Evolution or Creation?
- Thread starter Dark[NSF]
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Cat Fuzz said:It's HOVIND, doofs.
Indeed it is, though Googling either works to find his rubbish in its various forms. I always got the spelling from Apotheosis on the penny arcade forums, which was probably deliberate to mock him. As it still turned up information on him in search engines, always assumed it was correct.
Not that it matters, replace the name with raving nutter and you'd probably get a similar result
Cat Fuzz
Qualthwar's Minion. Ph34r!
My Bible study group is currently watching his video series. Apart from his perceived arrogance and sarcasm, I see no reason to question his theories any more than evolutionist theories.
Also, I reject this notion that simply because a website or university is biblically based that it is automatically disqualified from the debate. Just because someone is a Christian does not mean they cannot be a credible scientist.
I also reject the notion that just because a website or university is NOT Biblically based that it somehow has automatic credibility.
There are agendas on BOTH sides of the debate and people on both sides that will say or do anything to protect the paradigm of their respective sides.
Also, I reject this notion that simply because a website or university is biblically based that it is automatically disqualified from the debate. Just because someone is a Christian does not mean they cannot be a credible scientist.
I also reject the notion that just because a website or university is NOT Biblically based that it somehow has automatic credibility.
There are agendas on BOTH sides of the debate and people on both sides that will say or do anything to protect the paradigm of their respective sides.
Oddly enough, the Bible's I've read place the ancestry of the Chinese prior to the establishment of the Jewish people. I'm no biblical scholar, so I'll use another example. The Algonquians of America have been extant for over 25,000 years. They may not have a seat in the UN, but they are still a people united as a nation.
Cat Fuzz said:
To people who aren't biologists and haven't done a lot of science he seems to make sense. Unfortunately, to anyone who has he quickly shows himself as a complete fraud. Heck, even other creationists don't like him I have to admit, and www.answersingenesis.com even has an article referencing him as using outdated arguments that are no longer valid (and he attacks them back for it of course).
Unfortunately, he happens to be very prominent creationist and a raving loon to boot. You don't happen to believe him when he says that abortions are used to produce vaccines do you (not sure if you'll have that tape)?
I don't think internet sites are credible *full stop*. Even some of the better ones like Talkorigins I don't particularly like either. I prefer papers, the actual reference to the journal it is in, or the journals website (where the papers are often found as well).
Then again Cat Fuzz, you tried to convince us that dinosaurs still lived in Africa by using a website that turned out to be an april fools day joke. You can see why internet sites are not credible very easily.
Not really, remembering that the frauds on the Evolutionary side got exposed and their careers pretty much ruined. To compare, Haeckel is an evolutionary version of Hovnid that got exposed and thrown out of his community. Hovnid is a creationist who has been exposed as a fraud on many times yet is still widely supported by the creationist movement (even if some like AiG don't like him), because he still by and large uses the same arguments that every other creationist uses.
It always amazes me though the Creationists for some reason think there is an evolutionary 'agenda'. As far as most scientists are concerned, there isn't anything left to prove that organisms evolved (fact) just the mechanisms on how organisms do so (theory). Creationism still hasn't realised that it's still fighting a battle italready lost in the late 1800's, and they wonder then why they get ignored?
Personally, I don't care if a scientist is a preschool dropout. If they're research is based on the scientific method, that's good enough for me.
Chinese culture is old. They might not have had an empire until 600BC but they had some sort of sovereignty long before that. The Algonquins are a Native American tribe. I don't know much about them tbh, but since the land bridge across the Bering Straight is dated to about 12,000BC, I find it hard to believe that the Algonquins have been around for 25,000 years. Guessing he meant 2,500 years.
Last edited:
The Xia dynasty endured from the twenty-first until the sixteenth century BC. It was followed by the Shang dynasty, roughly from 1700 to 1000 BC.
The Algonquians are the American Indians first to settle to the eastern portion of the US. I could have made the statement for the Aleutians of the west or the Innuit of the north, but the Algonquians have been here longer.
Technically, the land bridge is still there. It was last exposed in the ice age 12,000 years ago. There was an ice age prior to that 25,000 years ago, and a third 40,000 years ago. Many anthropologists claim that the Algonquian people have indeed been in the US for 40,000 years. But reliable physical evidence can only be found to the middle period.
Last edited:
Cool. I wasn't trying to say I knew everything on the subject, but it would be interesting to learn more about the actualities.Metakill said:
I don't think there is much physical evidence that they were here more than 2500 years ago, is there? And who says they had to come across on the land bridge?
Well, it's been a long time since I took this class, so I may have some of my facts wrong. There were at least three major migrations between Asia and America. Anthropologists don't all agree on how they came, but the theory that they crossed the land-bridge in pursuit of the megafauna herds (giant mammals of the Pleistocene) is the most widely accepted, as crossing the Pacific was a pretty daunting prospect for stone-age peoples. Physical evidence of Mammoth kills by the stone implements of the Clovis peoples in Canada dates back to 11000 BC.
I may be wrong about the Algonquians being the first migration, it might have been the Athabascans. In any case, it was thousands of years before the scattering of nations and the fall of Babel in Genesis.
I never denied that. I DIDN'T BRING HIM UP! I'M NOT ARGUING FOR DEGREE MILL HACKS!Aegeri said:
I pointed out a number of legitimate scientists and you discredited every single one of them by painting them with the same brush as the $250,000 man. You were either completely ignorant of the references I cited, or you were DELIBERATELY using him as a straw man to justify your utter refusal to believe that anybody with half a brain could not see things your way. Either way, as a scientist, and someone who seems to think his qualifications preclude the rest of us neandrathals from the discussion, I find this practice highly deplorable from you.
The reason he's a hack is because his prize for evidence is a smoke screen that obscures any chance for a real discussion on the issue. What's so hard to believe about my wanting to have an honest debate without crackpots acking microbiologists to explain cosmology?
This was geared to address ONE SPECIFIC POINT that YOU were trying to make, in these parts: a). creation scientists are hacks, b). they get illegitimate degrees from mills, and c). none of them are published. ALL I DID was list a site that showed people who believed in creation, despite having legitimate degrees and being published in scientific journals. AND YOU IGNORED THE ENTIRE RESPONSE BY BRINGING UP SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A PART OF MY RESPONSE.
Not all good ideas are exclusive to sound minds, nor vice versa. Keep in mind that discovering DNA wasn't good enough for Crick, he also had to posit that aliens from another world came and dropped life on this planet.
I dislike you bringing him up because I WASN'T FKING TALKING ABOUT HIM.
That is an excellent response. Not only is it correct, but I should note that it DOES NOT ADDRESS THE MECHANICS. I'm not coming on here saying that "OMG EVOLUTION IS WRONG AND THE DEVIL AND GOD MADE EVERYTHING APPEAR IN SIX DAYS BECAUSE I READ THE BIBLE IN SCIENCE CLASS." I don't care for you extrapolating that general statement to argue a whole slew of points I wasn't trying to make.
I should think so. I have always been deferential to your expertise as a biologist but after making a blanket statement like that, I'm going to be viewing your posts through the lens of someone who touts the purity of critical thought in science but dismisses out of hand anything put forth by people who are NO LESS EDUCATED than he, by linking them to a huckster from whom they notably distance themselves.
Scientist? Check.
Degree? Check.
Published? Check.
Believes in creation? Check.
It's a simple refutation of your suggestion that only hacks and morons believe in creation.
... which might be significant if I were suggesting that you must accept their science degrees as valid. I didn't even come close to making that point.
\/\/0RF said:
Of course not, which isn't what I was saying.
Yes, legitimate scientists that had their status as a university and their ability to grant scientific degrees revoked because of scientific malpractice? Did you read the nature article?
I don't have to discredit them Worf, they did that themselves if you happen to read that article. You wanted 'evidence' that they weren't credible and I provided it
Read. Quoted. Article.
And I'm not ignorant of the referenced citations, I am aware they have nothing to do with creationism however. Did you look any of them up incidently?
Nope, just that if you make a comment why not try to back it up with actual facts first? As mentioned earlier, if someone wants to make a statement that ''there is just as much evidence humans evolved from birds' they had better damn well be prepared to defend it from people who know something about the subject. Or not make it at all if they don't know.
Considering I've only said if you want to argue about it, at least know what you are talking about, I think you're mounting your high horse more for amusement than purpose.
I've based my argument that beliefs are one thing and actual repeatable evidence is another entirely.
Correct, I wouldn't even call them scientists, it's an oxymoron.
Unfortunately I worded my statement somewhat badly, but then again it doesn't change the fact that certain prominent members have these. Again, my statement was worded incorrectly and implied something it shouldn't have. Unlike when you make a mistake, I've admitted it and apologised if anyone got offended by my gaff.
None of those papers had anything to do with creationism nor supported creationism. I looked up a few at work through the good old pubmed and they did not have anything to do with creationism.
Which pretty much means it is irrelevant to this discussion. He's a creation scientist that published papers that had nothing to do with his beliefs, and hence would have no reason to be manipulated or altered to coincide with his beliefs? So are completely valid papers?
SHOCKING.
On topics that have nothing to do with creationism? Check.
Show me a scientific paper that gives solid tangible evidence for creationism.
Then again Worf, how about we seem to be talking about the credibility of the ICR then, seeing as it is starting to move in that direction: May I point out:
http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/moondust.html
You can make up your own mind Worf, but the ICR are just as credible as Hovind, even if they don't like him either. I also have several other nature articles concerning similar scientific fallacies and abuses by the ICR. There was a good reason why it had its educational license revoked Worf.
Except I later then demonstrated that he, and the other scientists at the ICR were criticised and had their license to administer scientific degrees revoked because of scientific malpractice, and their science courses being below par. Disproving any claim to legitimacy your 'scientists' have now.
Again, feel free to read the article in nature.
So? Can you rule out aliens? Can I? I'll treat aliens in the same way I treat your 'creator' because I won't rule either possibility out, but don't know any real evidence that would indicate it either way.
He's your positions shadow if you like it or not.
It would be like me crying (like you are) because people bring up sods like Haeckel and other evolutionary scientists who manipulated data and were frauds. The difference is, I directly establish what they did, why it was wrong and the reasons/lessons that were learnt from it. You just get pissy when the kind of extremist nutcases that predominate the creationist world are bought up like Hovind.
If I had been you, I would of demonstrated why he isn't a legitimate creationist and attempted to make me look silly. Instead you just didn't like to admit his existance at all, because again, I find him very typical of a creationist and the sort of creation inspired videos and the like (yes, I HAVE watched this stuff, I do not argue out of ignorance of the other side of the debate SHOCKING) from Hovind are similar to others.
The 'science' that supports Hovind is no different than the 'science' used by 'legitimate creation scientists' (whatever the hell that is anyway). Both use gross distortions of fact to try and prove their point, and neither really gets anywhere significant with those who know what they are talking about.
Just out of curiosity, can you name a scientific prediction the ICR has made that they have tested and proved to be correct under the context of creation?
Actually my argument was my own, it just happened the initial quote was a fair enough stepping stone to introduce my idea.
Well, after you've made me look up the ICR and some of the scientists that work there, I'm actually not too worried I made the initial statement. They do indeed do the standard things I would expect of creationists, only they pretend to disguise it under 'legitimate science'. I wonder if the ICR will ever retract that moon dust argument.
Again, you point me to the ICR, I'll point you to the articles concerning why your 'credible' scientists got done for scientific malpractice (essentially manipulation of results and facts).
These are credible scientists Worf? I suppose Haeckel is a legitimate scientist too?
Ernst Haeckel.
Scientist? Check.
Ernst Haeckel, medical degree. Check.
Ernst Haeckel published several legitimate papers that had no manipulations of results at all before he got done.
So check.
Believed in Evolution? Check.
Let me add some:
ICR:
Got done for not teaching a correct curriculum, and the ICR manipulating results (Possibly not him directly however), you know, those 'credible' scientists you decided to point out. Check.
Got done for massive manipulation of results to the degree where he blatantly lied, and then tried to defend his lies with further ones. Finally got caught like he deserved too? Poor old Haeckel, he just wanted to prove what he wanted to BELIEVE so much, ultimately making up evidence. Just as bad as certain creationists I guess.
Deserved to get ostracised by the scientific community in both cases? Check.
Ultimately, you haven't really proven anything Worf, just because they published papers, not even with anything to do with evolution/creation incidently doesn't mean they have credibility. I notice that several articles, papers have directly refuted exposed some of the work done at the ICR as being manipulative or incorrect.
Really, you're claiming this lot as credible? I was able to find the guy you quoted directly because I recognised the Journal (it is in a library 30 ft from where I work no less, God bless university), but these other guys don't even turn up in pubmed when I try to search their papers (see below). How odd.
Such a shame some of your legitimate scientists have been done several times now that you made me look it up for several incidents, including manipulation of results once (the paper involved was also retracted). Probably not the best way to prove me wrong here Worf.
Ahhh but you responded to my point that these people do not "follow the scientific method", obviously using him as an example. I've countered this by pointing out they lost the ability to teach students the 'scientific method' because they weren't doing it properly to begin with.
I guess they aren't quite as credible, especially now I've been looking into them, as you'd like to claim.
Oh and many of them have no pubmed presence and I'm having real difficulty finding recent papers by many of those scientists that I have tried.
I also find it kind of wierd few of these guys has seemingly published beyond 1980 and when they have, the papers often have nothing to do with creation generally. Dewitt doesn't even turn up on pubmed too, which he should do as he has a paper from 1999 listen in his biography, yet it doesn't turn up in pubmed, which it SHOULD do as it is medically inclined. I also wonder as to the credibility of some of the Journals listed on those biographies, now that I think of it, I just dispute their credibility full stop now you've given me the incentive to go looking.
Meh? Whatever you want to BELIEVE Worf I guess (Incidently, I can find the PhD student IN MY LAB on pubmed, and he hasn't published that many papers yet).
Incidently, sometimes my digging turns up the odd gem of a paper:
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org...genom.4.070802.110400;jsessionid=imjnv03DroM4
Robert T. Pennock, CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Very good article and explains a lot about why creationism and ID are just political and not even remotely scientific.
Here we are, hence why I pointed out creation science was an oxymoron. It has nothing to do with science and is merely a political movement to get around the above little problem.
And why not some of the rest, because this article is quite good.
And last but not least Worf
Bang Worf, your argument of 'credible' scientists was shot dead with that subtle little bit of manipulation, proving everything I accused the creationist movements of (Assuming you are aware that the 'wedge' strategy is from a combination of ID, creationist and similar institutions, ICR included).
You can apologise to me any time you like, just as I have for my minor gaff that their degrees were not credible, you have cast aspersions on my character when my statements were in fact correct. Guess what ole Worfy, they are just as credible as Hovind and even use the same tactics.
Fancy that eh?
Finally, just to put further nails in the coffin.
and
Clunk clunk clunk and there went your 'sources' last shred of credibility as 'legitimate' scientists who can't even produce papers with evidence of their view. Surely, if the ICR was doing active research (as you claim, they are apparently legitimate scientists afterall!), the Discovery Institute would have known about it and been able to present said evidence that, presumably, the ICR is researching?
I guess not because all creationism/ID is this:
Really, if I had thought about it, I should have opened and closed with that one statement, and never needed to go to this effort to begin with.
And here we go, once and for all ending the "science refuses to acknowledge anything than biological evolution"
http://www.annalsnyas.org/cgi/content/full/950/1/191
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 950:191-205 (2001)
© 2001 New York Academy of Sciences
Is the Universe Designed? Yes and No
DAVID RAY GRIFFIN
There we go you can consider that one rebuffed too now.
Last edited:
*golf clap*
Aegeri, you deserve a medal for services to the Internet for actually making this stuff interesting for once.
Aegeri, you deserve a medal for services to the Internet for actually making this stuff interesting for once.
Before I read the rest of your novel, do you know I'm being asked to pay $30 for the privilege of reading that article?
:edit: in fact, can you link to anything besides AOL that doesn't require me to pay?
:new edit: and as interesting as your sensory overload is, there are several things you are addressing that I was never arguing. What you said was:
When you start putting up pictures of skull comparisons and stuff, that is interesting and informative. When you dismiss the idea of God by comapring Him to a pink unicorn you made up from the ether, that's demeaning to that person's religion. You may feel it got your point across, but there are better ways to go about that than to compare God to a ludicrous fantasy. It looks a lot to me like a straw man, as it's easier for you to deal with something you just made up than to address the God of the Bible, and maybe it's easier to make other people look stupid by addressing the exaggeration rather than the revelation.
And when you make a simple, blanket statement like no creationist having a decent grasp of biology, and I did nothing more than present you with a list of people with degrees from accreditted universities (I did not say all, nor did I even defend schools like seminaries because I wouldn't expect you to take them seriously, but come on, Harvard?). And to defend your overly general statement, you don't address the accreditation of the people in question, or make the questionable but at least partially reasonable assertion that "just because they have a real PhD from a real university in a relevant field doesn't mean they know anything about biology". Posting a completely different person, with a degree that I never claimed to support, does not address my point at all. It's a straw man, and I submit that it's demeaning to people with properly accreditted degrees. I want this to be the last word that we have on the subject of degrees, so can we at least establish that I have never come here suggesting that diplomas from degree mills should be honored, and that it would be better to address points directly rather than through straw men (like the albatross argument)?
In the interest of full disclosure, here is a list of Creation scientists with unaccredited degrees. That way everyone's clear on who's educated and who's all papered up. Okay?
It's pretty obvious why YOU would bring him up, though:
I should also point out that proliferation of pseudoscience does not make the well-intentioned efforts of others invalid. Garbage science is on the TV all day long, from "4 out of 5 doctors recommend X" to "gluten-free yeast" (if gluten is a protein and yeast is a fungus, isn't gluten-free yeast something like a cow-free chicken?). The preponderance of this kind of garbage science, most of which seems to end up at GNC, I would surmise does nothing to diminish the work of other scientists in the same field, nor should it.
Going back a bit, since we haven't really covered this in a while, as for your earlier dismissal of half of my various statements as being merely philosophical... LOOK AT THE QUESTION. It's a philosophical question unto itself. We know that evolution happens, but when we turn the clock all the way back, we're ALL making inferences. Whether God manipulated our universe into being, or whether an alien race seeded us here, or whether life just tripped over itself... it's an inference based on the available data, whatever that might be for one person or another. When people talk about large-scale evolution being based on faith or incomplete facts, they are referring to this inference that necessarily must take place when observation is not possible. Obviously some people are going to take that one step further and say that evolution is the religion of atheists, and it's probably an unfair characterization to make of scientists who look at science on its face and do not bother with the larger philosophies it might imply. But materialist evolutionism DOES make philosophical claims of pure naturalism, as clearly demonstrated by Dawkins and his theories on memetics. I applaud you for making it a point to separate science from philosophy in your arguments, I'm just saying (as I ever have) that the crossover between science and philosophy is not exclusive to Bible-thumpers.
:edit: in fact, can you link to anything besides AOL that doesn't require me to pay?
:new edit: and as interesting as your sensory overload is, there are several things you are addressing that I was never arguing. What you said was:
Now maybe I AM giving too much credit to ICR faculty by suggesting they might breathe the same air as you, but if someone has a PhD in Biology from Harvard, I'm going to take a huge leap and make the wild assumption that he has a decent grasp of biology. If you want to talk about their ideas, or not, fine. If you want to suggest their theories aren't accepted by the scientific community, I won't argue that. I didn't bring up ICR to suggest that their work is the wave of the future. I understand that you sought to clarify your earlier statement about credentials but it demonstrates how insulting and demeaning your methods of arguing the points are.
When you start putting up pictures of skull comparisons and stuff, that is interesting and informative. When you dismiss the idea of God by comapring Him to a pink unicorn you made up from the ether, that's demeaning to that person's religion. You may feel it got your point across, but there are better ways to go about that than to compare God to a ludicrous fantasy. It looks a lot to me like a straw man, as it's easier for you to deal with something you just made up than to address the God of the Bible, and maybe it's easier to make other people look stupid by addressing the exaggeration rather than the revelation.
And when you make a simple, blanket statement like no creationist having a decent grasp of biology, and I did nothing more than present you with a list of people with degrees from accreditted universities (I did not say all, nor did I even defend schools like seminaries because I wouldn't expect you to take them seriously, but come on, Harvard?). And to defend your overly general statement, you don't address the accreditation of the people in question, or make the questionable but at least partially reasonable assertion that "just because they have a real PhD from a real university in a relevant field doesn't mean they know anything about biology". Posting a completely different person, with a degree that I never claimed to support, does not address my point at all. It's a straw man, and I submit that it's demeaning to people with properly accreditted degrees. I want this to be the last word that we have on the subject of degrees, so can we at least establish that I have never come here suggesting that diplomas from degree mills should be honored, and that it would be better to address points directly rather than through straw men (like the albatross argument)?
In the interest of full disclosure, here is a list of Creation scientists with unaccredited degrees. That way everyone's clear on who's educated and who's all papered up. Okay?
... um, no, I get pissy when you use him as a straw man. The reason I didn't bring him up was because he was not relevant at all to my point, about scientists with legitimate degrees. Obviously if his degree is not legitimate, then he's not a good example to list, is he? So why WOULD I bring him up?
It's pretty obvious why YOU would bring him up, though:
This is a wholly untenable statement. I have never once mentioned Haeckel or held him over your head, even though you've been quite happy to throw him under the bus repeatedly to show how unbiased you are. I haven't even mentioned recapitulation or the embryonic drawings (with the caveat that someone else here might have). The only thing I've pointed out are a handful of examples of archaeological/paleontological forgeries that show only that while science as an ideal is pure, its practitioners are not above reproach. In the context of that statement, religion also has its ugly stepsisters, but in neither case do I consider that to be representative of the whole nor to disqualify their message. You seem to think I need to apologize or admit a wrongdoing, but in this thread I have been wholly respectful of science and of scientists and the theories mentioned herein. Can you find an instance where I have not? Can you find an instance where I have brought up a Haeckel or similar fraud of note, and suggested that evolution should be dismissed out of hand based entirely on that?
Interesting you should use the words "gross distortion of fact". There are many scientists who believe in creation who specifically and openly refute a lot of the garbage claims (moondust being one example) you are talking about here. So if they point out the bad science, how are they using the same science? And why make it a point to say "stop talking about the moondust, it's a false hypothesis" if the truth is supposedly less important than the message? I think I detect another gross distortion of fact here...
I should also point out that proliferation of pseudoscience does not make the well-intentioned efforts of others invalid. Garbage science is on the TV all day long, from "4 out of 5 doctors recommend X" to "gluten-free yeast" (if gluten is a protein and yeast is a fungus, isn't gluten-free yeast something like a cow-free chicken?). The preponderance of this kind of garbage science, most of which seems to end up at GNC, I would surmise does nothing to diminish the work of other scientists in the same field, nor should it.
Going back a bit, since we haven't really covered this in a while, as for your earlier dismissal of half of my various statements as being merely philosophical... LOOK AT THE QUESTION. It's a philosophical question unto itself. We know that evolution happens, but when we turn the clock all the way back, we're ALL making inferences. Whether God manipulated our universe into being, or whether an alien race seeded us here, or whether life just tripped over itself... it's an inference based on the available data, whatever that might be for one person or another. When people talk about large-scale evolution being based on faith or incomplete facts, they are referring to this inference that necessarily must take place when observation is not possible. Obviously some people are going to take that one step further and say that evolution is the religion of atheists, and it's probably an unfair characterization to make of scientists who look at science on its face and do not bother with the larger philosophies it might imply. But materialist evolutionism DOES make philosophical claims of pure naturalism, as clearly demonstrated by Dawkins and his theories on memetics. I applaud you for making it a point to separate science from philosophy in your arguments, I'm just saying (as I ever have) that the crossover between science and philosophy is not exclusive to Bible-thumpers.
Last edited:
shadow_dragon
is ironing his panties!
\/\/0RF said:
Lol! This single post will be marked in my favourites as the nearest \/\/orf came to a concession.
i would also say both, i would say that i think Evolution is more potant but i think we were given a jump start in life some how. there are too many coincidences and ironies in the universe for it just to be eather one on its own
Metakill said:
(Just back from meeting number 1 for today)
That's been my point all along. Neither evolution nor creation can be proven disproven by the scientific method without neclecting key steps in the process (I'm not going to start a discussion on the process of the scientific method, as anyone involved in this conversation should already know what it is). Without fullfilling all the steps of the scientific method, the topic cannot be regarded as true science, but is merely a theory, or at best, a hypothesis.
I have admitted that I am a Creationist and a Christian, but I have avoided the "this is why this is right" or the "this is why this is wrong" discussion because quite frankly, the two sides are so far apart that no middle ground will ever be reached. What I've tried to do is to get people to think on their own and not based on what some teacher or preacher has told them. Most creationists believe in creation because of what some people, be it a parent or a minister or what have you, has told them so. Likewise, manhy evolutionists believe that evolution is science simply because it has been drilled into them by various professors. If either stance is taken without doing some emperical, unbiased research on your own, then you have done yourself an injustince. (Note: I fully agree that there are some in this thread for both view points who have done their "homework." I am not addressing this at anyone in general, so don't be offended).
Most people are creationists because they are Christians, and so creationism is what, for the most part, Christians believe. I'm a little different. I became a creationist first. I was searching to find what was right and what the purpose for life is. In my studies for my second degree in Biology, I thoroughly researched the topic of origins, reading books and documents from both fields of study. I've even written arguments for both sides. It was through these studies and my study of the human anatomy that I came to my conclusion of creation by intelligent design, and I've had that stance ever since. It was through my stance as a creationist that I became a Christian.
I know there are those here who have done the exact some thing and have chosen evolution, and to you I applaud you for your diligence and not just being a lemming to what you're told. I challenge everyone to read, study, and learn for yourself. Study authors and authorities from both sides of the argument written about both sides of the argument. Try to overlook your predisposition and study with an open mind. Then, make your on decision based on what your head and heart tell you.
(Off to meeting #2, didn't even get a chance to finish reading the thread)
Sorry, gotta say this before I go.
It's true, creation has a hard time proving it's theory, because it's theory is based on a Creator. How can you prove a Creator existed without getting into a discussion on Theology, which evolutionists would dismiss anyhow?
Likewise though, there has yet to be absolute proof of evolution. Every time evolution tries to provide a "smoking gun" science later reveals that the assumtion is inaccurate, or even a hoax.
Again, evolution has yet to find a solid piece of evidence for it's argument as well. It has instead found obscure facts that it manituplated to fit it's predetermined bias.
Don't pretend that evolution has proven itself more than creation. It has not. It has just done a better job of convincing the masses that it right, and the masses follow blindly. As I have said, it's easier to get people to accept that there is no Creator than it is to get them to accept that there is one, because of man's natural resistance to authority.
Okay, now I'm late!