Creation and evolution can’t be physically proven, because you can’t correctly test the past, because its already happened.

I fail to understand what you mean by “correctly test the past”.  Are you trying to say that an event can’t be proven to have happened if it wasn’t witnessed?

But people can look at the evidence, and make their own interpritation based on the current evidence.

No one was there when God created the Universe,Earth etc.. however the Bible does say how it happened, and according to the bible it happened in 6 literal days, no more than 6 to 10K years ago.

Evolution is nothing but a huge guess, imagined and unsubstantiated in every aspect.
Where the bible’s accounts of history can be accounted for in some facts we see today, such as the global flood account in Genesis, scientists today find marine fossils atop of MT. Everest, A breed of fish thought by evolutionary scientists to be extinct for millions of years has been found to be alive today.

On what do you base the assumption that the Bible is the ultimate source for answers?  Fossils on Mt. Everest?  You’ll have to at least give me your source for that bit of information.  The existence of the coelacanth?  Click here, please.

It would serve you well to visit the Talk.Origins page An Index to Creationist Claims.  All of their rebuttals use reasoning and/or fact and are sourced where applicable, so you can find out where they got their information.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp

Is a great article that refutes the idea of millions of years in my opinion.

Ah, yes, I have already read that article.  Here is what I have to say about it:

The article implies that the theory of evolution, or the “paradigm”, is complete and should not allow for change.  That is not the case.  The article also makes the assumption that the soft tissues directly challenge what evolution puts forth without allowing for the consideration of any other possible explanations for the phenomenon.

Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific).

She has yet to have reason to criticize the “paradigm” when there hasn’t even been an explanation for the phenomenon.  If there have been no mistakes made at any point and the only plausible explanation for the phenomenon undermines evolution completely, then we will have to criticize the “paradigm”.  “Whatever remains, however improbable, must be true.“

It most likely will become an “‘accepted’ phenomenon that even ‘stretchy’ soft tissues must somehow be capable of surviving for millions of years”, but only so long as we can rule out any other possible explanations.  Once again: “Whatever remains, however improbable, must be true.“

The article fails to provide any reasoning regarding how and why the appearance of the tissue must lead to the conclusion that the bones aren’t millions of years old.  It never even explains why the preservation of these tissues despite the age of the bones is “inconceivable”; it simply nudges the reader towards the assumption that the tissue is too fresh.  It also fails to provide evidence to support the proposition that the bones were fossilized thousands of years ago as opposed to millions, stating only the possibility that “Some dinosaur fossils could have formed in post-Flood local catastrophes.“

Commen sense says that for any functioning mechanism of nature etc…cloud formation and its purpose etc.. can’t happen by chance, it had to be designed inteligently. A watch implies a watch-maker.

The fact the sun has been proven to be losing mass at even a slow rate, is enough for scientists to determine that the Earth could not be millions of years old, or the sun would have destroyed it, by its immense size and heat.

Cloud formation is a bit of a divergence from the topic at hand, so let’s get back on track, shall we?  What evidence or reasoning is there that life “can’t happen by chance, it had to be designed inteligently (sic)“?  Also, how is it that things have an intrinsic purpose, as you implied?  If you invoke God, might I also ask you prove His existence?  Please don’t use the argument “you can’t disprove His existence”; the burden of proof is on you, not me.

You’re right.  The Earth isn’t millions of years old.  It’s billions of years old.  Please provide a link to the article from which you gleaned this information regarding the sun; it seems rather interesting.

Just because the scientific community is mostly made up of evolutionary scientists, does not mean that the creationist scientists are a minority, can you sunstantiate that statement?

http://www.answersingenesis.org http://www.apologeticspress.org are some fine web sites that have staff that are Ph.D scientists.
I can provide a number of other sites that have staff that are Christian/creationist Ph.D scientists.

First, note that this discussion about the numbers of Creationists in the ranks of scientists does nothing to prove or disprove either Creationism or evolution.  Second, I’ve already presented evidence to support my claim, so it’s your turn.  How is it that the existence of a few Creationists is enough to prove that Creationism is on the rise in the scientific community?

I call evolution a religion because thats what it is, its believed without supporting scientific evidence, if you disagree with this, please present some evidence to evolution that proves evolution.

You call evolution a religion because it is one by your definition.  I presented a dictionary definition of religion, but either you feel you know better or you glossed over it.

Please don’t come at me, with I saw it on discovery channel, or parrot some statements off a false web site like talkorigins.

Please don’t come at me by parroting some statements off a false web site like Answers in Genesis.  Answers is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide much in the way of actually promoting Creationism as an explanation for biological diversity, as opposed to attempts to debunk evolution.  If you want to think that Talk.Origins is “false”, that’s your prerogative.  Just don’t expect me to agree with you unless you can make a solid argument to back your assertion up.  I wish you the best of luck in that endeavour; it should be sufficiently difficult to prove “false” a site that’s been listed in a Scientific American article as a good source of information on evolutionary theory.

Present some real evidence if you can.
Evolution claims that our genetic structures DNA mutates and causes life to evolve to adapt to enviromental changes etc…
However, mutations are nothing more than mistakes in our genetic structure, and all these mutations do is cause our bodies to decay and deteriorate, which supports the Genesis account of the fall of man.

Need more clarification? reply and I’ll return.

ThanX

I wonder if you can present some “real evidence” to support Creationism.  I hope that you don’t feel as though the scientific community is biased against Creationism or Intelligent Design for any reason aside from the fact that there is nothing to support either of these ideas.  See here for more information on mutation.  Also, here is a page that talks about the Fall of Man.  I also hope that you are open-minded and forward-thinking enough to accept a scientific theory that’s backed by mounds of evidence and reasoning, even if it’s in direct contradiction with your current beliefs.  Oh, if you feel like making a complaint regarding the constant linking to Talk.Origins and little else, let me remind you that diversity != veracity necessarily; it’s logically fallacious to think otherwise.

Thank you for your time.

Betty

I enter for the sole purpose of saying that ID does not=Creationism.  A belief in evolution may be compatible with a belief in ID.  That said, exit stage left.

How so?  I feel that ID and Creationism are essentially the same as both require the guidance of some higher power.  ID supporters have tried to separate their belief from the Creationists’ by citing “irreducible complexity” or “specified complexity” and the fact that ID doesn’t require a supernatural entity to drive it.

I say ID is equatable to Creationism because the posited existence of an intelligent designer leads to two questions: whether the designer is a life form and how the designer originated.  If the designer is a life form, then was it in turn designed or did it evolve?  If it’s not a life form, how did it come to be?

A belief in evolution and a belief in ID are incompatible because ID is not based in naturalism, whereas evolution is.

Some sites of interest:
-a defense of ID as an entity separate from Creationism
-another article in the vein of the one above from CreationWiki
-a Talk.Origins page about the matter
-a page that makes a mention of Creationism and ID and how they’re one and the same

Betty

I have to agree with Consigliere that ID does not equal creationism.  The two share in common the notion of a guiding intelligence, but differ in the mechanism.

ID evolution could be envisaged as God=hacker, (in the programmer sense) patiently refining universe beta 0.75 and finally releasing 1.0, and so on.

Of course there is the not insignificant problem of proving there is such a being, when natural selection explains evolution quite well.

I enter for the sole purpose of saying that ID does not=Creationism.  A belief in evolution may be compatible with a belief in ID.  That said, exit stage left

Well.  I suppose it’s possible that early forms of life were ‘seeded’ here by aliens, but then we have to wonder. . .  [spinning madly like a dervish] round and round, how far down do the turtles go?  Where they stop, nobody knows!

Personally, I don’t care if someone believes in literal six day creationism, or ID, or that the cosmos was squirted out of the ass of a huge praying mantis.  Some of the ideas are completely laughable, and some are merely unsupported, but NONE of them have anything to do with evolution.  They’re perfectly good stories though, and if they help somebody organize their life in a way that is socially productive, then YAY!

I only get twitchy when they start insisting that I -also- have to organize my life around the same principles.

Personally, I’m with The Tick.  Earth exists because “it’s where I keep my stuff!“

The following is posted in an effort to comply with SEB Comment Guideline #6

Who the hell says the South lost the war?  Look around man, they’re stompin’ our asses!

A belief in evolution and a belief in ID are incompatible because ID is not based in naturalism, whereas evolution is.

Yep, Betty, that’s it in a nutshell.  Creation “science” and “Intelligent” Design differ only in where they place God, or the “Superior Being”, or the Planet X pod people; and at exactly what point they stick their fingers in their ears and sing “la la la, no monkey is my uncle”.

The Creationists don’t aspire to suckering marks who have progressed much further than the flat earthers: their world can be explained in words of one syllable, and their God takes over the complicated stuff somewhere between lightning bolts and mammal-like reptiles (depending upon flavor).  This is still a big, in-your-face God, sort of like a janitor in a crumbling tenement who has to keep fixing stuff up 24/7 so it doesn’t collapse.

The IDers have massaged their theism to appeal to a hipper, more polysyllabic crowd.  This has required squooshing their skyguy into the cracks, some of which are genuine enough gaps in scientific knowledge, others created by prestidigitation, from where it takes longer and pointier tools to dislodge him.

Both creationism and ID have the same basic tactic, however:  “Can you explain that? Nope? That proves that God exists.“

A pisspoor defeatist attitude, if you ask me, not to mention being as unmotivated as proposing a Pencil-Eating Gremlin for every pencil we ever lose…

Dont even know where to begin on such a pile of pure shit being spewed by you IDiots & Creationist, BOTH are EXACTLY the same thing BTW, just rebadged to try and squeeze it in the back door of public schools to proselytize young malleable minds.
Not to many people are being fooled by this ploy.

IDiotism IS Creationism and neither one even remotely are a “Theory” of anything, nor a Hypothesis, they are both merely a very poor argument against the overwhelming evidence of Evolution, of which they both fail miserably.

and if you will please identify exactly what the “I” in IDiotism is referring to.
By “Intelligent” the proponents of this fallacy propose an intelligent being of some sort “Designed” everything with a purpose in “mind”
This alleged intelligence comes from none other than whatever alleged god one ignorantly believes in.
There will NEVER be any testable hypothesis of ANYKIND, EVER to test the existence of a supernatural entity that ONLY exist in the minds of delusional psychotics.

At this point, IDiotism is nothing more than a technical-sounding argument from ignorance. William Dembski,  the leading IDiot advocate, defines an argument from ignorance as one that takes the form “Not X, therefore Y”. Yet even while denying, in rhetoric, that IDiotism is based upon such an argument, he has created and developed a rather obvious one, the Explanatory Filter (EF). The EF is precisely this form of argument - “If not regularity and if not chance, therefore intelligent design”. This is not a theory in a scientific sense, and there is no actual explanatory model in place for IDiotism. There is no model of how such design took place, by whom, or when. There is no actual positive research in favor of IDiotism and there NEVER will be, there is only sniping at evolutionary theory as an explanation so that they can repeat the argument from ignorance - if evolution doesn’t (yet) explain it, it must be IDiotism. Sorry, this isn’t a theory, or a hypothesis, nor is the road to either, it is merely a very poor creationist argument against the overwhelming evidence that supports Evolution.

Evolution is not an argument . Like all scientific theories, it is an explanation for a specific set of data. Evolution explains, successfully, the present biodiversity on earth, the geographical distribution of that diversity, the patterns of appearance in the paleontological record, the nested hierarchies at both the phenotype and genotype levels, and several other facts that are well established and readily observed & based on overwhelming evidence. IDiotism does NONE of this.

Allow me to present the core argument of Dembski’s Idiotism.

“God did it; now that we have our conclusion let’s jiggle the numbers until our argument appears to support that conclusion.�?

Now deny this, whom is leading the Idiotism movement?

Answer: “The Discovery Institute” here is an excerpt from one of their earlier propaganda programs called “The Wedge Project”.

“The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,“ was Philip Johnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.“

http://www.infidels.org/secular_web/feature/1999/wedge.html

http://www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html

http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/

Face the FACTS IDiotism IS Creationism in disguise of this there is positively ZERO doubt, denying something this blatantly obvious is not a good sign of ones sanity.
http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=cs_2005_02_special

and the final nail in the coffin…errr ah cross in that IDiotism is not Creationism bullshit.
http://www.nmsr.org/smkg-gun.htm

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9759_unlocking_the_mystery_of_illus_7_1_2003.asp

I think this quote hits it square:

““We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.�? — Pastor Ray Mummert”

  DOH!

Now as for “Secularism being shoved down anyone’s throat anywhere”  ROTFL Oh if only that were true, but alas unfortunately we Atheist have not done any such thing, even though we should IMO.

Here are just a few examples of how Secularism has been shoved down our throats.

During the 1988 election campaign, George Bush said that Christians should not be considered patriots or real American citizens.
Bill Clinton steadfastly refuses to give any speeches at local churches.
Both major political parties are dominated by anti-Christians. The Republican party, for example, gave us such hard-core atheists as Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, Phyllis Schlafly and Ronald Reagan. And the Democrats have given us such personalities as the Rev. Martin Luther King and the Rev. Jesse Jackson—both noted for their vicious attacks on all forms of Christianity.
Let’s talk about the media. On Sunday mornings, nearly all major television channels broadcast pro-atheist shows; it is nearly impossible to find religious programming during that time period. Further, Madalyn Murray O’Hair has her own cable TV channel, while Pat Robertson has been unable to obtain one for himself.
Most major newspapers run a special weekly section devoted to atheism. There are no equivalent sections for religious news.
Anti-Christian shows such as the American Atheist Forum are broadcast by major national networks. Meanwhile, Billy Graham is only able to get on the air through public access TV, which is watched by few people.
On news programs and “reality” TV shows such as Rescue 911, nobody is ever shown giving thanks to God after surviving a disaster.
It is almost impossible to find a shopping mall with a Christian Armory book store, while Atheist Book Centers are featured prominently on every corner.
While atheists couples who marry rarely have any difficulty finding a place to do so, it is nearly impossible for Christian couples to find a church where they can marry.
For that matter, churches themselves are extremely rare, while atheist meeting centers can be found every few blocks.
Recently, several atheists have shot and killed Christian priests as they were going to work in their churches. Similarly, atheists are well known for blockading churches on Sunday mornings.
Nearly all of our elected public officials are atheists; they even have to swear on a copy of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” in order to take office.
In a similar vein, jurors must take an oath upon a copy of the Skeptical Inquirer before they can serve. There have even been court cases thrown out because one of the jury members was a Christian who insisted on swearing on a Bible.
And of course, people are free to wear pentagram jewelry, but those trying to wear cross-shaped earrings or pendants to work will be politely told to remove the jewelry or lose their job.
Speaking of the workplace, Christians often find it nearly impossible to get time off work for religious holidays such as Christmas.
Even our language reflects the radical anti-Christian bias that pervades our society. For example, when somebody sneezes, most people say “Darwin bless you”. Similarly, “Voltaire dammit!“ is a common cussword.
All of our money has the atheistic slogan “We do not trust in God” printed on it. (Contributed by Mike Hurben,

.)
In school, our children are made to recite the pledge, “One nation, anti-God, indivisible….“ (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)
One cannot rent a hotel room without finding a copy of Nietzsche’s The Anti-Christ in the room. (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)
Organizations such as the Boy Scouts deny membership to Christians. (Contributed by Mike Hurben.)
In the military, it is nearly impossible to obtain Conscientious Objector status for religious reasons, even though those with philosophical reasons can obtain C.O. status relatively easily. (Contributed anonymously.)
Christian churches are forced to pay exorbitant taxes. (Contributed by Rick Gillespie,

.)
You can’t drive anywhere without seeing a Darwin fish or a “Jesus Was A Fraud” bumper sticker stuck to a car. (Contributed by Rick Gillespie.)
Georgia recently passed a new law requiring schools to have a “moment of noise” during which children are encouraged to degrade Christianity. (Contributed by Rick Gillespie.)
College campuses usually have dozens of atheist organizations, but few if any for Christians. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom,

.)
There are several well-known atheist campus preachers who lecture on college campuses on the virtues of atheism. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)
Also common on college campuses are groups of students handing out copies of Betrand Russell’s “Why I Am Not A Christian”; some even force people who don’t want these books to take them. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)
Campus newspapers often print editorials extolling the virtues of atheism. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)
People look at you funny and wonder if there’s something wrong upstairs if you admit to being a Christian in public. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)
Many Christians are afraid to admit their Christianity to their parents and friends, for fear their kin will consider them immoral Christian scum and want nothing to do with them. (Contributed by Mark Anstrom.)
At presidential inauguration ceremonies, Madalyn Murray-O’Hair (that well-known friend of several presidents) gives a short pro-atheism speech. (Contributed by Matt Barry,

.)
For decades, high school and college commencement ceremonies have included brief speeches at the beginning and end of the ceremony in which atheism is praised and Christians deemed irrational. Christians who object to the practice, or who ask for an opening prayer instead, are regarded as cranks at best and subversives at worst. (Contributed by Matt Barry.)
Not only do commencement ceremonies feature pro-atheist speeches, there’s usually an entire two-hour ceremony the day before graduation dedicated to upholding the atheist foundation of our educational system. (Contributed by Jed Hartman,

.)
“There are no Christians in foxholes” is a popular slogan in our society.
Most hospitals are full of atheist symbols, and many prominently feature statues of Nietszche, Darwin, and so forth. (Contributed by Bill Pursell,

). Communities set up atheist brainwashing facilities, and apply social pressure to citizens to report to these facilities every Sunday morning. Furthermore, attendees are expected to contribute money to support these facilities, and to build others through “outreach” programs. (Contributed by “me”, .) Most parents in America indoctrinate their children at an early age to be atheists by forcing them to attend these brainwashing sessions, whether they want to or not. (Contributed by “me”.) While atheists hold huge rallies in 25,000-seat amphitheatres, Christians are so few in number that they can only dream of holding such rallies. (Contributed by Payton Chung, .) At baseball games, you can often spot people carrying signs that read “Origin Of Species, page 34”. Hospital waiting rooms usually come equipped with children’s copies of Stephen Hawking’s “A Brief History Of Time”, complete with order forms so that parents can send off for their own copy. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) Atheist magazines such as “Atheism Today”, “Today’s Atheist Woman”, “Atheist Homeschooler”, “The Atheist Century”, “Atheist Ministry”, “The Atheist Archeological Review”, “Atheist Parenting Today” and “The Atheist Science Monitor” are featured prominently in newsstands across the country. (Contributed by Payton Chung. Additional magazine names contributed by Dave Chapman, .) The Fellowship of Atheist Athletes has local chapters on college campuses throughout America. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) According to recent Gallup polls, approximately 86% of Americans do not believe in God. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) Politicians often refer to America’s “Agnosto-Atheist heritage” when trying to woo voters. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) Atheists are beginning to subvert the American political process. For example, the American Atheists recently published over thirty million voter’s guides for distribution at atheist meeting-houses. These guides gave specific instructions note to vote for those who oppose atheist values. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) It’s easy to buy checks with quotes from Thomas Paine, but almost impossible to buy checks with Bible verses on them. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) Businesses often refuse to admit that they are Christian owned and operated, for fear of being boycotted by their atheist customers. Meanwhile, atheist-owned businesses often feature Darwin-fish logos in their ads. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) There are large networks of atheistic private schools in America, while it’s nearly impossible to find a private Catholic school. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) It’s difficult to find people with good Christian names like John or Paul or Christopher. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) Most gravestones in America are engraved with pentagrams; those few graves which are engraved with crosses usually end up being vandalized. (Contributed by Payton Chung.) Atheists have often invented “deathbed deconversion” stories about famous Christians, claiming they became atheists just before they died. The Humanist Left and the Immoral Majority influence voting patterns in the Humanist Manifesto Belt states. (Contributed by CJP.) During the Solstice Season, nearly every network airs reruns (ad nauseum) of “It’s A Rational Life”, “Reason on 34th Street”, “A Solstice Story”, “The Stupidest Story Ever Told”, and other Atheist favorites. Christian programming cannot be found. (Contributed by CJP.)

There are about 200 more such examples of how Secularism is shoved down our throats everyday here: http://www.arches.uga.edu/~skepticx/antixian.html So obviously I have no choice but to admit to how horrible and brutal us Secular Humanist and Agnosto-Atheist are to you poor truthful & kind Christians, for that I apologize. As to showing the overwhelming Evidence for Evolutionary Theory the point of that would be what exactly? Iv done this for years and years and have never once found a single Fundy nutjob to accept one syllable relating to Evolution regardless of what evidence is presented, the easiest thing in the world is to deny everything and say “God did it” meanwhile as a Scientist we dont have that magic wand and faith in pure nonsense to fall back on, we must prove what we say with verifiable, tangible, Falsifiable, testable, observable evidence…..and WE DO! In 150 years Evolutionary Theory has past every test with flying colors, has never been disproved by any stretch of the imagination thus making it one of the most proven theories in all of Science. As for this delusion :

are some fine web sites that have staff that are Ph.D scientists. I can provide a number of other sites that have staff that are Christian/creationist Ph.D scientists.

Bullshit!  Most of these alleged “Scientist” are someone that just happens to have a PH.D doesn’t matter what the Ph.D is in or where they obtained it, the very few that are legit “should” have their degrees yanked from them and torn up as they obviously dont have a clue what they are talking about and must have lied their way through while denying everything they were taught. It would be like a devout Atheist going through theology school and getting a Ph.D in Theology, to say the least its dishonest. as for numbers of Scientist, well Iv been in the Scientific community since 1984 and have NEVER met a single one of these alleged Creationist Scientist, they are VERY few and far between and many such as Duane Gish are laughing stocks that many of us have gotten a good long Guffaw over around the watercooler. The real numbers are minute, something like 1/10th of 1% of accredited Scientist believe in creationism, some 700 or so out of approx. 480,000+ in the USA, the numbers worldwide are even smaller. I can give you list of accredited Ph.d’d Scientist in appropriate fields of research NAMED STEVE that represent a larger list of Scientist than the so called pseudoscientist you are referring to. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/ZZ/154_project_steve_in_ottawa_2_24_2005.asp Get some REAL facts about this disgusting movement of IDiotism here. http://www.ncseweb.org/default.asp Here is a Book actually larger than the original “Of Pandas & People” which is the one and ONLY textbook to IDiotism called “What’s wrong with Pandas” that complete debunks this pure garbage line by line. http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=21 I am what is called a “Strong Atheist” meaning I am NOT agnostic in anyway shape form or fashion, you may call me a Fundamentalist Atheist if you wish and I will wear that moniker with pride, as being told that I have an unbridled desire to adhere to thinking and reasoning with a rational mind using verifiable evidence as my guide I consider a huge compliment. and yes I make no bones about it, I HATE Religious Fundamentalist with a passion as from what I can tell Religion is the worst pandemic to ever infect the human race and if left unchecked could very easily be the leading cause for the extinction of Homo-Sapiens on this planet.

Betty:

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.—taken from Talkorigins

This may be what some proponents of ID say ID is. As such, it would be proper to treat this form of ID as creationism.  However, it is not the only form of ID.  Every camp is usually diverse. ID is no different.  There are many different hues.

Don’t color with one crayon, when there are sixty-four (64) in your box.

I would add to Consi’s and DOF’s comments by saying that creationism is stupid while ID just adds unnecessary components to its ontology.  That said, I also think that some proponents of ID are still stupid.  However, I will grant that not all are.

Nunyabiz,

You’re right about ID being a repackaged form of Creationism, because that’s exactly what they did: “You know, people aren’t buying this whole ‘6 Day’ thing, so let’s try and make it more believable”, and that’s where the difference lies.  A belief in Creationism is just that, a belief (whether it’s true or not).  ID is, as you said, an argument against (and concession to) evolution.  The two look quite different from where I’m standing.

“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.�? - I guess we can’t use that definition for either ID or evolution.

You really are ignorant about science, aren’t you?

To offer just one counter example - the yearly flu vaccines are based on the “predictions about natural phenomena” made by evolutionary theory.  Please provide any single useful consequence of ID.

No one was there when God created the Universe,Earth etc.. however the Bible does say how it happened, and according to the bible it happened in 6 literal days, no more than 6 to 10K years ago.

So, uh, if no-one was there - who wrote it down?

And before you tell me “God told somebody”, consider the alternative “Somebody made it up.“  After all, you’re implicitly claiming the other hundreds of creation stories are myths; why not also the two in Genesis?

Pho-in-a-ro: So, uh, if no-one was there - who wrote it down?

My favorite part is that it took exactly 6 days to create, but nobody was able to figure out just how long ago with that much certainty. 

I guess I should be nice - most people got at least 6 fingers, but not 6000.

Nunyabiz: I was feeling rather irritable until I read your post.  Thanks!  Well, would an Atheist really be dishonest if s/he were interested in Theology?  I ask this with the assumption that Theology is merely the study of religion and does not require belief in any of its variations.

Consigliere: Well, then, what are other these hues and what do they entail?

The evolutionists commenting: My god, we’ve totally torn Lionheart a new one.  S/he’s probably decided to skip reading all our posts in order to preserve his/her worldview and sanity.

Betty

Every camp is usually diverse. ID is no different.  There are many different hues.

Fair enough, consi.  But what we’re taking issue with here is your claim that

A belief in evolution may be compatible with a belief in ID.

I suppose it depends on how you define “evolution”.  The IDers define evolution, put bluntly but fairly, thusly: “every development for which every evolutionary step is apparent and cannot be denied, evolved; every development which our current state of knowledge cannot completely explain must have been designed.“  If this is the kind of evolution you are talking about, then your claim stands.

But if you mean evolution in the scientific sense, one definition of which is:  “a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations”, then ID is perforce perfenestrated: no deus ex machina is lowered on ropes every time the plot thickens.  When the going gets tough, the Darwinists get going, and the IDers wuss out.

AHHHHH!!!!!! This is not even something on evolution
Did no one take Geology or Geography? A simple 101 lesson in college or even a lesson in High School would answer the question about fossils found in the Himalayan region.

Its plate Tectonics. What is now the Himalayan region use to be the ocean floor (tethys sea) until the Indian plate move towards the Asian plate pushing up what is in between and forming the mountains, with the main uplift being about the 10-70million years ago.

PopTarts- your explanation for fossils on Everest is intriguing, but it assumes what is to be proved: namely, an unbiblically old Earth and unnaturally slipslidy continents.  Pretty farfetched if you ask me.

Before you come back with more such uncouth ideas, you might want to read what a real scientist says about it: Philip Gosse, in “Omphalos”, has an explanation which fits the facts and doesn’t require tedious study:  fossils are there, because God created the Earth to look old.  This might sound like Divine Deception, and indeed some heartless atheists have even laughed at it; but a moment’s thought will show that it was necessary for God to do.  Otherwise, Eve would have been bald, and that wouldn’t have been becoming.

For those of you who don’t know where all the turtles came from:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.

At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at
the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish.  The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.“

The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?“

“You’re very clever, young man, very clever,“ said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down.“

With that in mind, I have another analogy for comparing Darwinists, IDers, and creationists:

Darwinists say there are no such turtles. IDers say there are only a few, hidden where we can’t see them.  And creationists say, you got it, “it’s turtles all the way down”.

I saw someone express an interest in the idea that the sun is losing mass.  I don’t know about any unexplained loss, but anyone with any backround in relativity can tell you that a loss of mass in any star is very predictable.  It’s called fusion.  All that light, heat, beta, gamma, and alpha radiation have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the joining of two lighter particles to make a heavier one.  It was known long ago that the sum of the mass of the two lighter particles was lighter than the mass of the heavier particle, the resultant ‘lost mass’ having been given off in different forms of energy.  It goes back to that whole e^2=m^2c^4+p^2c^4, or e=mc^2, when the velocity is close to zero.  If he knows of the sun losing more mass than it’s supposed to, let me know, cuz I’d be really interested in reading the mathematics of the evidence.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t see where an explosion of explitives is necessary.  I’m a passionate atheist, but all that that cussing does is make the jesus freaks give a shake of their self-righteous heads, a knowing look to their children, and an almost inaudible *tsk*, as if to say, “see what you get when you don’t have jesus”.  I’m not defending their point of view, but you’re not helping my cause any, either.

Thanks for the explanation; I know of fusion, but I might’ve confused density with mass.  Or something. :/

Betty

It’s my blog and I’ll cuss if I want to because sometimes there’s just no other words that fit. They can tsk all they want. Not like I don’t do my own fair share of tsking at their idiotic antics.

mrunicycler-

Don’t hold your breath on any fundie coming by with math to back up their claim about the speed the sun is losing mass.  They still think the 2nd law of thermodynamics proves that local reversal of entropy is impossible, so I don’t imagine their grasp of fusion is any better.  Not surprising, really, given that God told them that pi=3 (I Kings 7:23-26).

And it’s my post and I’ll call you a moron if I feel like it. Face it lionheart, you have a condition called stupid. A lot of people suffer from it, but it’s clear that you enjoy it.

I would like to submit a possible end to the abortion problem by suggesting that the mother who is the “problem” and the one wanting an abortion should be euthanized and the child allowed to live in her place. Except in the case of rape or incest in which case we either allow them the choice of either life or death depending on the circumstances. It is absurd not to hold accountable and blame the person who has made the choice or “mistake” of contemplating murder after having sex knowing full well that sex makes babies, dogs, cats, trees, people etc.. Not to have the least respect for the life of any “being” whatever species even as despicable a creature as a baby human deserves the right to life liberty and the pursuit of their happiness.Let’s start killing the mother’s and see if the problem doesn’t go away. They eat far more food and take up space and if their not wanted maybe the baby will have more of a chance to make it. Maybe the father too, but really it isn’t his fault or body he has very little to do with any of the desire to murder the child he just forks out the blood money. If he motivates the woman then yes he would be guilty and we should kill them both. Let’s allow a decent new free spirit to come into the world and possibly make a change for the better. Who knows that child may be a brilliant mind. Even a “stupid evil bastard” knows that a mother that could kill her own child is a worthless malfunctioning sub- human and is a very dangerous person.

So much for “Love thy neighbour” and “Thou shalt not kill”.

It seems like Steve can’t see the Bible for the papyrus.