Comments

It amazes me how evolution is given as a reason very everything.

>A recent "groundbreaking" article from Newcastle University showed women liked pink more where as men prefered blue.

Why? Pink because women would have benefited from collecting fruit and blue because men would want blue skies for clear weather (not sure why women don't care about the weather).

Yup, evolutionary biology does in fact eschew religious explanations for natural phenomena. Just like all of science does. The 50% or so of the public that express "serious reservations about the theory of evolution" base this primarily on religious concerns, not an evaluation, or even an understanding for that matter, of the evidence. When scientists who understand the evidence look at it (and not all scientists do understand it; being a scientist doesn't mean you know everything in science. Few biologists know anything about geology, or physicists about paleontology), the overwhelming majority (99%+) see it as absolutely supporting the theory of evolution. Scientists who do not view it as evidence of a natural process are overwhelmingly not biologists of any sort.

By the way, not all evolutionary biologists agree on the specific processes and time-lines, although all agree that it is natural and takes a long time. Contrary to the hopes and dreams of creationists, recent discoveries in science in no way weaken the Theory of Evolution, although they certainly may cause a few details to be altered, something that happens often in science.

"Contrary to the hopes and dreams of creationists, recent discoveries in science in no way weaken the Theory of Evolution" I completely disagree with this statement heres why. Go to a website called www.reasons.org. And it is not about young earth creationist science.

To be more specific check the "creation vs. evolution" or "human origins" sections on this website. These scientists (biologists included) have great insight on this matter and show you the data and problems the general scientific community are mute about. They are not condescending at all they make their points intelligently.

Who is going to want to see Lucy? EVERYONE. This is one of the great treasures of the human race, and despite polls that say most Americans are not interested or belive in evolution, the lines at the museums where she will be exhibited will be around the corner.

"Go to a website called www.reasons.org. And it is not about young earth creationist science."

No, it is not about young-earth creationist science, it is about old-earth creationist science. Which is kind of like saying no, the sun is not a Roman mythology deity that we have to appease, but it still rotates around the earth.

Setting Creationism and Science Straight!

A new brand of creationism, which creationists and secular science
are not familiar with is "Biblical Reality", which is better known as
the "Observations of Moses".

This "Old Earth" brand of creationism puts forth the view that
combines a seven 24-hr day week of original creation (Exodus 20:11),
with a separate "six 12-hr days of revelation" given to Moses
(Genesis 1:2 – 2:3). The pseudo discrepancy between the "sixth day"
in Genesis chapter one and in chapter two is explained as chapter two
being the beginning of modern mankind (Adam & Eve), and chapter
one as being an earlier species of prehistoric mankind in an earlier
restoration period, more than 60 million years ago.

Biblical Reality is defined as the "ordained marriage" of Biblical
Truth, and Scientific Reality. Think of Biblical Truth as historical,
present, or future data (information) that has been given to us by
the words written in the Bible, or what we shall call "The Printed
Word of God". It is events which took place in the past, that we may
not presently be able to confirm outside of the Bible.

Scientific Reality is defined as "That which has been discovered and
analyzed to be of true historical existence. That which has been
observed to be a real occurrence or phenomena, whether or not it
can be explained." For example, the discoveries of the extinctions
of life on Earth in what has been determined to be 245 Million BC
(dimetrodons) and 65 Million BC (dinosaurs) is accepted as Scientific
Reality.

Biblical Reality teaches that there are no "creation accounts" in
Genesis, and that "Moses Didn't Write About Creation!". What
is actually being said is "Moses wrote about multiple restorations".
Before the advent of "Biblical Reality", no faction of creationism
could explain both the "first day" of Moses and the "Fourth Day",
all being 24-hr days, without either denying literal interpretation or
"redefining" the scriptures.

The "six days of Moses" in Genesis chapter one are actually six
consecutive (12 hour) days in 1598 BC that God revealed to Moses
(on Mt. Sinai) from the ancient past. Each day was from the first
week of each of seven different geological eras in "biblical order".
The only day of Creation Week which Moses saw was the
"Fourth Day". Creation Week was 168 hours, in 4.6 Billion BC,
according to the geologist.

This book may be the explanation that some people, who
are looking for the truth of Genesis, have been trying to find.
It reveals the scientific evidence that God showed to Moses,
and the reoccurring extinctions and restorations of Earth's
ancient past history. Everyone that wants to tell others of the
truth of the Bible should first learn the facts themselves from
this book, so that the Word of God will not be misrepresented.

Title: Moses Didn't Write About Creation!
Paperback: 432 pages
Publisher: PublishAmerica (August 6, 2007)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1424182204
ISBN-13: 978-1424182206
Product Dimensions: 9 x 6 x 1 inches

Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com

To anyone who sees Lucy, what one will actually be seeing is a conglomeration of bones. What matters is not the bones themselves, but how one interprets these bones. The evolutionists presenting Lucy will certainly attempt to convince anyone who sees this conglomeration of bones that it is in fact some sort of ape-man; a missing link that is an ancestor to humans, thereby 'proving' evolutionary theory. However, this line of reasoning came from those who had presupposed the theory of evolution before they ever discovered Lucy, thus their entire work and all of their theories on Lucy are heavily biased by their preconceived notions. One who does not take the theory of evolution as religious doctrine could easily look at the conglomeration of bones that is Lucy and see what I see when I've looked at pictures of the bones of Lucy, which is a monkey or an ape that in fact has not an ounce of human in it. What is a tragedy is the fact that the 'scientists' who present Lucy will of course present their theories as fact and will attempt to convert as many gawkers as possible into believing their evolutionary, atheist dogma, rather than presenting their discovery for what it is, an interesting conglomeration of monkey bones.

Interesting point of view, Kevin. So, you're saying that the best people to interpret evidence are the totally ignorant because ignorance keeps you from having "preconceived notions" about that evidence.

In your view, experience is not merely worthless, it is actually a handicap. The idea that experience allows one to get it right more often than getting it wrong makes no impression on you.

Do you also believe this about other disciplines, or just evolutionary biology, because it offends your religious fundamentalism? I wonder...

Many people, when they can't provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.

If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.

After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.

If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.

Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.

Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!

Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!

PS: Don't believe lie about the 'first life' problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can't do it, how on earth can anyone with logic abilities believe that it happened by accident?????

The fastest way to tell someone's bias is if he/she uses the term "evolutionist." Most people who believe that science is the proper means to making conclusions about, um, science are not necessarily wedded to the idea of evolution for its own sake. They believe in evolution because that is the most plausible (though imperfect) explanation that scientific inquiry has led to so far. If scientific inquiry eventually disproves evolution and or at least leads to a more likely explanation of the origins of life, then science-respecting people will go with the new explanation.

Those who believe in creation have a choice. They can either assign it to its proper sphere (religion) and conclude that God created the natural laws and processes that enable evolution to happen, or they can replace science with religion. It should be no problem for religious schools to teach evolution in their science classes and creation and perhaps intelligent design in their religion classes; many non-fundamentalist Christian schools do just that.

God created the world with all of its natural laws and processes, and God created our minds with the ability and the mandate to learn about His creation. Therefore, to discount honest scientific inquiry and replace it with Biblical narratives taken out of context is to undermine God's creation and His mandate---in other words, it is a sin. Yes, willful ignorance is a sin.

Re: "Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over."

So when this happens--probably sooner than you think--do you abandon your faith? If so, that is very sad.

Scientific inquiry is predicated on intellectual honesty, which requires, at the least, that one not claim to know something that either is unknowable or is unsupported by evidence. Faith, on the other hand, neither needs nor requires intellectual honesty; it requires simply that one believe the dogma of a particular religion. To the extent that the conclusions of scientific inquiry match or at least do not contradict that dogma, faith and intellectual honesty can peacefully coexist in the mind of a believer. If, however, the conclusions of scientific inquiry conflict with that dogma, the believer has a choice: intellectual honesty or faith.

Those who choose faith yet feel a need to remain or at least appear to remain intellectually honest are thus motivated to go to great lengths to come up with plausible alternatives to the scientific conclusions. Hence the desperate efforts to debunk the scientific conclusions (in this instance, evolution) and develop plausible alternatives (e.g., creationism, intelligent design, or some variant). Result-oriented argumentation, rather than objective scientific inquiry, produces such alternatives. While lacking scientific validity, the alternatives seem sufficiently plausible to those unschooled in science or blinded by faith to afford them the comfort that they can have their faith and intellectual honesty too.

Evolution does not require God. So what? The orbits of planets around the Sun do not require God either.

As Doug Indeap already said, the only science that many religious people disagree with is science that conflicts with the Bible, especially Genesis. I understand why Christians feel this way. If Genesis is false, then perhaps the entire Bible is false. Many Christians believe denying the entire Bible is 100% true is the same as buying a one-way ticket to hell. How can a Christian possibly accept evolution, no matter how powerful the evidence is, if that means eternal torture? These Christians have no choice. They have to deny reality. Even worse, they are convinced they must drill their anti-science religious garbage into their children. This is child abuse but they don't care. They think abusing their own children is required to save them from the wrath of their barbaric God. They know their children can't be allowed to grow up without this religious brainwashing because they know an unbrainwashed adult could never believe the stupidity of Christianity.

Somebody complained that scientists are still working on how life began. So what? That has nothing to do with evolution. There has to be life to evolve from. Anyway, be patient, this problem will be solved, probably in your lifetime. In the meantime it's just plain stupid to invoke God just because a problem has not been solved yet.

Others here talked about answersingenesis.org and reasons.org. Those people are liars who will say anything to justify their stupid boring Bible. If you get your information from liars you will never learn anything.

To anyone who sees Lucy, what one will actually be seeing is a conglomeration of bones. What matters is not the bones themselves, but how one interprets these bones. The evolutionists presenting Lucy will certainly attempt to convince anyone who sees this conglomeration of bones that it is in fact some sort of ape-man; a missing link that is an ancestor to humans, thereby 'proving' evolutionary theory. However, this line of reasoning came from those who had presupposed the theory of evolution before they ever discovered Lucy, thus their entire work and all of their theories on Lucy are heavily biased by their preconceived notions. One who does not take the theory of evolution as religious doctrine could easily look at the conglomeration of bones that is Lucy and see what I see when I've looked at pictures of the bones of Lucy, which is a monkey or an ape that in fact has not an ounce of human in it. What is a tragedy is the fact that the 'scientists' who present Lucy will of course present their theories as fact and will attempt to convert as many gawkers as possible into believing their evolutionary, atheist dogma, rather than presenting their discovery for what it is, an interesting conglomeration of monkey bones.

In addition, when you pop open the hood of your car, what you see is a conglomeration of pieces of metal. What matters is not the pieces of metal themselves, but how you interpret them. Some materialist mechanics might try to convince you that this is a so-called "internal combustion engine", thereby "proving" Antoine Lavoisier's Oxygen Theory of Combustion. However, this line of reasoning came from people who already presupposed the existence of oxygen! Thus, your mechanic's work is already heavily biased against Hephaestus, the god of fire. One who doesn't take the atheist dogma of chemistry and physics on blind faith could look at that metal and see what I see--the release of phlogiston created by Hephaestus. What's especially sad is that these "mechanics" will present their atheist dogma--and charge $99.95 plus labor!--to gullible customers who don't know the love of the gods, rather than for what it really is (and by "what it really is", I mean my interpretation as opposed to that of the so-called experts, since having never worked on a car in my life I can already say I know more about it than people with knowledge, experience, and expertise).

Wish I had read this earlier...and nobody will probably read this now, but...

I thought it was generally settled that there are seven days in Genesis because the ancients in biblical areas, who weren't monotheists, usually thought there were seven planetary gods.

The days of the weeks, with a Nordic syncretistic twist, are still named after planetary gods. Today is Woden's Day, by the way.

Genesis makes a good, pre-modern science case that there aren't seven planetary gods. As science, however, the ordering of the days only roughly makes sense, and you have to be willing to overlook that plants on Earth happened along before the sun and moon were created, if memory serves.

As a monotheistic argument against the existence and powers of the seven gods, however, it's very nicely done. They aren't even named and there existence is denied...and you feel reassured that they don't need worshiping and appeasement.

For today, it's still a nice way to introduce the idea of monotheism, of one God, not gods by any name or form.

By insisting that evolution science is an anti-god religion...the creationists are maybe creating an idol over which men must chose...modern science (that saved my life from a horrible death by pernicious anemia), or a perception of a God that makes the number Seven more important than justice, mercy and kindness...and my life.

And tomorrow is Thor's Day!

I've always enjoyed the Norse myths; far more interesting than Christian mythology. The Norse gods had character!

I went to Caleb's link at www.reasons.org. It makes warm gestures about rationality then tells lies about the theory of evolution. Just more reasons not to believe!

wow :-)
its very interesting point of view.
Good post.
realy good post

thx :-)