I have a way to explain evolution to Christians using the Christian church as the main example.

It started off as a mutation of the Jewish faith, but quickly found an environment where it flourished. Previoulsy only Jews could be jews, but christianity worked for the gentiles too.

As the years have gone by there have been uncountable mutations, sects that have splintered off, done there own thing, taken the christian faith in a slightly different direction. 99.9% of these heretical offshoots have failed.

But, as the world changes over time, 0.1% just happen to happen at the right time and the right place for their new teachings to work more successfully than the currently established church. Or equally successfully. These have gone on to last for centuries, even up to the current day. The protestant church and the catholic chuch exist side by side, along with hundreds and hundreds of variations of christian sub-species (denominations).

Who designed this massively complex christian church system that we find today? Nobody. It can be explained easily enough using just mutation, natural selection and a long time frame.

lol wikipedia is great, I use it a lot. Btw Family Guy is awesome at making creationism look like a joke, which is great for all of us that believe in evolution.

Notice how Chang said "all of us that believe in evolution." Now, if evolution is a reliable scientific theory then why do we have to believe in it? Sounds more like a religion to me. Evolution is not scientific at all, and you have all been brainwashed by it teachings and doctrines. For 150 years this humanist religious world-view has dominated our societies. You know, before Charles Darwin's book came out, the majority of scientists were Creationist.

Vova, I took a look at those links that you posted, mainly the evolution of the eye. The first thing I noticed, Wikipedia? Science? This is not the most reliable resource. And the article isn't any better either. Please try and understand what I am going to say know. This article is based on imagination, not science. For the evolution of the eye, they put up a diagram of how they think it might have happened, and just posted it off as fact. That's not how science works. Their diagram explains the DEVELOPEMENT of the eye, in it's various stages. I want to know HOW it developed, not just, "we have an eye that looks like this so it must have evolved this way." I believe that once you grasp onto this you will realise that evolution is just as religious as any other pagan religion.
Jared

Jared,
What I meant by "all of us that believe in evolution" is "all of us that think that evolution is fact". How else would you phrase it? Strong scientific evidence for evolution exists, but people like you would say that it hasn't been proven, and that we are not knowledgeable enough to state evolution as fact. Therefore, we "believe" in evolution. It's not the same as religion, where no rock-solid scientific evidence exists (rock-solid referring to the fossils found that support evolution; no pun intended). Also, you stated that Wikipedia is not the most reliable resource. It might not be the MOST reliable resource, but it certainly is more reliable than you make it out to be. You suggested that the article is basically worthless, and that's definitely not true.

Why would you have to THINK that evolution is a fact? It either is or it isn't. In regard to fossils proving evolution. No fossil could ever count as evidence for evolution. If you find a fossil in the dirt, think, what do I know from it? All you know is, it died! You don't know when it died, where it died, you just know where it was buried. It doesn't have a date stamped on it saying, "Made by dinosaur, 70 million years ago... in Thaiwan!" You cannot prove that it had any offspring, or offspring that where any different to the parent (talking about macro-evolution). I agree with you that the article that Vova presented has some good stuff. But it has none that proves HOW the eye evolved. And THAT is what I despice the most about evolution. The facts are NOT there. You figure that, "since life exists", or "this organism possesses these traits, evolution MUST HAVE HAPPENED this way." The Scientific Community cannot honestly tell you that this is how it happened for sure, because they do not know for certain. That is why evolution is religious. I really want you to think about this next time you are presented with some evolutionary "science". Think, does this actually prove that this is true. You say that the article is not worthless. Please show me some SCIENTIFIC evidence for the evolution of the eye.

I found this short clip the other day from the "Walking With" series. If you can, point me out just ONE piece of Imperical scientific evidence. Hopefully after watching this you will understand what I mean by saying that evolution is a religion. With this clip, it is very easy to IMAGINE how these things evolved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28N2l0o3PIE

By the way, dinosaurs are not millions of years old either.
Jared

I'm sorry, I just stumbled across this forum and found it amusing that there was a evolution vs. creationism debate on a juggler's blog. Jared I just have to ask you...how old do you believe dinosaurs are? I really hope you don't say anything in the realm of thousands of years. And I really hope you don't say that a god just planted the fossils in the ground to seek out the truly faithful.

You say evolution is not science. By definition it is. It may not be undeniably proven but technically nothing ever is.

Creationism on the other hand is not science nor is it theory in a scientific sense. It is merely "maybe it happened like this..." with its only support being a story book written and developed by hoardes of people over centuries of tiem.

Find me one other accepted fact of our universe that cites a book written by uncredited authors from thousands of years ago and I will become a creationist immediately.

"It may not be undeniably proven but technically nothing ever is." Nice one, I completely agree with you, Jack

Jared,
When I read that you wrote, "By the way, dinosaurs are not millions of years old either," I was like, ummmmm...Wtf!? If they weren't millions of years old, how old were they then? Have you ever heard of carbon dating? Scientists can use this and other methods like argon gas testing to accurately tell how old a fossil was. I have NEVER in my life read or heard about someone who disagreed with how old the dinosaurs were, until you. Next thing I know, you'll be saying that the dinosaurs didn't even exist! All I have to say is, WOWWWWW...

Hey again,

Sorry Jack, I do believe that dinosaurs are only 6-10 thousand years old. They cannot be any older than that. There are factors that will limit the age of the earth. It cannot be millions of years old.

For example, scientists have discovered that the moon is leaving the earth, very slowly. It is leaving at a rate of about 2-3 inches per year. But if you were to go back in time and add 2-3 inches per year to the moon's distance you would start to get a problem, because the moon causes the tides. (Inverse Square Law) 30-40 million years ago, the tides would have drowned everything on earth twice per day. You cannot tell me that the dinosaurs were around 70 million years ago.

Another one, the sun is burning. It's shrinking. After about 300 years of close study of the sun, scientists (Royal Observatory in Grenwhich) have estimated that the suns diameter is shrinking at a rate of about 5 feet per hour. Don't worry though, the sun is gigantic, we won't lose it any time soon. But once again, add 5 feet per hour to the sun back in time. With the sun bigger, the stronger gravitational pull would pull Mars in, then slowly effect earth.

The amount of C14 in our atmosphere is increasing (this is the way carbon dating works). C14 is very low in our atmosphere, about 0.0000765 percent of the atmosphere is composed of C14. C14 comes from the sun, and slowly decays to Nitrogen over a half-life of 5730 years. So there is a filling and simultaneous leaking process going on. There is a point known as Equilibrium, where the level of C14 will not exceed at the present filling and leaking rates. It is said that it would take 30 thousand years for the earth's atmosphere to reach Equilibrium. However, there is more C14 in the atmosphere then there was 20 years ago. We have not reached Equilibrium. This is how carbon-dating works. The scientists assume that since the earth is millions of years old, equilibium has already been reached, and reached a long time ago. This is why they get ridiculous outcomes in (the majority) of tests. Also, they would not date a dinosaur bone with carbon-dating because it apparantly is too old. They would use, as mentioned, Potassium-Argon dating or one of the other dating methods. It is based off the Geologic column. They will continuously test a sample with various methods until they come up with a result that fits their preconceived idea of the age of the dinosaurs based on were it is situated in the Geologic Column.

One more, the magnetic feild of the earth is decreasing, getting weaker. Don't hold me to this, but I think it lost 6 percent of it's strength over the last 150 years. But, once again, go back in time. Just 30 thousand years ago, the magneticity of the earth would have made the earth hot, and destroyed all life on earth. Just 30 thousand years ago.

Now, these examples are somewhat based on the Uniformitarian principle, everything in time has been the same way and will continue to go the same way. I'm not sure what kind of progression it would be, be it linear, geometric or logarithmic. But these are just to get an idea. They put a limit to the age of the earth.

Jack: You say evolution is not science...
Here's a definition of religion: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

That sounds a lot like Natural Selection to me. It fits that definition fine. Natural Selection is a magic process. You will see this in almost every evolutionary documentary. If something is struggling for life, natural selection will kick in, and over millions of years that organism will be favored.

Jack: "only support being a story book written and developed by hoardes of people over centuries of time."

Ok, have you read the Bible? Don't make these claims unless you understand completely what it is you are talking about.

Ok, lastly, Chang, (and others) I do not want to get on peoples nerves, I want to have a discussion about this issue. I don't want to here sarcastic comments. If you have a question, or something thats need clarification, just ask me, and I'll do my best to answer it for you. There are some questions that I will not be able to answer, but that does not make me wrong.
Cheers,
Jared

P.S. Sorry for the long post, please if you are interested, try to read it all, so you can understand where I stand in regard to Creation vs Evolution.

Jared,

I didn't mean to be really sarcastic, it's just that your comments are definitely some of the most unbelievable things I've ever heard. I never expected to be arguing about the age of the Earth or the dinosaurs ever in my life. You think that the dinosaurs are 6-10 thousand years old? Could you tell me your age? As much as I'd like to try to convince you otherwise, I really don't want to waste any more time arguing about something that any reasonable person should agree upon.

Btw, if you respond, could you give a link to a site that says that the dinosaurs are only 6-10 thousand years old or that the Earth is less than millions of years old?

Jared,

I know I said I didn't want to argue anymore, but I couldn't help myself.

You wrote, "Now, these examples are somewhat based on the Uniformitarian principle, everything in time has been the same way and will continue to go the same way." What makes you think that this is true? Everything in time has been the same way and will continue to go the same way? Are you kidding!? The Earth has NOT been the same way throughout time. That's why there's been Ice Ages, for example (I hope you agree that Ice Ages exist).

We are in the year 2006 A.D., I hope you agree. That means the A.D. era began 2006 years ago. According to you, the dinosaurs existed only 4000-8000 years before the A.D. era began??? When were the pyramids of Giza in Egypt built? How old were the cavemen?

Also, have you heard of Lucy? She was a skeleton that was the link to the evolution from monkeys to man (but that fact is irrelevent to the current argument). Scientists dated her to be about 3 million years old. This fact alone would prove your argument to be utterly false. Your argument says that TIME magazine and other reliable resources are false. Which resource would a reasonable person rather believe: TIME magazine or you?

I'd appreciate it if you could answer my questions.

Excuse the "sarcastic comments".

Sure, I turn 17 at the end of this month. In regard to Uniformitarianism, I should have explained this earlier, it's only to do with Geology. Mainly to do with C14, presuming that the rate of creation and depletion of C14 has been the same since equiilibrium has apparantly already been reached. For those examples, not all of them are constantly going back with the same factors (2-3 inches per year), but they were just to give an idea.

I agree that there may have been an "Ice Age", but I don't think that it happened 20,000 years ago like they want us to believe.

I don't have a problem with today's dates and what have you (2006 AD). I just disagree with x millions of years BC.

Concerning the Pyramids of Giza, I do not know when they were built. In the Bible, the Book of Exodus in the time of Moses the Eqyptians were kept to work as slaves for numerous generations. It could be the case that they were the ones who built the pyramids. Just a theory, something to chew on, there's no way I can prove it anyway.

Cavemen. There never was a caveman in my perspective. God made man fully formed in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis, the people were living to be over 900 years old. Now, that may sound biologically impossible TODAY, but I suspect that the environmental conditions of the earth were different before the flood. It would take me an hour to cover all the conditions, so I'll just give one. There may have been a layer of water above the atmosphere, whether it be in liquid, gas, ice, I don't know. This would block out UV light and X-rays from the Sun, thus slowing the aging process. Also with this layer it would increase air pressure and oxygen levels so plants and animals would both benefit in terms of age and living conditions.
This layer can be found in the Bible at Genesis 1:7, the firmament, talking about the layer.
Genesis 5 shows some of the genealogy from Adam, with their various ages of several hundred years.

Anyway, with this in mind, to inforce some science, the bones of your head, in particular the eye-brow ridge never stops growing. So to get a man living to be 400 or so years old, they would start to look a lot like, perhaps, the Neanderthals. Yes, I think they were just ordinary humans that were living to be several hundred years old. I certainly do not believe that there was any connection between monkeys/apes and humans any time in the past.

Lucy was not a missing link. She had human-like legs, that curve inwards from the hip to the knee. Monkeys today have that feature, they are tree swinging monkeys. Also the scientists only found 60 percent of Lucy's skeleton and announced it as "complete". The knee join of Lucy was found over a mile away from the original sight of Lucy, buried 200 feet lower than Lucy. I doubt those are the same bones from the same creature. Also Lucy was very small, too small to be considered a human, her brain size was also relatively small.

I hope these answer your questions.

Here's a link to a sight were you can find information on various issues relating to this topic:

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php

Very interesting article, thanks. Of course I have never read about any of those arguments ever in my life, until now. I'm not sure I'll ever see those arguments again, other than on that website.

We could argue about this topic for a long time. I am undoubtedly sure that I'm right, and you think you're right. I could continue arguing, but it's pretty pointless. Unless you respond with something that provokes me to continue arguing, which I don't think will happen, I'm done with this topic.

Nice arguing with you.

Ok, you want to convince me so bad that evolution is right.

What is your best evidence for cosmic-evolution? (The origin of the Universe: Big Bang)

What is your best evidence for chemical-evolution? (The origin of higher elements from Hydrogen)

What is your best evidence for stellar-evolution? (The origin and organisation of stars and planets)

What is your best evidence for organic-evolution? (The origin of life: spontaneous generation)

What is your best evidence for macro-evolution? (An animal producing a different kind of animal)

Pick and choose which ever piece of evidence that you can come up with for these questions. ANY EVIDENCE. Give multiple ones if you want.

Hopefully that is provoking enough.
Jared

Hmmm... I could research those questions and answer you, but that would take too long, and I don't feel like spending time on that. Anyway, the specific thing we were arguing about was the age of the Earth and dinosaurs.

Let me ask you a question. Carbon dating is not the only method scientists use to date things like rocks. They use many other methods, too. First they use one method to date a rock. Say that they date a rock to be about 50 million years old. They then use other methods to see if their first method was accurate (I don't know exactly what all these methods are, but I know they exist). All the methods give the age of the rock to be around 50 million years. This system happens in real life. There are two possibilites: either the methods used to test the age of the rock are accurate, or ALL of them are wrong. You would say that they are all wrong, since you think that the Earth is less than millions of years old. But if this is true, why would God mislead us into thinking that the rock is 50 million years old if it really isn't?

First of all, they would find out what type of rock it is. (Cambrian, Pre-Cambrian, Triassic, Jurassic etc) Say if they discovered that it was a rock of Jurassic decent, they would use dating methods that give ages that fit the age of that rock. They DO NOT start dating until they have determined what type of rock they THINK it is. This is determined by where it fits in the Geologic Column. There are many flaws with the Geologic Column that I will go into now:

It is based on Circular Reasoning. "How do you know the age of that fossil?", "By which rock it is found in."
"How do you know the age of the rocks?", "By what fossils are found in it. (Index fossils)"
Dr. J. E. O'Rourke, writes about this in "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," for the American Journal of Science. (1976) He says:

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning ... because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales."

Circularity is inherent? You have to use it to get it right? Think about that logic for a second...

The Geologic Column does not exist anywhere in the world in it's entirety. If it did, it would be many hundreds of miles thick. The only place it exists in it's entirety is in the textbooks. The best place on earth to see the column is the Grand Canyon. However, it is missing over 50 percent of the strata mentioned in the textbooks.
The column is based on the assumption that evolution happens.

I am aware that Carbon Dating is not the only method used. They would not use it to date a dinosaur bone, because based on the column and their preconceived ideas, the bone is too old, and would not give an accurate reading. Carbon Dating in theory, can only acquire accurate dates from specimens that are less than 10,000 years old. But still, even with that low timescale they encountered problems:

1. Science Magazine, Vol 141
Living mollusck shells carbon dated at 2,300 years old.

2. Antarctic Journal, Vol 6, Pg 211
Freshly killed seal carbon dated at 1,300 years old.

3. Science Magazine, Vol 224
Shells from living snails carbon dated at 27,000 years old.

I'm not sure whether or not these dating methods are always accurate or not. But based on the tests and such, they don't seem to work. Potassium-Argon dating does not work at all. It is used to date strata that is several millions of years old. The scientists watch argon decay into potassium for a week in the labratory and assume that it will take millions of years.

"why would God mislead us into thinking that the rock is 50 million years old if it really isn't?"

Just to conclude, I don't think you can blame God for the problems that scientists are having with dating. God didn't create those methods, man did. It's man's problem. This would contradict Jeremiah 29:11 that says:

"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord. Plans to prosper, and not to harm you. To give you a hope and a future."

Ok, about those questions. You don't have to answer all of them if you don't want to. Just one would be nice. But I would like to see some evidence for your theory.
Jared

How old are you by the way?
Jared

What makes a man a scientist is not his ability to know facts. It is his ability to look at evidence, consider a hypothesis, test that hypothosis and come up with a theory. Then he does that all over again. Then his peers do it all over again. Then their peers do that all over again. When new evidence comes up, they must take that into consideration and start over from scratch. Everything that scientists suppose it real could change tomorrow. A real scientist would be excited by that.

What non-scientists like Dr. Dino do, is exactly the opposite. They start with a theory and then find evience that supports that theory. If any contradictory evidence is discovered it is either ignored, or explained away as the work of the devil, or even worse, as a trap laid by god. The original theory is never allowed to change.

I'm 16.

Jared, you said, "...I don't think you can blame God for the problems that scientists are having with dating." Who says that they're having problems? You and the people on Dr. Dino's website. Everyone else thinks the dating is right.

Btw, the only thing I've really concentrated on in this blog is the age of the Earth and dinosaurs, thanks to you. I don't feel the need or urge to answer those questions about evolution.

"What makes a man a scientist is not his ability to know facts. It is his ability to look at evidence, consider a hypothesis, test that hypothosis and come up with a theory. Then he does that all over again. Then his peers do it all over again. Then their peers do that all over again. When new evidence comes up, they must take that into consideration and start over from scratch. Everything that scientists suppose it real could change tomorrow. A real scientist would be excited by that."

I agree. But the problem is, that is not happening with one of the most widely held and excepted THEORY's of all time, evolution. This theory is sacred. It is not to be questioned unless you wish to lose your job. I agree with you, if the facts do not square up with the theory then question the theory. Start over. The scientists are not doing that. They do not want to give up their theory because the only possible alternative is Creation. And that leaves them accountable to God. Just like all of you have been doing, you have been ignoring the evidence that I have been putting forward because you are desperately holding onto this evolution theory. If it really was looked upon as SCIENTIFIC, then I believe that the theory would have been thrown back a long time ago because no-one would believe it. But it's not, it is a RELIGION, and nothing but.

"They start with a theory and then find evience that supports that theory. If any contradictory evidence is discovered it is either ignored, or explained away"

That is exactly what evolutionists are doing. Charles Darwin started with his theory on the Origin of Species, which he concluded simply by looking at the finches on the Galapogis Islands. Those changes was only an example of micro-evolution, which isn't really evolution anyway. So following scientists got excited about it and thought, "Wow, this is a great theory, now all we need is some evidence!"
Micro-evolution is the ONLY part of evolution that is scientific. All the other 5 stages, there is no imperical evidence for. Why are you guys holding onto this evolution theory so tightly when there is no evidence to support it?

"The original theory is never allowed to change."

Exactly my point. Yours never changes either.

"Who says that they're having problems?" (with dating methods)
Chang

Perhaps you missed the examples I gave of how carbon dating doesn't work? Majority opinion doesn't determine truth.

Chang, why are you being so stubborn? Can't you give me ANY evidence for the theory of evolution? Do you have any evidence at all? Could anyone please give me some evidence?

By the way, did anyone take a look at the youtube video that I posted a while back? What did you think of it?
Jared

"Chang, why are you being so stubborn?" Are you saying that you're not being stubborn, Jared??? We're both stubborn. There was no need to mention it.

Why are you telling me to give evidence for evolution? I haven't argued about evolution on this blog except for my first couple inputs. The thing I've concentrated on is the age of the Earth and dinosaurs, like I've already said. If you didn't start that argument, which I still find amazing, I probably wouldn't still be arguing on this blog. Yes, I know the age of the Earth and evolution are related, but I've mainly used evidence that isn't based on evolution.

"Just like all of you have been doing, you have been ignoring the evidence that I have been putting forward because you are desperately holding onto this evolution theory." It sounds like you're saying that all the evidence you've put up is absolutely true, and proves that evolution is false and the Earth is less than 30,000 years old. Just because you put evidence up doesn't mean you're right. You THINK you're right, and I think I'm right.

I understand. I was out of line to say that you were stubborn. I apologize for that remark. Ok, I will keep with discussing the age of the earth. Now, I would like to see some evidence from you that the earth is millions or billions of years old. This cannot be proven historically, by historical information. So it must be tested with dating methods. But as I have shown, those methods are not always accurate.

Ok, in my previous post I put up factors that limit the age of the earth. For example in regard to the moon leaving the earth, that is a fact. Now, the way I INTERPRET the fact is that if you go back in time adding on 2-3 inches per year to the moon's distance from the earth it puts a limit to the age of the earth before you encounter a serious physical science problem in regard to the Inverse Square Law and the tides. My interpretation of the fact I did not put as fact. For example, the Neanderthals. Evolution would interpret them as being one of the missing links between ape and man. A creationist would interpret it as being an ordinary human being simply living to be of great age, perhaps 400 years and with malnutrition or sanitary problems. Now the fact is Neanderthals exist. That is the FACT. As you can see, it can be interpreted either way depending on the belief system.

I will discuss the age of the earth with you. Just let's make sure that we actually discuss it.
Jared

Hey jared,
The points that you put forward are very interesting. However a lot of the information you gave is backed up with evidence from the bible. Now, in your arguments you talk a lot about getting just ONE bit of evidence that backs up evolution. What i am saying to you is can YOU give me ONE bit of evidence that the events in the bible actually happened and that it was not just written by some idiot who wanted the world to believe his crazy ideas.

Hey Dave,
The Bible claims to be the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16). Of course, this alone isn't really evidence since all religious scriptures claim this. There are ways that we can prove the accuracy and relevance of the Bible today.

One would be with prophecy. The Bible is jam-packed with them. It is actually truly astounding how accurate the Bible is down to the very last detail. It portrays these events exactly. I'll give you a couple:

Destruction of Israel:
Leviticus 26:31-32 says that the city of Israel will be completely destroyed. This Book of Leviticus was written about 1400 BC.
The city of Israel sure enough was destroyed by the Assyrians in the year 722 BC.

The city has been rebuilt and destroyed several more times as well.

The Jews in Israel have been persecuted and kicked out (exiled) of their own land for as long as we know. These verses predict that the Jews will return to their homeland of Israel. What you have to understand is that if a teaching or phrase is mentioned more than once or twice then obviously it is very important.

Genesis 28:10-15
Jacob saw a vision of Israel's future

Deuteronomy 30:3-5
The fortunes of the people of Israel would be restored

Isaiah 27:12-13
God promised to restore the Jews

Isaiah 43:5-6
Isaiah foretold of the worldwide return of Jews to Israel

Jeremiah 23:3-6
The Messiah will appear after the Jews return to Israel

Jeremiah 32:36-37
The Jews would survive Babylonian rule and return home

Jeremiah 32:37-41
The exiled people of Israel would return to Israel

Ezekiel 20:34
Ezekiel said the Jews would return to Israel

Ezekiel 34:13
The people of Israel would return to "their own land"

Ezekiel 36:24
Israel would be re-gathered

Amos 9:14-15
Jacob's descendants would regain control of Israel

Zechariah 8:7-8
Zechariah prophesied the Jews return to Jerusalem

The Jews slowly began to move back into Israel during the 1800's. They survived 19 centuries of exile and persecution. Israel became an independent country again in 1948. Now, that is one of the best fulfilled prophecies I can give you.

There are thousands of prophecies mentioned in the Bible, the majority of them have been fulfilled. If you are interested in this you can check out this link, or you can talk with me tomorrow during lunch at the library. Warrick and I will be discussing various issues.

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/

Ok, moreover, the Bible can be trusted because it is scientifically accurate. It is not a Science Book, but it is accurate with the principles of science.
For instance in Leviticus 17:11 it talks about the life of an animal or creature being in it's blood. Do you know how George Washington died? His blood was drained out of him because back in the day they used to teach that if you are sick you have "bad blood", take out your blood and you'll get better!

The Bible also teaches that the Earth is spherical. (Isaiah 40:22, Job 26:10) You probably already know that they used to teach that the earth was flat.

It teaches that air has weight (Job 28:25), and that wind blows in circular paths (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Perhaps one of the best ones, which is also kind of a prophecy at the same time, it teachs about Uniformitarian Geology in 2 Peter 3:3-6. That reference is also implying that these people will deny that there every was a world-wide flood. This is important because without the flood, their view is substantiated, "The rocks and sedimentary layers formed over millions of years." Which is exactly what the Uniformitarian Principle is all about. Long, slow, gradual processes.
I found you this link on some of the science in the Bible. It's not the one that I was looking for but it's good enough!

http://www.creationists.org/foreknowledge.html

Ok, I think I'll leave it there. I hope these answer your question Dave. So, Bible Prophecy and Scientific Principles. If you need more clarification I will be very glad to discuss it with you tomorrow or whenever.
Jared

The moon recession argument is a flawed one for many reasons.

The moon's motion away from the Earth is an estimation based on a scientific theory. By your defintion of theory that should make the number meaningless.

You are assuming that the rate is a constant one which has never changed over the mellenia. The 1994 estimate is 3.82 cm/year. Paleontological evidence reveals the periodicity of the tides, from which one can derive what the rate of retreat would be for a given time period. 650 million years ago: 1.95 cm/year; over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year.

Of course a scientist, unlike a creationist, would never claim that we know everything about the earth/moon system. There are a lot of things still to be learned. But we do know a lot.

Trying to claim Neanderthal Man as a missing link between modern man and apes, really does nothing but reveal a basic misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory is all about.

No credible evolutionary biologist has really ever claimed that Neanderthal was a forbearer of humanity. DNA testing as much as 10 years old put to rest any notions of a direct link between the two species.

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9712/17/britain.neanderthals/

Ok, you have made some good points here Christopher, but I think you have missed my point. In regard to the moons recession, I posted earlier on that, "I'm not sure what kind of progression it would be, be it linear, geometric or logarithmic." Regardless of what type of progression it is, it still, nevertheless, gives a time limit to how close the moon can be from the earth before a serious physical science problem is apparant. I was a bit confused by this statement you made,
"650 million years ago: 1.95 cm/year; over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year."
How exactly do we know these figures again? Could you clarify this for me?

"Of course a scientist, unlike a creationist." Are you saying that by defenition Creationists are not scientists? To be a true Scientist you have to believe in evolution? Take Kent Hovind, PhD in Education. He's a Scientist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think, that you think, that to be a scientist you have to accept all branches of science. I'm not a scientist, I'm far from it, but I accept all areas of science. I do not accept evolution, because evolution isn't science.
Creationism is just as scientific as evolution.

Concerning Neanderthals. I completely disagree that they are anything but human. Similarities in the gene code, structures and the like are not conclusive proof for common anscestory. It is evidence that they are similar. The only reason I would give for similarities between various species is not common anscestor, but rather common designer. Everything was created by the one omnipotent intelligence (God), so it will be similar because it is a design that works well. Also, they are similar because animals eat. We eat plants and animals and they become part of our muscles and body. If they are radically different our bodies would not be able to use as much or any of the tissues.
Evolutionist biologists may claim that the Neanderthals and humans are not related, but I can assure you, it is still being presented as a fact in the primary and highschool/secondary textbooks.

Do you know of a link that talks about the Moon Recession?
Thanks
Jared

"I'm not a scientist, I'm far from it, but I accept all areas of science. I do not accept evolution, because evolution isn't science.
Creationism is just as scientific as evolution."

You're saying that evolution isn't science, but creationism isn't either. You accept all areas of science, so why do you accept creationism and not evolution? By your definition, you should accept neither.

Personally, I'm sick of all this chat about Creation being inherently unscientific. It does have a scientific basis for accuracy and relevancy. It is a religion and a faith. I accept that. But so is evolution, but you guys do not accept it as a religion because it is enforced as a scientific theory. It is just a pagan religion mascarading as science. Another problem, the reason Creation is considered to be unscientific is because the apparant defenition of science is that it has to be entirely naturalistic. If a theory contains any hints of the supernatural then it isn't science. But you do not seem to realise that evolution is not science. The Big Bang has been given the same attributes and qualities that the Christians such as myself would give to God. It has the power to create the world from nothing.
Natural Selection apparntly has the ability to create new forms and features within organisms and species that were never present in the first place. If you cannot see faith in that, I cannot help you. I say again, do not say that Creation is inherently non-scientific because it possesses just as many scientific principles in its teachings than evolution does.
Jared

Jared

Evolutionists and scientifics are very clear about what is a theory and what is a fact. Scientific community always let you know when a theory is a fact or if it still a theory. And also they let you know and explain the process that helped find that a theory become a fact and also show you the proof. And when something is a fact, no one can deny that. Because it's real, simply like that. Only ignorants and short-minds are able to complaint about a scientific fact; that is not the same as a scientific theory. The whole era and time of existence of the dinasours is a fact.

And the so-called religious scientifics are people confused and afraid in what to believe. Reason vs what they were programed to believe. This religious scientifics people never show and presents real proof to prove their theories. But is easy to them convice the ignorant, because they are great manipulators. And since most christians are hipnotize and dumbed, they believe anything that approves the theory of creation. This is one problems that the christians have, that they believe anything about creation for faith. That's the excuse all of you use: faith. Christians and other believers are programed to believe since childhood, since the religions were invented/created to dominate and manipulate the people. Using scary manipulations as Satan, burn in hell, demons among other shameful inventions. Scientifics, evolutionists and non believers have to pass a process to undo this programation, mentaly, emotionaly and intellectualy. Unless they have the luck to born in a family who are atheists or non believers. I sugest you that everytime that a religious scientificts try to show their poor theories as facts, ask and look for their proof. And makes sure that that proof exists and are realible...

"Evolutionists and scientifics are very clear about what is a theory and what is a fact."

Scientists are, but perhaps not the Evolutionists. They are presenting "facts" in the textbooks that have been proven wrong many years ago.
For example: the evolution of the horse was proven wrong over 20 years ago (I'm not sure on the precise date) but is still being presented in the textbooks and at museums around the country.

"The whole era and time of existence of the dinasours is a fact."

No, it's not. How do you know that? You weren't there! Don't say radiometric dating because these methods are not reliable. It is simply presented as a fact. The dating of these fossils and bones are based on where they are apparantly situated in the Geologic Column. The column doesn't exist anywhere in the world. You know, the Geologic Column was created a long time before the first dating method. It was created without any knowledge of the age of any of these creatures. Please try to understand this point. They just pull those numbers out of the sky.

"And the so-called religious scientifics are people confused and afraid in what to believe."

I'm not confused. I know what I believe. I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inspired word of the living God, and I believe that the Bible is scientifically accurate with the teachings and principles of modern science (true science).

"This religious scientifics people never show and presents real proof to prove their theories."

Your talking about Evolutionists here.

"But is easy to them convice the ignorant, because they are great manipulators."

Here too. I'm not sure if ignorant is the right word though. Unknowledgable? Uninformed? I just thought "ignorant" sounded a bit strange.

"And since most christians are hipnotize and dumbed, they believe anything that approves the theory of creation."

I personally think you are dumb for being sucked into this evolution theory. Yes, I would believe something if it supported creation. If I were to find some evidence for creation, I most certainly would believe it.

"they believe anything about creation for faith."

Describing yourself again. You have to have faith to believe that you came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. You have to have faith to believe that life evolved from spontaneous generation. You have to have faith to believe that an animal can produce something that is radically different to itself. You see, evolution is the worship of death. That is how the species gets ahead. It is a dangerous teaching, and has caused several violent outbreaks such as Adolf Hitlers killing of the Jews, (he thought they were lower than the black men, and black men were less evolved than white men), and the Columbine shootings. The two kids were both strong believers in evolution. They did the shooting on Hitler's birthday on purpose.
And people always try to compromise evolution and the Bible saying, "Perhaps God initiated the Big Bang, and then he just sat back and let everything evolve." Well, I can tell you know, he is a cruel God, and he certainly isn't the God of the Bible. I do understand where you are going with that statement though. I cannot prove that God created the world in six days. I cannot prove that Jesus rose from the dead. And I cannot prove that he will come again. But then again. All these things I cannot prove scientifically. But I can prove philosophically. But first I have to prove that the Bible is reliable, and I've already done that. You cannot prove any of your theory either. You see, the scientists have got themselves into a mess with evolution. Because they have tried to come up with a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe, from inside the universe! Here's an analogy that might help you to understand:

Explain to me how computers came to be, but you cannot use man as your answer.

You will be stuck because I have already shutdown the only logical alternative. When I see complexity and diversity when I walk down the street or look out my window I think, "God". That can be the only possible way.

"I suggest you that everytime that a [religious] scientificts try to show their poor theories as facts, ask and look for their proof. And makes sure that that proof exists and are realible..."

I advize you to do the same.
Jared

Tell me who wrote the bible. By inspiration of God? By inspiration has been written all books. Gos is another invention of humanity. Like every god and godesses that people believes in. God was invented by the insecurities of humans. Followed by the thirst domination of those in power. I see how religious tell people that they can't do nothing without God. Crap. I have do things and pass through life without "God", while i see those who believes behind. I tell you that was religion itself that made me saw clearly. I stopped believing at the age of nine when i was takings classes to make my communion. Classes about the bible and stuff. Like i said before God is an invention like the rest of gods and godesses. But its mystic was and is the way it was introduced and transmited in the people. By scare, manipulation, justified death, shouting down other religions and using their elements in the christian believe. And i say christians because have been the most succesful religion of all time and the most powerful. But all religions are the same. Except that some believes in one God and have different names and some believes in many gods and goddesses.

Ok, some people say that God wrote the Bible. That is not entirely true. It is true that man wrote the Bible. I have heard arguments that man is deceitful and lies. Well, yes, but as you already mentioned, the Bible was inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16). Because of God's characteristics, he cannot lie. Yes, there are some things that God cannot do. Could he lift that rock?!? So if God cannot lie, that means that his word must be perfect, because he inspired it. There are no contradictions or errors in the Bible. It is perfect. Unlike you or I!

"God was invented by the insecurities of humans."

That is a typical view of man if you believe in evolution. Think about this. With the introduction of evolution, the scientists have thrown away the Bible. So now there is no God. And with no God there is no authority. So they thought, "Well, we got rid of God, we're sick of him, so whose in charge? ... Oh, it must be us!"

"Followed by the thirst domination of those in power."

I agree with you there. Since man is now God, man can do whatever he wants. Now they want to rule the world, establish the New World Order. I'm sure you have heard snipits about this. All this type of thing ties in after the Bible was rejected.

"I see how religious tell people that they can't do nothing without God. Crap."

I think what those people were trying to tell you is that you cannot do anything that is going to satisfy. People that have a big house, guess what they want? ... A bigger house. Shoes, more shoes. Fast car, faster car. Materialistic possessions will never satisfy. You will eventually get sick of what you have and desire to have the next upgrade. I hope you will agree with me on that. I know I want to get a new bass guitar. The one I have now is in very poor condition. ETC

When you were nine, I take it that you were Catholic, right? I figured this becuase you said that you were taking classes to take communion. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If you were Christian though, I am sad that you fell away from your faith. Although it does happen quite frequently. I heard a statistic that said that 80-90 percent of people leave Christianity before their first year.

"And i say christians because have been the most succesful religion of all time and the most powerful."

I thought that was the case too, but apparantly Islam is the number one religion circulating at the moment. I disagree with your statement that Christianity is the same as other religions. It would appear to be on the outside, but it's teachings are based on faith and belief, rather than on practices and rituals like the Muslims have of things like praying five times a day at certain times of the day, participating in Rhamadan (I hope that's the right spelling!), and the Catholic tradition of participating in Mass EVERY Sunday. If not, and you die within that week of missing mass you will go to Hell regardless. I disagree with those teachings. They are unnessecary.

If you want, we can diverge from the topic of Creation vs Evolution and continue talking about this.
Jared

P.S. You seem to be double posting a lot. Is there a problem with your browse or something? Also, I know I write long posts. I find it very difficult to get out what I am trying to say in a short post. I apologize for any inconvenience!

Most people do not understand this argument. The argument from design (aka. Behe's Black Box, aka. irreducible complexity) is an argument that relates to information more than a "God in the Gaps" type of understanding. Complexity happens randomly...information does not.

Much like the SETI program searches static for information...many biological scientists have found a information in the DNA and in certain structural forms (like the flagellum).

If there is information in the natural biological world, that would indicate a sentient intelligence.

if.

Ah, I always love a good Creation/Evolution debate. Jared, I am very familiar with Kent Hovind's work, and recognized a few of his arguments instantly when you used them. In fact, for my high school honors thesis I discussed propaganda techniques, and Hovind was my best source of info!
Frankly, I don't care if you you believe in Creation or Evolution, but at least recognize that you are being tricked by this guy and others like him. If you do a little research, you'll find that even his peers(Other Creationist "scientists") have distanced themselves from him. He's just a crook. And out of curiosity, do you happen to be Baptist? In my community almost all of the Baptist churches show Dr. Dino's video lectures, and I've always been curious about it. (Yes, it was a very long project...)
On a lighter note, for all of you who know something about evolution, this has got to be the funniest thread on Creation/Evolution ever. http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=8&t=140&m=1

No, I'm not a baptist. I actually don't know what denomination I am. I should ask my pastor sometime. But that doesn't really matter to me anyway. I don't want to refer to myself as this or that denomination of Christian (although it is technically correct depending on which church I attend). I simply refer to myself as Christian with nothing more added on.

Eric, I don't believe that Dr. Hovind is a crook. There are some of his arguments that I disagree with, and that's fine. Chew the meat and spit out the bones (to quote Hovind!). Nevertheless, he does put forward some compelling arguments no matter which way you look at it. Although having said that, that isn't always the case. I have noticed that evolutionists will tend to try and find a way around any evidence that goes against their theory no matter how compelling it may be. Anyway...
Jared

Cross the stream where it is shallowest... Jocosa

Cross the stream where it is shallowest... Jocosa

Cross the stream where it is shallowest... Jocosa

Cross the stream where it is shallowest... Jocosa

A good marksman may miss... Griffin

Ok, so you and atheist believe in evolution, meaning you think you have evolved from hydrogen! Moreover, you don't seem to see any problems with that..

How stupid is it possible to get...

Sigurd

Ok, so you and atheist believe in evolution, meaning you think you have evolved from hydrogen! Moreover, you don't seem to see any problems with that..

How stupid is it possible to get...

Sigurd

I'm not a scientist, just very interested. This has been a fun blog. Not that I'm searching for proof of God or of no God, but has anyone considered quantum physics and all of its phenomena as a possible clue that there is an awareness in nature or a God? How the electrons seem to be aware? Aware that they are being observed? Sub atomic particles seem to be changing their behavior when we record or observe them. Now again, I'm just a simple person, and not a scientist / quantum physicist - and I've only read about quantum math, and some of its various experiments and theories as a layman. In fact I've always wondered how they can describe the behaivior of a particle that they are NOT observing, but I guess somehow they have done this. Anyway - I guess the basic foundational experiment that gave rise to the rest of quantum physics was the "double-slit experiment." And I guess this experiment can be repeated and repeated - and it always comes out the same way, that the particle changes its behaivior when you observe it from when you don't (ah I remember how they know its behavior when its not being observed! its the imprint it leaves) So I guess the particle isn't that smart after all. heh, I hope that didn't offend anyone. Anyway - still this is amazing. And I guess there are more and bigger and stranger experiments. So doesn't quantom physics really show us - that there is still so much more that we really don't know? Doesn't it really lead us to question everything? - everything on either side of this debate? I'd like to see more scientists and more religious believers alike - be more humbled in the sight of this great mystery. I think It would be nothing but constructive towards both aims.