? Individual like dusred insist that there is scientific evidence that supports creationism, so then why not submit for peer-review?

What for? I mean seriously, we already know the outcome. Every scientist agrees there is no God just as every scientist agrees that the earth is heating due to mans expelling of the pollution called CO2. Evolution withstands scientific scrutiny, just ignore the holes....

We could always try and find a far left liberal to submit such a thing. They seem to do everything based on feelings which is relative to spiritualism.

[dusred]

P.s. I'm not an atheist, i'm a practicing roman catholic.

That's interesting. And you still believe in Evolution? Get reading your bible, buddy .

[ishkabibble]

Lots of people don't want their money spent on one thing vs another, does not make your viewpoint the correct one.

The Supreme Court agrees with me, so I would say that my viewpoint is more correct. Of course, Matt knows more than the Supreme Court...

Guess I'm just more open minded on some issues vs others than the anti-religious in the world.

Nah, you're just willfully ignorant.

[ishkabibble]

That's interesting. And you still believe in Evolution? Get reading your bible, buddy .

Do you know anything about this topic besides a link to a youtube video?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...hurch

[ishkabibble]

What for?

To gain some credibility?

If there is a huge conspiracy against Creationism, what is the motive? This thread is full of tinfoil hattery.

far left

Thanks, Bill O.

[ishkabibble]

If you are a religious person like me, Matt, and Cold Zero and other retarded bible thumpers (sarcasm) you will take the Creationism side of things; but if you are a very smart, intelligent, and allmighty atheist Kohster you are going to pray to Darwin since his "theory" runs with what you believe.

Really? Then why are a majority of Americans Christian, while at the same time a majority of Americans think evolution is credible?

If you want the answer, it's because Young Earth Creationists are a fringe minority, who by the nature of their irrational beliefs are not going to ever change their mind.