FYI: What Is the Evolutionary Purpose of Tickling?

So where does holding your little brother down and tickling him until he pees fall under, social bonding or combat?

After all these years you still can't forgive your brother for that? ;-)

@nonethewiser, that's nothing to do with the "tickling" and more to do with alpha dominance among siblings.

I still laugh with my younger brother about an instance where I had him on the floor in an attempt to land an "Atomic Over the Head Wedgie" which ended in him throwing up. Almost had his undies over his head too.. so close.

You CAN tickle yourself using the tip of your tongue on the roof of your mouth.

Eviloution is amyth

@Aldrons Last Hope: Apparently the circles you run in also believe spell-checking is a myth....

Someone should do a study on the correlation between the inability to use spell-checking and the belief in creationism....

@ Battleshield:

~I~ for one, thought Aldrons Last Hope's comment in which he incorporates the word "evil" into "evolution" was fantastically clever, and left me wanting to do zen meditations to discover the true meaning of "amyth." I bet it's some kind of mystical place or higher state of being.

[[Sarcasm Levels Critical]]

so quick to judge battleshield, i agree with shadowsurfer, shame on you battleshield, may the amyth be on you :)

Macro evolution is a myth.
Micro evolution is real.

So how does that work with the tickling?

alias007 wrote:
After all these years you still can't forgive your brother for that? ;-)

****
Probably not. My sister did something similar: she tickled me until I almost passed out. 30 years later I still get a panic attack if someone tries to tickle me.

It's always strange how Evolutionists can believe that life was created by Aliens or some random un-calculable chance. But the thought that God created the world in 7 days is somehow impossible? How does evolution explain things like diatoms could that have such intricate designs and patterns. Or if you looked a the inside of a mosquito's heart as shown here on this website earlier in the year then you would say without a doubt, if you didn't know it was a mosquito already, that it must be some sort of design made by some artist or something designed to look like that. You wouldn't say wow that evolved that way by chance!

physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010_10_01_archive.html

If you really want to research the evolution issue try looking here.
www.answersingenesis.org

trtp2,
You seriously think that a tangled misshapen mass of straw man arguments and arguments from ignorance carries any weight on a website based on fact and reason?

Ebrainer1 - Do you even listen to your own arguments? The same could be same about the so called science in saying that tickling is evolutionary. Or that a Diatom just happened by accident. The science behind evolution is so flawed you need to make up new science to justify the results of something that didn't quite fit the excepted previous results.

As is said ignorance is bliss. So you can sit there at home saying my argument is ignorant, but if you accept evolution as a LAW and don't do any research into other possibilities than your more ignorant then your argument.

Maybe someday the Aliens that created us will return to enlighten us? That's so much more believable right?

Aldrons--learn to spell.

Your tripped out twtp2! And sooooo wrong. There is no god. There is only the natural order of things via forces in the universe. Whatever happens happens because of entropy, matter and energy and combinations thereof are INFINITE. Life is just a natural consequence so foolish you and your kind are. So gullible.

gizmowiz - So if even some the top scientists say that there seems to be order to the universe you would say that's Foolish? The natural Order you say? What order is that? Where does the order come from? Is a mutation ordered? How can a mutation lead to something like a well designed Diatom? How can certain plants and animals exists through evolution if they both require each other to survive? How could they have evolved if they never could have existed without them both being in existence to begin with?

The evolutionists argument is always the same. Call the creationist quacks and say their science is foolish and ignorant. When your own science isn't even based on hard evidence, and most is made up of layers of made up layers of theories.

So are all these scientist who are most likely far superior in intelligence and education to you or I Ignorant and Foolish? This is only a very small part of the list.
www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

* Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology

trtp2, Here's a deeper question. Are you mentally prepared to accept either answer when and if one of them is proven correct in your conscious lifetime?

If hypothetically we somehow 100% truthfully determine that there is no... i'll use the word..."conscious" godly being watching us, will you be able to live a happy life?

I asked myself this years ago, and through lots of thinking, am prepared to accept either answer, and still not act like a cultureless murdering ape if i find out there is nobody watching from above.

But my main point, and it isn't necessarily directed at anyone in particular; is that with this subject of debate, it is my opinion that your mind is the most objective when discussing the subject of Evolutionism vs. Creationism only when neither outcome will f up your universe.

That's my biggest thing with most creationists; is that they can't fathom a positive purpose to life unless they think that someone is watching them and has a plan for their life. It's also just as big a pet peeve to find evolutionists who do not believe in god but use this as a reason to wallow in negativity saying that there is no purpose to life.

I think the people who really have it right are the ones who can accept either answer, who can still be civil and care about the condition of the human race and still find the passion to still want to enjoy life and still make the world a better place and still do good unto others even if god is proven 100% false.

Well there has definitely got to be some higher power that designed all this, whether you call it god or whatever. This is no coincidence and to think all this just randomly happened is kinda ignorant in itself. Life is constantly evolving , so who wrote the basic instructions, something to think about. Life is not random.

@sir vix - I'm not prepared to accept the No God or Higher Power Theory. That would not affect my happiness though. What would is the ensuing chaos that would follow if somehow God was proven to not exist. Without a God and the underlying moral values established by the Bible and all other religious books then man would revert back to survival mode and kill or be killed. No one would care if they killed you since there would be no ultimate consequence unless caught by the law of the land.

The proof of God though is in everything around you. All things have an unmistakable design to them that could not have happened by random chance. If you look at any biological sample under a microscope you'll see that there's layer upon layer of intricate designs and patterns.

Evolution is change based on mistakes, mutations, and genetic defects. None of which usually make things look or work better. Other then what we as humans do to manipulate life and genetics there is no Evolution only mutation and adaptation.

"God don't think stuff's funny." - Bill Engvall

trtp2, i agree about the ensuing chaos if god is disproven! Unfortunately it's just kind of disappointing to think about, it makes me feel everyone is kind of weak. I personally feel a little uneasy if i tell myself that the only thing that makes me civil and compassionate to others and not murderous is the belief in a being watching me, and the belief in paying a price in eternity upon death if i die with "bad karma". I would feel right on the edge of my sanity if i knew that religious beliefs and religious books were the only thing keeping me from killing someone for bumping into me on the street. I feel alot more controlled and free knowing that i'll always do my best to be compassionate before hurting someone, god or no god. What we do with our lives has the opportunity to echo with all the future generations of humanity, so shouldn't that be enough for someone to want to untimately live a civil and productive life and try to leave a lasting positive impression on the world? Rather that someone who supposedly pats them on the back or slaps them in the face after they die? I think if religious books were disproven, a much more praportionally large group of people who go back to the ape phase would be religious people.

@sir vix - I think I agree with you partially in that many of the people who are 100% atheistic and believe there is absolutely no God, and who are law abiding citizens, would still act the same way. But since that's such a infinitesimal portion of the world wide population that won't matter much. I think the only a portion of the Sect/cultist type religions would have believers going off the deep end. Like Catholic/Jehovah/Mormon/Muslim, those religions have many followers that are only going through the motions and their religion is all that keeps them "good".

As far as the Ape phase comment. Well you'd have to believe humans came from apes before that could be discussed. Since I don't believe that I think it's more the survival phase.

@trtp2 - Dude, a BILLION people on this planet are atheists, second only to Christianity and Islam (which combined total about 3.6 billion.) So a) I don't think you know what "infinitesimal" means and b) you're foolish to think that morals only exist in the context of religion - no, atheists are not just "following the laws."

@sudden - Dude where are you getting you statistics from?

Your number of Atheists is wrong by the very fact that the total number includes people who say they're non religious and or agnostic. The actual number of TRUE Atheists who believe in NO God or Higher power is far less then the 1 Billion you say.

"For the year 2000, David B. Barrett (Encyclopedia Britannica and World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001) classified 150,089,508 (2.5% of world's population) as atheists, and 768,158,954 people as "Nonreligious" (12.7% of the world) for a total of 918,248,462 (15.2% of the world)"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_demographics
www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Nonreligious

Thus 2.5% IS Infinitesimal in my book when you consider of those 150mil that many believe in a higher power or some sort of God, Order, or Intelligence. So that 2.5% is further reduced to some unknown lower number.

I never said Morals only exist in the context of Religion. I implied that most of the world follows some sort of God based moral code derived from either Biblical sources or they're certain religious doctrine. Based on the above statistics I would say that if about 97% of the world believes in something rather then nothing and if that something is proved to be nothing then without consequences people would be much less moral and ethical in they're behaviors.

So that's great if a few million Atheists were unaffected by such an event but that would be insignificant to the 6 billion it did affect.

@trtp2 Dude, that's pretty offensive.
I'm an Atheist and I'm pretty sure I'm not in "survival mode". Nor am I adhering to a "God based moral code".

You seem to truly believe that religion is the only reason to be moral and ethical in ones behaviour. Well if that is true then that is a sad fact for humanity. Personally I try to be moral and ethical in my behaviour because all 6+ billion of us are metaphorically "in the same boat". Survival mode just isn't going to cut it if we are to progress in our quest to improve quality of life for everyone. And if that is not our aim as a whole then we all have a long way to go.

Personally I find a hell of a lot of religion to be two-faced and hypocritical, since when did atheists hunt witches or start wars or build walls to submit others to famine or torture others or blow themselves up?

I much prefer to let my actions be my own and not ultimately cite an omnipotent deity (that appears to support death as a means to an end depending on which version of God you believe in) as the basis for my moral and ethical decisions.

That's just barbaric.

A thought: If I found this post, and know people like myself, and know that we have never filled in any kind of survey to attest to our religious attributes...

I am less inclined to believe there are only 150mil of us worldwide.

In reference to gizmowiz...

"There is no god...Whatever happens happens because of entropy, matter and energy and combinations thereof are INFINITE. Life is just a natural consequence..."

Something in you logic is either missing from the post, or just plain missing.

Everything happens because of entropy?? What?? Entropy is the way closed systems always tend to progress towards the highest possible state of DISorder. How do you possibly see that as the natural source of life?

And, forgive me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that you believe the universe and/or time is infinite, therefore every possible combination of atoms happens at some point and that is why we exist...and also that somehow this means god does not exist. But if every possible combination happens, then the "God" combination would happen at some point also (a being so powerful that it can never be destroyed and, if it so chooses, could control everything else).

I think the idea of God makes some sense, but religions are silly, including atheism.
There is nothing logic based in either claiming you know there is no God, or in claiming there is one and you have somehow figured him out and fit him in a book.

Listen to this: Rodeo is a sport that depends on the tickle reflex as well. A flank strap on a bull or horse provokes the need for the animal to escape the tickle. All one has to do is watch young horses play and you see the ticle there as well.

@trtp2,

Quick question: do you believe in free will? ;-)

@trtp2 - There are 151.5 million people on earth who strongly hold the opinion that there are no gods (atheists). There are 766.6 million who both reject all religion and strongly hold the opinion that there is no evidence of the existence of gods (agnostics) but, since it is not possible to prove the non-existence of the existence of something for which there is no proof, they choose not to BELIEVE that there are no gods. They simply believe that there is no basis upon which to believe in gods. In other words, gods are irrelevant to them.

Now, there are many millions of people on this planet who are actual agnostics, but who DO practice some sort of religion, at least occasionally. Those people are not generally counted as agnostics, since they are either hedging their bet or are agnostics who, for social reasons, don't choose to make that fact known. I personally know many people in this category.

Aside from the 918 million who are avowed atheists or agnostics, there are another 761 million people who follow religions which do not have gods. The Buddhist and Taoist traditions fall in this category. Also, it's very clear that when lists of adherents to specific religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) are compiled, the population of China is typically included when listing religious belief but not counted when listing atheists/agnostics. It's pretty clear that there are about 4-6% of mainland Chinese who are either Taoists, Buddhists, Christians or Muslims; but what about the other 1.25 billion Chinese? 24% of Taiwanese consider themselves atheist or agnostic. 41% of South Koreans consider themselves either atheist or agnostic. 80% of Vietnamese consider themselves atheist or agnostic. Yet it seems that most such lists put the number of mainland Chinese who consider themselves atheist or agnostic at somewhere between 6% and 14%...even though Chinese who claim to believe in some religion or another number less than 6% of the population. Clearly, no one really wants to know what religion Chinese people follow (particularly if they don't follow one). However, that statistical anomaly accounts for at least another 1 billion atheists and agnostics on this planet, and most of that 1 billion would be atheist, partly because there is no strong tradition of any god centered religion in China for at least the last 1000 years and partly because the communist party has reinforced that cultural base.

In total, then, we have approximately 2.68 billion people on earth who are either very clearly agnostic or thoroughly atheist...about 39.5% of the global population.

Dare says: "since when did atheists hunt witches or start wars or build walls to submit others to famine or torture others or blow themselves up? "

The Soviet Union was an atheist country. So was East Germany (since you mentioned building walls). North Korea and Cuba are both atheist. Atheists like to conveniently forget that communism is an atheist philosophy.

This is why agnostics are perhaps the only religious group that can claim no wrongs against others. By definition, agnostics consider all religious beliefs acceptable. The USA was the first modern agnostic country, the first to find all religions acceptable.

trtp2, in order for creationism to be a legitimate scientific theory, it needs to go beyond saying that God created the universe and all life. It needs to explain why. If God created tickling, then way? If creationism can't offer an explanation, then it's of no value to scientists.

While there are many complete mysteries in science (such as tickling), evolution provides a way to reasonably speculate the reasons that things exist. Creationism offers no such possibility - "because God says so" isn't helpful to scientists unless you can explain why God says so.

@trpt - Does it not bother you that some of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been to please someone's idea of God?

trpt, have you even read the bible? why in the world would you follow it as the basis of morality when in genesis god actually lies to adam and eve? god says there is one tree that has fruit they cannot eat or else they will die. then a talking serpent tells them they won't actually die. so, they eat it, and god finds out, and punishes them. god lied to them. they didn't die. then he got mad at them for going against his authority. he didn't even tell them why. just DON'T cause i say so.

so where's the free will? where's the morals? it's okay to lie if you believe your cause is just? it's okay to punish people for doing something out of free will to experience more of life? it's okay to tell people what to do without any explanation and not allow them to experience all aspects of reality? why did god even put the stupid tree there in the first place? entrapment? to force temptation?
---

Oh, and I can tickle myself. Always have been able to.

@trtp2
"Evolution is change based on mistakes, mutations, and genetic defects."

Creationists seem to only understand half of the evolution equation (the "random" part). While it is true that the variations occurring within populations are random, the selection (and/or genetic drift) of the individuals who reproduce is NOT random. The purposeful selection is based on which individuals are most capable of reproducing in the current environment.

Your argument is like that of a puddle in a parking lot pothole: "isn't it amazingly that some all powerful god designed us to fit this pothole perfectly!" You are looking at the world backward; we are here because our ancestors were fit enough to reproduce.

Let me ask you something: if God designed us, why all the waste? Why do men have millions of sperm when only 1 or 2 would suffice? Why do fish lay millions of eggs for only a handful to survive to adulthood? Why do the skeletons of mammals, from dogs to dolphins to humans, all share the same general layout (down to the same number of metatarsal bones in our feet and fins)? Did god just run out of his creative juices?

Creationism is not science; read the (quite good) Kitzmiller v. Dover decision.

Also, if you truly believe that you would do evil if there was no god then I hope you never lose your faith. In the meantime, please don't assume that the rest of us have morals as weak as yours.

@dondegroovily - Actually, the U.S. was not founded as an agnostic nation. It was founded on Deist (principally theistic) principals, which generally did not accept the claim of any religion to moral or spiritual truth, but generally did accept the existence of a creator god. In other words, many of the principle founders of the nation did believe in a single god, but were not at all fond of ANY religion, though they knew better than to publicly oppose religion as it would have been political suicide.

Most of the Deist founders were not even close to agnosticism.

Interesting, but don't think this attempt to find an adaptive explanation for tickling or being ticklish is actually 'science'. Sounds more like speculation and storytelling.

Wow a lot to reply to.

@Dare - I never said, we are in survival mode". I said "man would revert back to survival mode". Meaning without out morals and ethics it would be chaos. Also the argument about wars and witch hunts is ignorant since your blaming all religion for a very specific religious cults causing the problems. Not to mention most recent wars seem to be related to money, resources, and politics.

@jadedchron - You can believe you have free will all you want but you'll never know if you did because of God's plan or yours. So it comes down to faith.

@Martel - If your not a TRUE Atheist then in general you believe that something, someone, whatever, was, or is, in charge of the universe. So I don't think your argument works.
You also said,"since it is not possible to prove the non-existence of the existence of something for which there is no proof". But somehow people believe the Theory of evolution is proof of evolution? The proof of God is the very fact that all things are so complex as to be impossible to be anything but designed.

@dondegroovily - If I can't say God created it then you can't say that we evolved from apes. The 2 statements are both equally "un-provable" at this point. If you bothered to look at any of the references I posted you would see the hundreds of high level SCIENTISTS that believe in Creation.

@Y-ask-Y - It doesn't bother me at all since I'm not part of any specific religious denomination. Other then being a Christian and believer in the Bible I'm not affiliated with any of the fanatic Nuts that kill in the name of "God". Last I checked most of the mass murderers int he world have been world leaders and none we're true if even close to Christians. Hilter, Stalin, Mao, Kim in North K, and on!

@rolloutthebarrel - Twisting the Bible to say what you want seems to be an ongoing problem in the world. You need to do a study on Genesis if you'd really like to know what it said. Your misquoting and not putting things in the proper context.

@mcbarron - All the waste as you call it is what I would think of as the Good Design. Why redesign something that works so well. You see evolution in the skeleton and I see creation. Look in a microscope sometime and you'll understand. You may also want to understand human and animal reproduction better before saying that 1 or 2 sperm will do. That's a tad ignorant. Also I don't personally think you really understand what you would do evil or good unless your in true chaos.

@hylobius - I agree, it's a difficult topic in so called "science" to be speculating how something evolved when it's clearly much easier to say that God designed it to entertain our children and to practice saying Uncle.

@trtp2
"All the waste as you call it is what I would think of as the Good Design. Why redesign something that works so well."

You can call it whatever you want. It's not the work of an all powerful god (unless it is one who enjoys seeing most of his "created" life die before they are able to reproduce themselves, but that seems a bit sadistic to me).

----------------------------
@trtp2
"You see evolution in the skeleton and I see creation. Look in a microscope sometime and you'll understand."

This sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Are you trying to make an argument for irreducible complexity? Take the time to read some sites outside of "answersingenesis" and see why IC doesn't hold any water.

----------------------------
@trtp2
"You may also want to understand human and animal reproduction better before saying that 1 or 2 sperm will do. That's a tad ignorant."

Yes, given the evolved system we have today 1-2 sperm makes no sense. But if I was all-powerful and could make the world exactly as I wanted, including defining nature's laws at my whim, why would I make it look so ancient, evolved, and cut-throat? Is your god trying to deceive us by making the world look billions of years old? Why would he do that?

----------------------------
@trtp2
"Also I don't personally think you really understand what you would do evil or good unless your in true chaos."

I am not understanding what you are saying here? Do you think I only know that it's bad to lie/steal/kill/etc because of the bible? Have you even read the bible?

trpt2, welcome to the subjective life. go back and read it again if you think i got it wrong.

if we're really supposed to take the bible literally with the 7 days explanation, then along with that, tell me how god didn't lie to them with the fruit? why didn't he explain his reasoning of why they shouldn't eat it instead of just saying you'll die? having an understanding of why it is a good idea *not* to do something would seemingly be the better method of explaining things to a brand new human, who will then be able to transfer the skills of knowing why to other problems they encounter in life.

surely adam and eve's comprehension skills when being brought into the world as adults without time to develop as kids would bring a child-like understanding of the external environment as well. why not be patient with them (doesn't the bible say love is patient, love is kind?) and teach them honestly instead of my way or the highway, one strike and you're out?

i mean this is "original sin" type voodoo god casts down on humanity. it's that ultimate curse only jesus can save us from, right? so you have to follow it all or go to hell because that's the default. fruit ate -> original sin on all generations of people, to hell with the lot of them -> reproduction (with birthing pains - thanks eve) -> all humans infected and need the christ-inoculation, is the typical line of thought.

all that because free will came out to play and went against the authority.

and one more inconsistency... what's with all the slavery if the bible is the absolute highest moral compass? god even specifies to let slaves have the day off in the 10 commandments (NRSV edition). it's not "no keeping slaves", but "let them worship me too."

@Trololol - Does it matter?

@rolloutthebarrel - G:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."KJV

Seems to me that he told the perfect truth."Adam and Eve died and did not die. They died spiritually: they were removed from a place where they had direct contact with God, and could not go back. They did not experience immediate physical death, but they did eventually die; it may be that the process of aging and decay started on the day they ate the fruit."

@mcbarron - Your points, are pointless as you don't back up any of your information, it seems as if you've never investigated the Scientific studies done into IC and Creation. Also you can't constantly throw out Creationism merely because you think it's wrong. With so many scientists that believe in a have done research on Creationism there is real science behind it. Myself being one of those scientists. Come back when you've done your research.

Not to throw more rocks at you but obviously I've been to more websites and read more material then what's at AIG website. I merely point them out for a starting point for your own reference and research. But here's more if you need more.

www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
www.nwcreation.net/groupcreation.html

The argument of "god must exist because you can't prove he doesn't / evolution is too complicated" is insane.

You start off with a false postulate--you assume there is a god until it is proven to you otherwise.

The right frame of mind is to make no assumptions, and then believe the most logical case (or stay skeptical of all cases if none are convincing).

If you start off NOT believing there is a god and then use the scientific method:

1)Ask a Question -- How come there are so many varieties of life on earth?

2) Do background research -- *You read the Bible and find out all about god*

3) Construct a hypothesis -- "I think that maybe god made all of the life on earth"

4) Test your hypothesis with an experiment -- Since the bible is full of examples of god doing supernatural feats like causing the red sea to part, instantly healing people, magically multiplying things like food and oil into quantities much larger than what we started with, etc. then we can create an experiment where we pray to god and ask him to do something like that which is described in the Bible.

You pour water into a glass, then ask god to turn it into wine.

*lets all perform the experiment*

5) Analyze your data and draw a conclusion -- In my experiment the water did NOT turn into wine. Therefore this test produced no evidence of an all powerful entity or "god" as is described in the bible.

Having no evidence to support the hypothesis... why the hell would I assume it to be true?

In essence, why the hell would I assume there is a god when there is absolutely no way to prove it? The only logical assumption is that there is no god until someone CAN come up with an experiment which can be reproduced by others and produce the same results every singe time which prove that there IS a god.

(I can come up with a million of these types of experiments and all of them fail to produce data which suggests there is any god).

@trtp2,

Let's do another quick "if god exists" experiment.

In this experiment, I'm going to go take a crap right now... If god exists, I give him permission to strike me down on the toilet in a colorful way...

Let's say, I want to spontaneously combust while pinching a loaf here in a few minutes.

God can just send my heathen self straight to hell for tempting his "mighty" wrath ;)

If in a few minutes I don't come back and post another comment saying I'm still alive, and you see a news story about a guy on the toilet bursting into flames... then you can all assume god is real and has magical powers.

But, if I come back from the toilet safe and sound... then trtp2 has to admit he's a doofus for assuming there is a god without proof.

Here we go...

*hopes his farts aren't extra flammable today*

Well, I hate to disappoint you all... but I am still alive and well.

What a damn shame! Here I was, willing to sacrifice my body and soul just to prove to the rest of these heathens on here that god really did exist and was all powerful and blah blah blah...but no.

Oh well, maybe I didn't have enough faith or something ;)

@B.V. - No one ever said on this post that "god must exist because you can't prove he doesn't / evolution is too complicated"

Maybe while your doing such advanced scientific studies you could show how an amoeba or protozoa evolves into yourself?

Also I agree that your truly lack in Faith. Mocking people and God shows that.

@trtp2,

"Maybe while your doing such advanced scientific studies you could show how an amoeba or protozoa evolves into yourself?"

No, I cannot show that... which is why evolution is a "theory" and not a "fact".

We look at evidence (all of the fossils of the extinct animals, carbon-dating, geological activity, DNA mutations, etc.) and come up with some plausible explanation to explain it all.

The THEORY of evolution is one such plausible explanation. And, it is a theory which has a large body of evidence, and a theory that at least partially can be observed and validated with experiments.

Here's the big difference... You never hear a biology teacher say, "Just trust me, have faith! I know it's true because it says so right here in this Biology Bible! See?"

Instead they say, "here are the skeletal structures that we have found, here are the common characteristics and how they have changed throughout the years... here's how carbon dating works, here's how DNA works... and this is why we think evolution makes sense."

You are free to go perform your own experiments, crunch your own numbers, dig your own fossils, etc. to try and prove or disprove your own theories.

You don't have any evidence or any experiments to prove your theory of "god did it".

The evidence you have is a book that is supposedly the "word of god" which says that god exists.

"Well, I can prove god is real because the bible says he is and he wrote the bible so everything in it is 100% true"

Do you honestly not see what a ridiculous thought that is?

The "proof" that god exists is a piece of paper that is only credible IF you already believe that god exists and is responsible for that piece of paper.

@B.V. -

Creationists also look at evidence (all of the fossils of the extinct animals, carbon-dating, geological activity, DNA mutations, etc.) and come up with some plausible explanation to explain it all.

Creation is one such plausible explanation. And, it is a has a large body of evidence that supports it if you so choose to look at it. It also can be partially observed and validated with experiments

Here's the big difference...Biology teachers say, "Just trust me, have faith, the Theory of Evolution is right and nothing else is plausible! I know it's true because it says so right here in this Biology Book! See?"

Instead they should say, "here are the skeletal structures that we have found that look to be designed, here are the common characteristics as if a common creator made them and how they have changed throughout the years... here's how carbon dating works now but is ultimately flawed as shown in numerous tests, here's how DNA works... and this is why we think creation makes sense."

You NEED to go perform your own experiments, crunch your own numbers, dig your own fossils, etc. to try and prove or disprove your own theories.

You don't have any evidence or any experiments to prove your theory of "god didn't do it".

The evidence you have is experiments and results based on what is seen NOW and not what happened in the past and is pieced together like a badly fitting jigsaw puzzle. It is supposedly "a Theory" which is always quoted and treated that it's the "Law of Evolution".

"Well, I can prove evolution is right because science says it is and scientists developed the Theory of Evolution so everything about it is 100% true"

Do you honestly not see what a ridiculous thought that is?

The "proof" that Evolution is true is a bunch of conclusions that is only credible IF you already believe that Evolution is true and god doesn't exist and random chance is responsible for your existence.

trpt2, what do you mean the perfect truth? you just pasted the direct quote. why did you then turn it into a "spiritual death"? that's a subjective interpretation of what the bible says, not literal. it does not say "spiritual death," it says "thou shalt surely die." there is no explanation of what a spiritual death would entail or that there is such a thing.

You originally said:

"It's always strange how Evolutionists can believe that life was created by Aliens or some random un-calculable chance. But the thought that God created the world in 7 days is somehow impossible?"

How can you uphold the bible as the literal history of the creation of the universe and humanity when you have to interpret it and add concepts like "spiritual death"? Either it's the divine word of a perfect god that should be taken word for word, or it's a bunch of inconsistent fables written by humans and has the same authority as mother goose nursery rhymes for children.

trpt2 says, "The "proof" that Evolution is true is a bunch of conclusions that is only credible IF you already believe that Evolution is true and god doesn't exist and random chance is responsible for your existence."

Ummm.... So where are you positioning yourself? The argument of "god is real because the bible says so, and the bible is the divine word of god, which says god is real, so god must be real" is not evidence.

@trtp,

"Creation is one such plausible explanation. And, it is a has a large body of evidence that supports it if you so choose to look at it. It also can be partially observed and validated with experiments"

What experiments can validate ANY part of "an invisible but all powerful being made it happen"?

I keep praying for god to make a cool new animal burst into existence in my "experimental box" but it doesn't happen... so please, explain your experiment which partially proves your theory of creationism...

--------

"Here's the big difference...Biology teachers say, "Just trust me, have faith, the Theory of Evolution is right and nothing else is plausible! I know it's true because it says so right here in this Biology Book! See?""

Uhm... no, they don't. Wait... have you ever been to a biology class?

-----------

"You don't have any evidence or any experiments to prove your theory of "god didn't do it"."

Ahh yes... the "prove it DIDN'T happen" argument. Okay, smartass... prove that I'm NOT GOD.

You can't? Okay then, I'm God because I say so. (And as God everything I say is true so therefore you have to believe me or I'll send you to hell when you die.)

Now, as God, I am telling you that I don't exist. Phew.

There, I proved it! ;)

---------

""Well, I can prove evolution is right because science says it is and scientists developed the Theory of Evolution so everything about it is 100% true"
Do you honestly not see what a ridiculous thought that is?"

I do see what a ridiculous thought that is... which is why I didn't say it... Hahaha!

I never said evolution is proven to be 100% true. I am only saying that if given the choice between a sensible argument for which there is tangible evidence such as natural selection / evolution and an argument for which there is no tangible evidence such as "some magical invisible guy did it" or "some super awesome aliens did it"... I'm inclined to subscribe to the theory with the most supporting evidence.

------

"The "proof" that Evolution is true is a bunch of conclusions that is only credible IF you already believe that Evolution is true and god doesn't exist and random chance is responsible for your existence."

No... once again... there is not proof that evolution is true. There is evidence to suggest it is very very likely... but it is not something that anyone has observed, nor replicated in an experiment, therefore it is NOT proven to be true.

(this is also stated in every biology book I have ever read).

Additionally... Darwin (you know, the guy who came up with the theory of evolution) was a devout Christian who DID think that god existed.

Also... how could he invent the theory of evolution if he had to believe it was true in order to think it was true???

In order to come up with the theory he already had to know the theory and believe it to be true???

Are you high dude? Are you following the insane mental gymnastics you are doing just to make your ridiculous arguments?

@B.V. & Roll - Clearly arguing any point with either of you is pointless as you refuse to do any research into the topic. Instead you misquote and use irrelevant, wild, and untrue statements.

If you truly wanted to know what experiments or research has been done about creation then you'd go and look for yourselves instead of claiming that they don't exist. I'm not going to list here all the research as I've already given the names and locations of where the information exists.

The Bible is like any other Adult, Complex, Detailed Book. You must read it, study the topic, and re-read it in order to form an understanding of it, this includes researching words, definitions, and various topics involved.. Last time I checked science books still have to be read that way too.

Darwin was not a true Christian, he was more an Agnostic, as he said himself. - "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

Creation is backed by science and scientists look at the lists I posted previously along with the various places information is found if you really want to learn more on the subject.

But if ignorance is bliss for you then I guess believing in a one Theory without researching the other Theory's would be your best bet.

@trtp2,

Believe me I've had plenty of "research" shoved in my face by religious family members. I even have 7 DVD's from Dr. Dino explaining all of the "science" behind creationism and evolution...

The problem is every single shred of "evidence" they reference is rooted in the bible.

It's like religious people don't realize that if one doesn't believe in gods, then they won't believe the "evidence" from a book supposedly written by the non-existent gods--that's the root of the problem.

You can't offer any evidence that there is a god if I ask you to do so without referencing the Bible / scriptures.

There are religious texts for other gods besides the judeo-christian one (like Apollo, Aphrodite, etc.)

There are myths and legends about the world being on the back of a giant tortoise, and so on and so forth.

Just because someone wrote down a myth on a piece of paper is not EVIDENCE that the myth is true.

Do you have any evidence about god existing that DOESN'T come from the Bible?

Here's some Technical Papers for anyone interested in doing some more in depth study.

www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=search&f_typeID=12
www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm
www.originsresource.org/

From another site;
1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
2. There is life on Earth now.
3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
18. The American public school system teaches that somehow the first living cell formed naturally and reproduced.
19. There is no known way in which the first living cell could have formed naturally.
20. The first living cell would have needed some mechanism for metabolism.
21. There is no known natural process by which metabolism could originate in a lifeless cell.
22. The first living cell would have to grow and reproduce for life to continue past the first cell’s death.
23. Growth and reproduction require cell division.
24. Cell division is a complex process.
25. There is no known natural process by which cell division could originate by chance.
26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
29. Single-celled organisms have a membrane which allows the cell to exchange some substances (“nutrients” and “waste”, for lack of better terms) with the environment.
30. Not all cells in larger multi-cellular organisms are in contact with the external environment.
31. Larger multi-cellular organisms need some method for the interior cells to exchange nutrients and waste with the external environment.
32. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including teeth, saliva, throat, stomach, and intestines) for absorbing nutrients from the environment.
33. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, intestines, heart, arteries, and veins) for distributing nutrients and oxygen to interior cells.
34. Very large multi-cellular animals require a complex system (typically including lungs, heart, arteries, veins, kidneys, and bladder) for removing waste from interior cells.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.
36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
40. According to the theory of evolution, some of the first vertebrates were fish, which have eyes and a brain connected by a nervous system.
41. There is no satisfactory explanation how optical elements (typically including a lens, an iris and light sensors) could have assembled themselves by any natural process.
42. There is no satisfactory explanation how image processing algorithms could have originated in a fish brain by any natural process.
43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
44. Mutations have been observed that increase or decrease the size of some portion (or portions) of a living organism.
45. Mutations have been observed that change the shape of a living organism.
46. Mutations have been observed that duplicate existing features (cows with two heads, flies with extra wings, etc.).
47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
50. Artificial selection enhances desired characteristics by removing genetic traits that inhibit the desired characteristics.
51. Artificial selection is more efficient than natural selection.
52. There are limits to the amount of change that can be produced by artificial selection.
53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
66. Sedimentary layers are formed in modern times by such things as floods, mudslides, and sandstorms.
67. The fossils in sedimentary layers formed in modern times contain the kinds of things living in that location.
68. The concept of geologic ages is based upon the evolutionary assumption that the kinds of fossils buried in sedimentary layers are determined by time rather than location.
69. All sedimentary layers formed in modern times are of the same geologic age, despite the fact that they contain different kinds of fossils.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.

trpt2, it seems as though you’re confusing "creationism" as being similar to science. it does help to recognize that creationism is not science, nor is it in the same family tree.

creationists seek to uphold an agenda by creating evidence for certain things based on a christian perspective of the bible as literal divine truth.

creationists, unlike scientists, are not concerned with the absolute pure pursuit of truth and knowledge. their whole reason for existing as a group is to build a case for defending their ideology, and it doesn’t matter what inconsistencies abound in the base point of their arguments (the bible).

christianity, islam and all other religions, are each one a drop in an infinite sea of possible explanations of where life came from, which can be created by the human mind. They all have the same likelihood of being true as anything you could create on the spot right now.

@ B.V. - If you can't see evidence of God in all of nature I'm not sure what "proof" would be needed to convince you? Have you ever looked at a nature in a microscope? The levels of engineering go down to the atomic level. I showed a picture of a to several Evolutionist friends and all of them thought it was a computer generated graphic or some other man made object. Clearly they all saw DESIGN in the image. Yet it was a mosquitoes heart. - www.futurity.org/science-technology/image-gets-to-heart-of-mosquito/

I see the proof everywhere of creation everywhere. You see it as impossible, and random chance as more plausible.

I found creation to be true without the Bible, through science and research, long before I was Christian. Maybe you've only seen the argument from the Biblical prospective and thus why you can't get past that.

@Roll - it seems as though you’re confusing "Evolution" as being the ONLY option. It does help to recognize that Evolution is not Law, nor is it in the only well researched Theory.

Evolutionists seek to uphold an agenda by creating evidence for certain things based on a Atheistic/Agnostic perspective of science as literal infallible truth.

Evolutionists, unlike creationists, are not concerned with the absolute pure pursuit of truth and knowledge. their whole reason for existing as a group is to build a case for defending their ideology, and it doesn’t matter what inconsistencies abound in the base point of their arguments (Darwinism).

Geology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Paleontology, are each one a drop in an infinite sea of possible fields within fields that try to define where life came from, all things to them are possible, even aliens, but one supreme all powerful God is not possible. They all have the same likelihood of being False as anything you could argue on the spot right now.

Not only does your list lack ANY references to peer-reviewed studies to prove it's "facts", but it is actually full of complete misinformation.

From another site;
1. Initially, the Earth was a lifeless planet.
---
Where is the proof for that? ;) Was the author of this list alive to witness the creation of the Earth and to know it was lifeless?

2. There is life on Earth now.
---

Define "life"

3. At some time in the past, life either originated on Earth, or came to Earth from outer space.
---
If you define life as nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, you could argue there has always been life on earth since it has been created.

4. Regardless of where or when life originated, it had to originate sometime, somewhere, somehow.
5. Life either originated by purely natural processes, or else some supernatural element must have been involved.
6. Science, as defined by the American public school system, excludes supernatural explanations.
7. Science depends upon the “Scientific Method” for determining truth.
8. The Scientific Method involves testing hypotheses using repeatable experiments.
9. If there is a scientific explanation for the origin of life, it must depend entirely on natural, repeatable processes.
10. If life originated by a natural process under certain specific conditions, it should be possible to create life again under the same conditions.
11. For more than 50 years scientists have tried to find conditions that produce life, without success.
---

First of all, the experiments which have tried to reproduce the conditions of the early Earth have had great success in creating amino acids which are vital for life.

Remember how the earth had like 3.5 BILLION years to combine chemicals under various conditions in order to create life?

You're really going to complain about a few experiments done in a tiny laboratory by humans who are basically making educated guesses about what the conditions of the earth might have been like?

Alright, give me a science lab the size of the earth and 3.5 BILLION years and I guarantee you I'll create some "life" for you seeing as how we've already created essential amino acids with just a brief experiment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

12. Fifty years of failed attempts to create life have raised more questions than answers about how life could have originated naturally.
---

blatant lie

13. Living things have been observed to die from natural processes, which can be repeated in a laboratory.
14. Life has never been observed to originate through any natural process.
15. “Abiogenesis” is the belief that life can originate from non-living substances through purely natural processes.
16. The theory of evolution depends upon abiogenesis as the starting point.
17. If the theory of abiogenesis is false, then the theory of evolution is false.
----

Complete lie.

The theory of evolution is about the origin of species... not about the origin of life.

Some life could have formed on an asteroid which crashed into the earth--the theory of evolution would still be applicable as it would explain the process by which this "seeding" of the planet led to such diversity of life as we see today.

18-25. All irrelevant B.S.

26. According to the theory of evolution, single-celled life forms evolved into multi-cellular life forms.
27. Multi-cellular life forms consist of an assembly of cells that have different functions.
28. There is no scientific explanation for how a single cell could or would naturally change function.
---

Another blatant lie. This process is known as "mutation" of the genetic code and then natural selection ensures cells mutated to their environment the most are the ones to survive.

29-34. More irrelevant B.S.
35. There is no satisfactory explanation how complex systems such as these could have originated by any natural process.

Yes there is. See above.

36. According to the theory of evolution, an invertebrate life-form evolved into the first vertebrate life-form.
37. Vertebrates have, by definition, a spine containing a nervous system.
38. The nervous system detects stimuli and reacts to them.
39. There is no satisfactory explanation for how the simplest nervous system could have originated by any natural process.
---

"Satisfactory" according to whom? This seems satisfactory to me: http://www.ibioseminars.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=211&Itemid=207

40-43. If the theory of evolution is true, then every characteristic of every living thing must be the result of a random mutation.
---

All of those are "irreducible complexity" arguments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Response_of_the_scientific_community

44-47. No mutation has ever been observed that provides a new function (sight, hearing, smell, lactation, etc.) in a living organism that did not previously have that function.
48. Cross-breeding and genetic engineering can transfer existing functionality from one living organism to another.
49. Cross-breeding cannot explain the origin of any new functionality in the first place.
----

Again, blatant lies. On this very website there was an article about a the fact that some people are immune to AIDS. How is this NOT a new feature due to genetic mutation?

Did someone crossbreed humans with another species that was already immune to aids to create this "freaky" new type of human?

There was another article on this website where scientists altered the genetic make up of fruit flies to make their nervous system sensitive to light instead of electrical charge and they could then them flap their wings by flashing them with light.

50-53. Mutation and artificial selection have not been demonstrated to be sufficient to bring about new life forms from existing ones.
-------

Define "new life form"?

This is complete rubbish since the point of evolution is that there is no obvious "speciation" between evolving organisms.

A bear doesn't give birth to a chihuahua... each offspring is very similar to the parent... but over time each incremental difference between offspring and parent results in a HUGE difference between the ancestral "beardog" and the common-day chihuahua.

54. Similarity of features is not definite proof of common ancestry.
55. Similarity of features is often observed in objects designed by man.
56. The fact that one individual was born later than another individual died is not proof that the later individual is a biological descendant of the earlier one, especially if they are of different species.
57. Many different human evolutionary trees have been proposed.
58. There is disagreement about hominid lineage because the “evidence” is meager and highly speculative.
------

Lots of irrelevant B.S. following by more B.S.

The evidence is anything but "meager" for hominid lineage...http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2cHumanevop2.shtml

59. Darwin was correct when he said, “Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us.” 2
60. Acquired characteristics are not inherited because they do not cause any change in the DNA.
61. Explanations for how apelike creatures evolved into humans are fanciful speculations without experimental confirmation.
----

Utter insanity. The DNA record is absolute proof of genetic similarity between apes and humans (who are in fact primates).

62. There is no evidence to suggest that offspring of animals that eat cooked food are smarter than offspring of the same species that eat raw food.
-----

What?!?!

How is this garbage relevant to anything? Are you trying to argue against the hypothesis that cooked food took less caloric energy to digest and therefore those who cooked their food were more efficient with their caloric uses, resulting in them having extra calories to burn in a hungry brain?

I believe there are many studies that show strenuous mental activity burns lots of calories.

63. There is no evidence to suggest that mental exercises performed by parents will increase the brain size of their children.
---

More irrelevant and utter B.S. Brain size??? It's 2011 dude! Go read a book about how brains work before you start arguing about "size".

64. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will increase the brain size of their children.
---

Irrelevant B.S. again.

65. There is no evidence that if apelike creatures sometimes stand upright to see over tall grasses, it will make it easier for their children to stand upright.
---

Complete misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution would state that a primate who had a genetic mutation which predisposed them to burn less calories while standing up to look over tall grasses might be more likely to survive and pass on that genetic predisposition which allows their offspring to stand up "easier".

You've got it backwards man! Genes don't mutate based on behaviors... behaviors and bodies change DUE to the genetic mutations!

66. Sedimentary...-69
-----

Just bad science and B.S.
70. Radiometric dating depends upon assumptions that cannot be verified about the initial concentrations of elements.
71. Radiometric dating of rocks brought back from the Moon is not a reliable method of determining the age of the Earth.
-----

Actually, yeah, it is pretty reliable if you can do some math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating

72. “Dark matter” and “dark energy” were postulated to explain why astronomical measurements don’t match predictions of the Big Bang theory.
---

Complete B.S. and completely irrelevant...

"Dark matter was postulated by Fritz Zwicky in 1934 to account for evidence of "missing mass" in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Nothing to do with the Big Bang "predictions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

73. When measurements don’t agree with theoretical predictions, it is generally because the theory was wrong.
---

They are just now at a point in technological advancement where they can start trying to measure WIMPs and re-create conditions of the big bang in the LHC...

74. “We didn’t see it happen, we can’t make it happen again, and we don’t know how it could possibly have happened, but it must have happened somehow!” is never a satisfactory scientific explanation.
---

Which is exactly why "god did it" is a completely insane "theory"...

75. Public schools should not teach any fanciful speculation that is inconsistent with experimentally verified laws as if it were true.
---

Which is why they should not teach "creationism"...

@trtp,

"If you can't see evidence of God in all of nature I'm not sure what "proof" would be needed to convince you?"

The only thing I see in this "evidence" of "structured nature" is that the human brain has an amazing capacity to recognize and distinguish patterns in the world around it.

Quite likely, this ability to recognize complex patterns and systems was vital to our survival and prosperity since it allowed us to deduct vital information such as when to plant crops, when to harvest them, how to hunt and track animals, and how to predict the behavior of other humans based on past interactions, etc.

Sorry, "noticing patterns in nature" is evidence for evolution, not God. ;)

How about you do a really simple test and get God to design something from scratch and on the spot right here and right now so I can observe him intelligently designing a completely new and amazing organism.

That would be proof.

Seeing "designs" doesn't prove there is a god any more so than seeing similar skeletal structures proves evolution.

@trtp,

"Evolutionists seek to uphold an agenda by creating evidence for certain things based on a Atheistic/Agnostic perspective of science as literal infallible truth."

Science has no agenda other than "truth".

That's the point. The church tells you "what we say is absolute truth"...

Science tells you, "what we say is our best understanding of the world as we know it today."

That's why science is constantly changing and evolving and improving...

If science was like religion and tried upholding specific agendas we'd all still think the earth was flat, that heavy stuff fell faster than light stuff, and that we were the center of the universe.

However science doesn't care about agendas, or hurting feelings, or shattering preconceptions about reality... it only chases after "truth".

@B.V. - Your arguments have a response to them already but thanks for taking the time to include so little detail and facts behind your arguments.

www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v13i10f.htm
www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i7u.htm
www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v13i4f.htm
www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v13i5f.htm

Where the Seventy Five Points came from;
What is Evolution?

Since there are many definitions of “evolution,” some of which describe actual scientific processes, we must begin by making it clear that the only evolutionary process we are talking about is the controversial one taught in American public schools. A famous court case regarding whether or not evolution can be taught in public schools used the following six-part definition of “the theory of evolution.”

1. Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife;
2. The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
3. Emergence by mutation and natural selection of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds;
4. Emergence of man from a common ancestor with apes;
5. Explanation of the earth's geology and the evolutionary sequence by uniformitarianism; and
6. An inception several billion years ago of the earth and somewhat later of life. 1

This is what we are talking about when we talk about “evolution.” This is not the same process as the evolution of the Model T Ford into a Ford Mustang. It is not the same process as breeding horses or corn. When we talk about evolution, we are talking about what children are taught in the public schools regarding the origin and transformation of life on Earth.

www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v12i6f.htm

@B.V. - Designs are not the same as Design. It's annoying how you try to twist everything and change the context. It's clearly meant to say that things in nature have a clear design to them as if constructed by an intelligent force. Not that we see pretty designs in things. Don't be foolish.

Do I need to now go and research all the scientists that have lied throughout the years about various studies and findings? Give me a break about science being "truthful". Next you'll start saying the Drug Companies and the FDA always tell us truth. Or global warming scientist always tell the truth. That no fossils have ever been forged. The list can go on forever about the liars in the world. That goes for both sides of the argument.

trpt2 said: "@rolloutthebarrel - G:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."KJV Seems to me that he told the perfect truth."Adam and Eve died and did not die. They died spiritually: they were removed from a place where they had direct contact with God, and could not go back. They did not experience immediate physical death, but they did eventually die; it may be that the process of aging and decay started on the day they ate the fruit.""

trpt2, you said in response to me saying god lied to adam and eve, "it may be that the process of aging and decay started on the day they ate the fruit" In stating that, you are implying that they would be living forever with god in paradise otherwise. Yet the bible says this:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

So god was worried that along with gaining the knowledge of good and evil, which according to god made man "one of us" and he thought next he would eat the other fruit and live forever. And he couldn't have that. That's competition.

It seems as though god wanted humans to die in the first place. There was never a plan to let humans live forever. The bible pretty much proves your response false. god lied to adam and eve. They were going to die anyways. He said the fruit would kill them to scare them away from eating it. There was nothing about a spiritual death, or a warning of what would happen. Just thou shalt surely die.

By the way, what's with the "One of us"? Were there multiple gods? Or does god just suffer from talking in the 3rd person?

@rolloutthebarrel,

"By the way, what's with the "One of us"? Were there multiple gods? Or does god just suffer from talking in the 3rd person?"

HAHAHA!

No, it's just proof that he really IS the father, the son, and the holy ghost ;)

If it's not the incestual and necrophiliac three-way sausage-fest explanation, perhaps it's cause he's so important that he must use the royal "we" :D

@trtp,

"Your arguments have a response to them already but thanks for taking the time to include so little detail and facts behind your arguments"

I think I've included plenty of links to sources of details... except my sources are reputable scientists while your source is some random website which looks like it was thrown together in about 10 minutes using Microsoft FrontPage 1995...

Or am I the only one who hasn't heard of the well-reputed "ridgenet.net" scientific organization, and "Do-While Jones"... or is that "Dr. Do-While Jones?"

Maybe next you could link me to a youtube video of your neighbor repeating the same B.S. you spout?

@trtp,

" Designs are not the same as Design. It's annoying how you try to twist everything and change the context. It's clearly meant to say that things in nature have a clear design to them as if constructed by an intelligent force. Not that we see pretty designs in things. Don't be foolish."

So, your argument is "here are some designs I noticed... CLEARLY since I am so intelligent and I noticed them, it must mean someone at least as intelligent as me must have created them in the first place!"

I see no clear "design" to things in nature... in fact I see LOTS of very terrible and kludgey things thrown together to be "good enough" but not ever being truly perfect...

So, if there was an "intelligent designer" he must have been a moron for designing a human eye which has a big old blindspot in it and then designing another, much better eye for stupid cephalopods: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye#Evolutionary_baggage

Doesn't the bible say he created cephalopods before he created man?

Why was he so retarded that he made a GOOD eye for cephalopods first... and then when making man, instead of using that already awesome design, he decided to instead go with a new and crappier version?

Oh right, I forgot, "god works in mysterious ways... your piece of crap eye with it's blindspot is all part of his divine plan for you"

Or maybe "it's the punishment god gave man for eating that damn forbidden fruit"

What stupid excuse are you going to come up with to argue against the obvious evidence EVERYWHERE IN NATURE about the LACK of intelligent design in all of the flawed biological systems?

@trtp,

"Do I need to now go and research all the scientists that have lied throughout the years about various studies and findings? Give me a break about science being "truthful". "

There is a difference between "science" and "scientists".

Science is only concerned with truth--scientists have many other concerns such as employment, grants, reputation, etc.

In science, if I say "the world is flat!" and you can come up with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to show that I'm wrong, that's just fine.

In religion there is no such thing as "new evidence" to change old ideas. That's why it's stagnant and outdated.

I can't just run to the Pope and say, "Oh dude! Last night god told me that he's actually a chick! He also told me from now on everyone should say 'the mother, the son, and the holy burrito' because he has an inside joke about burrito's with one of the angels and it's really funny!"

The Pope would tell me I'm being blasphemous and going to hell for spreading lies and being a heretic.

-----------

Also, you seem to have this whole conspiracy theory about how scientists are all agnostics and atheists who are just trying to spread their lies to trick people into not believing in god.

Why the hell would we care? So then we can get you to donate 10% of your paycheck to buy some "atheism" memorabilia? Maybe donate some money for a new atheism cathedral? Because the atheist pope needs a new golden hat? Or to buy some fresh child sex slaves?

What "scam" are all of the non-religious people trying to pull on all of the superstitious nutjobs that we'd spend so much time coming up with elaborate lies like "evolution" and "the big bang" and whatever else you find contradictory to the bible and therefore "false"?

Oh yeah, we must all be agents of The Dark Father, Satan, who are sent here to test your faith and try to steal your soul to burn in hellfire and blah blah blah

*rolls eyes*

@B.V. & Roll - The very immature nature of your responses could very well be proof that you did indeed evolve from apes.

@B.V. - You said - "I think I've included plenty of links to sources of details... except my sources are reputable scientists"

Wiki issn't actually known as the best reputable source, it's good for general info but not to bet all you money on. One of the other 2 links you have is Berkley, which their website is funded by the anti Creation Group the National Center for Science Education so no surprise they'd be a slight bit biased.

Here's some more real Scientists which can better argue the point then me or you 2 primates could.

Full List - www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Stephen J. Vinay III, Chemical Engineering
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

My final thoughts come from elsewhere;

"Francis H.C. Crick, co-originator of
the structure of DNA, put the argument
more specifically: the chances that the long
polymer molecules that vitally sustain all
living things, both proteins and DNA, could
have been assembled by random processes
from the chemical units of which they are
made are so small as to be negligible Ö ."

John Maddox -What Remains to be Discovered

May God forgive you for your mockery and foolishness.

trtp,

Only 8 of those Ph.D's you list are actually in fields possibly relevant to areas that would study evolutionary processes.

(and I have no idea from what time period those names are pulled)

You claim that the National Center for Science Education is an anti-creation group and therefore it's science is biased...

LOL. Okay... please describe again for everyone WHY there would be a need to have an anti-creationism group.

I'm pretty sure it's the religious con-artists who have been scamming the morons out of money and time for thousands of years now by claiming an all-powerful entity needs $$$ and volunteer hours to feed the hungry, and build diamond-clad places of worship, and golden silk robes for the priests.

Hey, I understand. If my quality of life depended on a bunch of dumb-dumbs handing over 10% of their earnings "for the lord" I'd be pretty pissed off if someone else came along and suddenly claimed that there probably wasn't any "lord" in existence.

It's not atheists who have a reason to lie about god... it's your religious leaders who would be out of a job if everyone was an atheist/agnostic.

And finally, don't worry about god forgiving me.

Remember, I already "proved" I was god because I claimed I was and you couldn't PROVE that I wasn't.

So... I, as god, have already forgiven myself. (And have sentenced you to purgatory unless you shave your eyebrows off tomorrow).

Cheers!

@B.V. - I don't need to prove your not God since if you we're really God or even Godlike you would have been able to easily disprove Creation. Your rants about money going to the church are very well thought out and backed by such great facts. You need to stop focusing on only the bad apples though since many churches have pastors that don't have fancy cars, homes, and toys. If your referring to the Catholic church and such then I would tend to agree there. But When you say Religious Con artists you need to really narrow that down. Since many Churches like mine and most in my community spend far more money helping people then they do on buying golden robes or diamond palaces.

Also here are yet even more scientists, who believe in and do research into Creation, for the reading and research challenged primates. The point isn't to say all these scientist are researching Creation, but to point out that far more intelligent people then you believe in something you claim can't be proved. Look some of them up I'm sure 1 or 2 are still alive and from the 1900's at least.

Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology

If you don't need to disprove my Divinity, I don't need to disprove "creationism".

(since if it made any sense, I would already have believed it)

See how that argument works?

My "rants" about money going to the church stem from a very logical skepticism:

Why does a supreme being who is all-powerful need human agents and material support?

If god is so great and powerful, shouldn't he just fart churches into existence? Or maybe let mana fall from the heavens to feed the hungry? Let water burst forth from rocks to quench the thirst of the 1+ billion people without access to clean water in the world today?

All of those "miracles" and MORE all happen in the bible... and yet your "god" of today somehow needs handouts from sinful humans to help the less-fortunate?

What's up with that?

Finally, regarding your lists of "doctors" and "scientists"...

It's YOUR job to provide reputable sources for the "evidence" you present.

I'm not going to do your job for you and waste hours researching random names with a "Dr." in front of them to see if they are still alive, or sane, or relevant to today's world.

But, that's the typical mindset of a lazy creationist--"Here is some B.S. I spouted... now go do work to prove me wrong! If you don't/can't, then I must be right!"

@B.V. - Your way off base. Try to use a little common sense.

The list I provided is to show you that they're are real scientists involved in creation research and who believe in it. I did my job providing you with the list of these people. It's YOUR job to get off your high horse and actually look into these people. I obviously can't list each of these individuals biographies here, along with any papers or research they've done, as the space is limited. The names aren't random, they're from a list that's updated regularly.

Even if I did the research for you I don't think you would be able to understand it and would call it B.S.. No matter what was shown to you I don't think your Eyes can see it and your Ears can't hear it. Only your mouth would complain about and would lack a brain to control it.

The problem with your list is that when I search for the first name on the list:

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS368US368&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Dr.+Andrew+Bosanquet,+Biology,+Microbiology

The results are NOT scientific studies, university pages, or books or articles published by that "Dr."

The results are pages where people ask on Yahoo answers for "a list of prominent supporters of creationism."

So... the name is famous for existing on a list of people who are famous for supporting creationism? WOW! How impressive!

Now, if I google "Richard Dawkins" I don't find a list for "Prominent atheists"--instead I find an actual body of work. Biographies, foundations, book results, press coverage, articles, opinion columns, etc.

So.. please, I'd love to "look into these people"... except they seem to only exist on lists like the one you posted.

Trpt2 says, "Your way off base. Try to use a little common sense."

trpt2, forget common sense and try thinking critically for a change.

Creationists are trying to prove creation, and creation is the biblical account of the creation of the universe in 7 days according to the book of genesis. Who cares about the work being done in the creation field if the philosophy has no consistent foundation? You can’t even respond to the arguments I’ve posed without labeling me as immature and that I’m somehow twisting the words of the bible.

Care to offer any thoughts of your own to support the holy guidebook, other than “here’s a list of experts that you should read”?

@B.V. - And you call me Lazy???

Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology - www.caltri.org/clinicians.htm

Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology - creation.com/dr-robert-carter-cv

Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology - creation.com/dr-robert-carter-cv

Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience - creation.com/dr-david-dewitt

That's just a sampling if you actually do more then Google.

@Roll - You don't need the bible to see that evolution isn't possible. You need Eye and Ears, and a brain. I was an Evolution believer for 28yrs or more, then actually did some research and study. Maybe you should do the same instead of arguing pointless thoughts.

You are twisting the bible and you are taking things out of context. I don't have the time or space in the forum to open your eyes if you can't see that.

trpt2, that is the best way to probably handle this. Pretend that I'm somehow incapable of understanding what you're talking about; that I've never read up on anything to do with evolution or religion, and am just swallowing what the scientist puppet masters want me to.

Never mind that you can't even respond to my arguments, or that I destroyed your one response to the idea that god lied to adam and eve and the bible's morals are based on lies, and I even used the bible to prove your thoughts on the matter were false.

See if you can comprehend this, and reply with anything other than the same old "you don't get it" argument:

Asking questions about the legitimacy of the bible as the supreme guidebook to life, and pointing out certain inconsistencies in what is supposed to be an omniscient entity isn't twisting the bible or taking things out of context. If the bible can't stand up to simple scrutiny, why should it be taken seriously as the legitimate "truth" to the mysterious nature of life?

trtp,

I found the Bath Research Center also when I Googled the first guy--but seeing as how it had nothing to do with "creationism" I wasn't sure if it was the same guy.

I can pull out names from a phone book and tell you they are all scientists who exist and support creationism, and then send you a link to their listing in the phone book.

Just cause they exist doesn't mean they support creationism or are respected by their peers.

The other people you put up, from creation.com... Seriously? Creation.com is your unbiased scientific source?

Being fair (and balanced, like Fox News), I decided to look through the "arguments" these learned professionals put forth about why creationism is obviously real.

The argument is an old one--that everything is just too complicated to have occurred naturally and therefore god must have did it.

Sorry to tell you, but that's not "evidence" or proof of god's existence.

Even if everyone accepted the "it's really complicated" argument... you could reinterpret that "data" in a plethora of ways.

Maybe Lord Xenu made it so complicated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu). Maybe multiple Gods made it (Greek pantheism).

If you think that it's too complicated for evolution to have been responsible, that doesn't mean that the only other alternative is that the Bible is right and the Judeo-Christian God must exist and must have done it.

But honestly... "it's just so gosh darn complicated!" sounds like an argument coming from someone who is simple-minded and impressed by things which aren't actually that complex.

(Also, all you've done is latch one to your list of "experts" and have completely ignored all of the other points I have made about just how stupid creationism is and what a huge scam religion is).

@roll - If your eyes are open you should be able to read and understand.

www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/257/Did-God-Lie-Adam-Eve-Genesis-217.htm

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/03/09/satan-the-fall-good-evil-why-didnt-adam-die-instantly

www.picturesofsilver.com/abundantly/abundantly03-02.htm

www.plainbibleteaching.com/2009/12/21/how-much-does-god-hate-sin/

bible.cc/genesis/2-17.htm

trtp,

Your punishment for doubting or denying that I am God will be to surely die (you know, because your telomeres degrade to the point where your cells can't replicate anymore). Once this happens, my "death sentence" for your sin will have been carried out.

So, consider yourself a dead man for doubting me, your true God.

Not only that, but all of your children shall surely die for this original sin of doubting me as well!

Even if your kids accept me as God, they will still die from their first death... but, then I'll reward them with a completely unprovable eternal life...

((and don't ask me why I won't just reward them with eternal life her and now where everyone could see it as proof of my powers, because I work in mysterious ways and you'd never understand my will--and I'll send you to hell once you're dead if you keep asking blasphemous stuff like that!!!))

@B.V. - Saying and implying things that I didn't doesn't make you seem very smart or reputable yourself.

Using the Creation website wasn't meant to be non-biased it was meant to show you the information about those people. Trying to judge them based on number of published articles you can find via Google is your mistake. No one is pulling names from a phone book. If you seriously cared you could contact any of those on the list you could find information on. Then ask them yourself what they think and you can argue with someone different each day.

If Creationism is so stupid then why do you keep spending so much time trying to prove your own un-provable beliefs?

I can't make you see my points, or understand the bible. If you don't get it then I'm not going to be able to convince you here that's for certain.

Your utterly ignoring the research work done on creation from a non biblical standpoint. You ignore the results that say evolution and something from nothing by chance doesn't work.

Your clearly not reading anything but what supports your point of view and ignoring anything else.

Matthew 13:13(NKJV)

13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

trtp,

I've NEVER claimed that evolution is fact. I've always maintained it is a theory that is the most logical out of all of the theories I've heard so far in my life.

IF and WHEN I hear another theory that makes more sense than evolution, I'll easily reject evolution as nonsense and claim that the new theory is the most probable one.

All I am arguing for is that there is absolutely no such thing as "research" or "evidence" on creationism because it is a "theory" that deals with completely supernatural explanations. Explanations that BY DEFINITION cannot have any evidence to support them.

If all kinds of weird supernatural stuff happened in my life all the time (like food raining from the sky, water bursting from rocks, puddles of water defying gravity and parting in my way)... maybe then I'd be open to believing your nonsense.

However, there is NO EVIDENCE of such things happening... therefore no evidence of your imperceptible god, or creationism.

You don't just "win by default" because human science hasn't been able to fully reproduce 3.5 billion years of chemistry and physics in a test tube for you.

Lack of evidence, is not evidence to the contrary.

For this reason, I am also NOT an atheist--I am agnostic. I don't know if there is or isn't a "spirit world" or some other plane of existence that is completely inaccessible to us.

But I don't claim that somehow because you can't disprove my own spiritual beliefs (that I am the one true God) that they MUST be right--which is what creationists do.

Here's my input on God and religion:

Adults with imaginary friends are stupid.

@B.V. - Some of the Evidence you seem to never find.

static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Age-of-Earths-Atmosphere-by-its-Helium-Content.pdf

static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Cause-of-Anomalous-Potassium-Argon-Ages.pdf

static.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Runaway-Subduction-the-Driving-Mechanism-for-the-Genesis-Flood.pdf

www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/44/44_1/Lichens.htm

www.icr.org/article/life-cycles-trematodes/

Varied Sources with varied opinions on the topic.
www.nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html

trtp,

AGAIN--this is what you don't get:

Even if you COULD prove that evolution is false... you would still FAIL to prove that creationism is true.

All you keep sending out is "science" from Creationism advocates that seems to argue against the mainstream beliefs of science.

I have no problem with this.

If someone publishes a paper arguing the earth can't be billions of years old because of XYZ--that's great! That's scientific discourse.

His peers will review his arguments, data, and methods and publish a response.

However--arguments contrary to evolution are NOT evidence "for" creationism.

Evidence for creationism would be repeatable experimental observations of new animals bursting into existence from nothing.

Go find me some of THAT evidence for your creationist theory...

Every time science says, "I don't know" you seem to glibly jump up and down and chant, "I know, I know! God did it!"

Guess what? "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer because it's "the truth."

"God did it" is a completely unacceptable answer because it requires delusion--oh, sorry, "faith".

Why am I fat? sick? tall? pregnant? reading this? Why anything?

God did it.

The "god did it" answer is not only complete B.S., but it is completely useless to us.

Do us all a favor... go to a corner in your house, get on your knees for jesus, and then pray until you die from dehydration and "go to heaven" and leave the rest of us heathens here on earth and in peace.

Oh sorry, substitute "you die from dehydration" with "God decides you're holy enough to join him in heaven"

;)

@B.V. - You have serious issues that can't be dealt with here.

You're right... I have a terminal case of logic and a severe allergy to B.S.

BTW, in Hinduism, something called "Purusha" (the active cause) and "Prakrti" (the passive nature) bring everything into existence.

Do you have any proof that this isn't true?

It seems that Purusha and Prakrti are just as unprovable (and according to your logic obviously true) as the Judeo-Christian God--and yet both claim to explain how the world came to be.

How's that work? Two completely different and yet identically unprovable "theories" to explain existence?

Knock yourself out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purusha http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prakriti

@B.V. - It sounds like you described the Theory of Evolution there, essentially Unprovable. All it's studies and research are essentially arguments against creation.

trtp,

By definition, a THEORY is not something proven. So... yes, evolution is unproven... and at this point in science it is unprovable (since we can't send someone with a chemistry set to a planet with no life so he can dump a bunch of chemicals on it and wait 3.5 billion years to see if life evolves).

However, the THEORY of evolution is based on FACTS that are observable.

The "theory" of "god did it" is based on no real facts--it is based on "faith" in an imperceptible, supernatural entity.

The "theory" of "the active cause and the passive nature did it" is based on no real facts--it is based on "faith" in an imperceptible, supernatural force.

That's why faith-based "theories" are all equally likely if you think about them from an unbiased perspective.

Since all of them are equally likely, and equally unprovable... you can ONLY select one to believe in yourself because you have been biased.

This is why you cling to creationism; you are biased by your Christian beliefs. I could have the same conversation with a Hindu who would be arguing that its obvious his mythology is true.

In reality all mythologies are equally likely to be true--and equally likely to be false.

They are more likely to be FALSE than the theory of evolution.

@B.V. - Clearly you have a bias toward Evolution because of your Faith in Science. Regardless of what research you read about Evolution not making any sense, and that the earth isn't millions or billions of years old, you regard it as nonsense. That is because of your Bias toward believing the one Theory you see as the only one that could be correct.

The research into creation isn't always influenced by the bible. There's actual scientific data in the research not bible scripture. If you'd actually read these research papers maybe you'd change your opinions or at least see that real scientists are researching and disputing Evolution and the idea of Random Chance Existence.

trpt2, open my eyes to what? you posted links to a bunch of opinions and speculation. there is no evidence to support their claims other than what they can piece together from other sections of the bible.

@Roll - The reports have actual real scientific data in them. Are you sure you read it, do you even understand the terms and science involved? Are you a scientist? Do you understand that part of science is opinion? Before trying to discredit the science and intelligence behind something you must actually be intelligent enough to read and understand it.

Here's something I'm sure you and B.V. agree with though.

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." - Richard Lewontin

"Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology." - Stephen Jay Gould

@B.V. - With regards to the Bible, anything that is said in any dissertation on various subject matter from the bible is going to be only OPINION. Other then ding and in depth analysis of the original text so that one understands the language, context, and meaning of a given verse what more could someone do to prove what was meant? The posts I gave you do that and explain why it means what it does. You unfortunately are not able to see that.

If you ask a question about the meaning of scripture don't you think the answer would come from the scripture and various ancient texts about the bible itself? Where would you like them to piece together your answer from?

trpt2, I'm going to go out on a limb here and ask... do *you* understand what science is? The entire time you've been on here, you've been railing against science and the scientific method for understanding evolution and the physical world. And yet you keep exclaiming how there is REAL science to creationism, when the ideology itself is based on emotional reasoning and a bronze age cultural understanding of the world. How does "science" with **no evidence** correctly support creationism and the bible, and yet the science to support evolution, with actual evidence, is hokum?

Do you understand that there are no tests for god? There is no science in those reports you pasted because they are opinion, and based on the speculation that the bible is a book delivered from supernatural forces.

You're also putting up quotes about our understanding of the world being based on social preconceptions. That is exactly what scientific research helps wipe away. Anyone can pick up the experiments and draw the same conclusions, or else it wouldn't be an accepted theory. It has nothing to do with one's cultural upbringing or emotional reasoning.

The reason the bible fails to stand up to scientific study is that it can't be proven true or false. Anyone can write their opinions on what they think the passages mean by using other text in the bible to justify it. Just because I can justify slavery as acceptable by using verses in the bible doesn't make it science or correct.

@Roll - It seems you're reading from a different forum and different research papers.

I've explained more then once that the Science behind creation is the same as the "science" behind evolution. In both the research scientists are doing involve studying and measuring and coming to conclusions based on that information. You clearly don't know what Science is!

Why do you think God and the Bible are part of all these experiments. What does Helium and the Age of the Earth have to do with either? If a scientist takes some measurements and observations and then based on those concludes that the earth is X years old, then what makes that not science? If a different scientist does the same thing and says NO it's Z years old then it's still science.

Also if you bothered to read and research you'd know that those last quotes were from Evolutionists, and not creationists. So clearly both say that Opinion is part of science along with Bias and lies.

I'm not you see a difference between the Bible and the Theory of Evolution by your own definition. Neither can be proved True or False. So then anything about Evolution is all opinions and not science?

Here's a critique of the RATE project which attempts to use helium to explain the age of the universe:

http://orgs.usd.edu/esci/age/content/creationist_clocks/helium.html

It seems as though the methodology used to get those results was faulty.

@Roll - Thanks for pointing out that great rebuttal. I don't believe that my link regarding Helium mentions the RATE project as the study I linked was done about 10yrs prior. But as happens in science studies, the results get updated, disputed, and changed. This is true for Evolutionist and Creationists alike.

"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents, the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists’ and astronomers’ as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts, i.e., of Materialism and Astronomy are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents." CS Lewis

trtp,

"If a scientist takes some measurements and observations and then based on those concludes that the earth is X years old, then what makes that not science? If a different scientist does the same thing and says NO it's Z years old then it's still science."

YES.

I agree with you 100%!

However, that is NOT evidence "for creationism".

That's what I've been trying to explain--scientific experiments, empirical studies, etc. are all science.

However, there is a logical chasm between "hmmm, my helium study seems to suggest the earth is not billions of years old" and "my helium study seems to suggest there is a god, and he is the Christian god, and the bible is 100% accurate"

Creationists have no problem jumping over this chasm and making that assumption--a real scientist would NEVER just make the jump to creationism.

Scientist: "Hmmm, my data suggests the earth to not be billions of years old. I don't know why."

Christian Creationist: "Hmmm, my data suggests the earth to not be billions of years old. Because god made it 6,000 years ago."

Hindu : "Hmmm, my data suggests that stuff exists. Because Purusha and Prakrti made it so."

See the difference?

Science gives the answer "I don't know how/why" while mythology-believers jump to their own biased conclusions.

That's why I say it's impossible to have evidence FOR CREATIONISM--because it's impossible to create empirical data which suggests the existence of god.

The "evidence" you keep pointing out is NOT evidence for creationism, or Christianity, or Hinduism.

If you said, "I have some evidence which suggests the earth is very young"--I'd have no problem with that statement.

You claim, "I have evidence that god exists!"

Which is a complete delusion.

I prefer this:

“It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink
spread. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And as it gets out on the edge, the
little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see? So in the
same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I,
sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe
of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it. Very interesting.
So we define ourselves as being only that. If you think that you are only inside your
skin, you define yourself as one very complicated little curlicue, way out on the edge of
that explosion. Way out in space, and way out in time. Billions of years ago, you were a
big bang, but now you're a complicated human being. And then we cut ourselves off, and
don't feel that we're still the big bang. But you are. Depends how you define yourself.
You are actually--if this is the way things started, if there was a big bang in the
beginning-- you're not something that's a result of the big bang. You're not something
that is a sort of puppet on the end of the process. You are still the process. You are
the big bang, the original force of the universe, coming on as whoever you are. When
I meet you, I see not just what you define yourself as--Mr so-and- so, Ms so-and-so,
Mrs so-and-so--I see every one of you as the primordial energy of the universe coming
on at me in this particular way. I know I'm that, too. But we've learned to define
ourselves as separate from it.”
– Alan Watts - http://deoxy.org/w_nature.htm

wow, that didn't show up at all like the preview... my bad. :P

@B.V. You still argue my arguments with your same argument over and over. Claiming that I say God exists because I don't believe in Random Chance Existence. Or that the evidence I present is somehow less then the evidence an Evolutionist scientists presents.

To change what you said, - However, there is a logical chasm between "hmmm, my helium study seems to suggest the earth is billions of years old" and "my helium study seems to suggest there is no god and we happened by random chance and evolved from organic chemicals and that's 100% correct.

"In practice, the growing body of evidence does not fit Darwin’s theory at all. In particular, the genetic code shows abundant evidence of design and the application of supreme intelligence right at the beginning. The observable phenomenon of genetic entropy (continual accumulation of genetic errors through mutations) falsifies Darwinian evolution because it reveals an inexorable loss of genetic information and not a gain, the latter being essential for evolution to work."

"However, evolution requires an ever increasing amount of information added to the genome for a simple organism to change into a more complex one. The problem is, such an increase of information has never been indisputably demonstrated to occur through natural processes. In particular, mutations, being accidental changes, are incapable of creating the type of information needed to specify the multitude of new complex biochemical machines that are necessary to change microbes into mankind. Information has only ever been observed to come from an intelligent source."

"Science is based on observable, repeatable experiments. This means that science is conducted in the present and not the past. Forensic science seeks to reconstruct the past based on the observable evidence in the present, but there is always uncertainty because the events were not observed, which of course, is the key ingredient to a good detective story. Evolution is not testable because we cannot observe the past. But, by the same logic, neither is creation testable. What we have is two conflicting beliefs about history, so the challenge is to determine which version of history best fits our observations so we have a reasonable basis for what we choose to believe."

"We actually have faith in untestable propositions every day of our lives. Rather than being based on lack of knowledge, our faith is usually based on very real experience. For instance, as you read this response, it is likely you will be sitting in a room which will be part of a larger building. Can you see the architect and the builder? Have you met them? How do you know they exist? You know the building had a designer and a builder because in your experience you observe that buildings do not make themselves. They all have a designer and builder. So, you believe by faith that the designer and builder exist, or have existed, because the building exists and your faith is based on knowledge. But the existence of the designer and builder is not scientifically testable! It would be irrational to assume there was no designer or builder just because you can’t observe them right now."

"It seems you have accepted the myth that science is about reality and the Bible is about beliefs. The reality is that this debate is not about science versus religion but about the conflict of two different religions—evolution and creation."

Definition of Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

trpt2, I'm sorry but that building designer analogy is pretty weak sauce. The existence of the designer and builder can be scientifically testable in many present day situations. The building I currently work in was built around 5 years ago. There is a management office with all of the plans, records and permits, not to mention I could easily find the architect with a little legwork, and talk to the contractors who poured the foundation, all the way to the people who installed the windows.

In the same way it’s irrational to assume there is no architect of my building because I can’t see him at my desk right now, it would be just as foolish to state in ignorance, “Well, my friend Ted designed this building. I know he did because this is how Ted makes buildings. With walls, floors, ceilings and windows.” I don’t know if he designed this building because I haven’t looked into it. But I’m not going to pretend I know the answer of who built it without finding verifiable data. Why would I make up an answer when I truly know that _I do not know_? Why would I listen to my co-worker next door who doesn’t know the actual answer either? I wouldn’t. If I really wanted to know, I would try to find ways of discovering the answer. If I never found evidence that could be verified, then I still wouldn’t make up an answer. I just wouldn’t know, and that would be completely acceptable.

@B.V. - I can partially agree that the analogy may not work for some people. But remember it was only meant to make a point not to scientifically prove something, it was only an analogy.

Maybe they should have said Stonehenge instead? We look at that and know it was designed and built. Do we know for sure who built it? No. Do we know how? No? Can we scientifically prove it was built? Probably, by seeing the tool marks and inferring it was carved, etc.... But we have no way of currently knowing Who built it. But we use our brains and make and educated assumption that humans built it many years ago.

Not much different then saying things of nature look to be designed and thus must have a designer. At least for me that works.

trtp2 says: "But we have no way of currently knowing Who built it. But we use our brains and make and educated assumption that humans built it many years ago.
Not much different then saying things of nature look to be designed and thus must have a designer. At least for me that works."

Imagine, if you will, the victims of Bernie Madoff’s ponzi scheme. They assumed it was a legitimate financial operation. They saw that other people were giving Madoff their money and he was giving them excellent returns on their investments. This went on for years. The people also knew there were federal regulators watching over the whole thing and had trust in the system they had invested in.

And all of a sudden, after many successful years, the scheme blew up in Madoff’s face and the world found out. The investors, who were quite happy to get money without knowing exactly where it was coming from were now being told their retirement funds were gone, that the whole thing was smoke and mirrors BS. When it was revealed that there was no real investment fund, that it was just new investor money used to pay off old investors, no one could believe it.! It had all seemed so plausible!

This is why assumptions are referred to as the mother of all f--k ups. Just because it feels like it’s true to our emotional reasoning doesn’t mean it always is.

Science and the scientific method help to dispel false cultural myths and assumptions, such as the earth being flat. When methods of figuring out how to gather and present evidence that the earth was actually spherical came to be, they were shot down by the religious authority of the time. It seems like it’s flat, and that was good enough for the ignorant church leaders of the day. We now know this to be false, even though most of us haven’t flown in a space shuttle to observe the sphere shape of the planet for ourselves. There is enough credible evidence that can be peer reviewed and independently verified to go along with this idea of the physical world.

Another example: Space seems really big and vast and it looks like we’re all alone, thus the entire universe is devoid of life. This method of logic is flawed.

@Roll - The same flawed thinking can be said about evolution. The logic of making the educated assumption that because we all have DNA we must have evolved from the same basic beginning.(Not that it was designed same?) Or hey that ape tickles just like you do, that must be evolution at work!(Or they're just having fun because it feels good?)

I think everything you said above is true for Evolution believers also. They use a different logic because they cannot fathom that a supreme being named God could have done it all. Instead they believe that someone how, some way, some where, exactly as was needed to life started, the Big Bang or whatever just suddenly happened.(Not that it could have possibly been planned?) We don't know how but we believe it to be so based on the fact that we can mix together some chemicals and make amino acids.(Oh but we need Millions of years to make it work.) Then there the such and such fossil or skeleton and its not human or ape so wow gee wiz it must be the missing link.(Couldn't possibly be an unknown species?)

I don't think your crazy but I do think the arguments you make to support Evolution are flawed.

trtp,

"To change what you said, - However, there is a logical chasm between 'hmmm, my helium study seems to suggest the earth is billions of years old' and 'my helium study seems to suggest there is no god and we happened by random chance and evolved from organic chemicals and that's 100% correct.'"

It's your problem that you think science and spirituality must be mutually exclusive and can't reconcile your own spiritual beliefs with scientific evidence.

Science doesn't tell us "there is no god" and NEITHER does it tell us "there IS a god".

Science tells us "there is no evidence to indicate the existence of god".

However, just because I can't prove something is real doesn't mean I make the stupid assumption of believing it's not.

I can't tell you if there is a god or not--neither can science at this point.

However, science CAN tell you that the earth and all life on it was NOT made in 7 earth days with a very high degree of certainty.

So, I don't care if you believe in god. If you want to believe in things without evidence for them... that's your stupid business. I'm not going to believe in mythology, but even if I did, I don't see what rational basis I would have for picking just ONE deity out of the 2,870 that have been recorded throughout human history.

To steal a quote from Ricky Gervais, "I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869."

Believe whatever the hell you want when it comes to things outside the scope of science.

Creationism, however, is NOT a belief that is rational because it requires the dismissal of empirical scientific evidence.

Just look at this from http://bible.cc/genesis/1-16.htm

(King James Bible)

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.

In fact science now tells us that the "lesser light to rule the night" (a.k.a. the MOON) is not actually a light.

In fact the moon is illuminated by the light from the sun.

In a very real way, there is only ONE light which illuminates both the day and the night.

The bible is completely LYING about the light beaming down on earth from the sky.

There is no logical reason to assume the bible is the "word of a perfect god" because whoever wrote the bible thought that the DAMN MOON was it's own, lesser version of THE SUN.

Completely false as we now know through scientific observation.

Yet... you would deny that the moon is NOT a celestial body that emits it's own "lesser" light to "rule the night"?

@B.V. - Would you have rather the bible have said, "And God made a great light; the great light to rule the day, and He also made a night light which reflected the light of the greater one to rule the night: [he made] the stars also."

You made yourself look as ignorant as your arguments.

Science tells us there is evidence to indicate the existence of God/Intelligent design.

"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" - "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).George Wald, an evolutionist.

Intelligent Design - DNA
An excellent example of intelligent design is the DNA molecule. Since its discovery by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953, evolutionists have faced an insurmountable hurdle. Anyone who truly investigates the mystery of the DNA molecule -- this incredible micro, digital, error-correcting, redundant, self duplicating, information storage and retrieval system, with its own inherent language convention, that has the potential to develop any organism from raw biological material -- understands that life is the result of Intelligent Design. In light of recent discoveries such as the DNA molecule, the absurdity of the evolution argument is readily apparent when its basic formula is compared with that of the creation model of origins. Creation states that matter + energy + information = incredibly complex life. Evolution states that matter + energy + random chance = incredibly complex life. The theory of evolution is merely a religion that serves to discredit the Intelligent Designer Himself.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your assumption that "when it comes to life there are only two possibilities."

I think that is such a cop-out and reeks of ignorance to pretend that you already know every mystery of the universe enough to declare that there are only two possibilities and none other.

You assume every other human being would form the exact same opinion as you when looking at something complicated and mysterious. "Anyone who truly investigates" - as if you and the other creationist clowns are the only beings capable of true comprehension of the universe by just looking at a picture of something someone else researched. You don't even state what tests you use to reach your conclusion, just the thought that "wow, look at that, i can't explain it so it must be god!"

you say "You made yourself look as ignorant as your arguments. Science tells us there is evidence to indicate the existence of God/Intelligent design."

Your thoughts of what constitutes science are not actually science! How many times can we explain this to you? Science does not care about the end result, so long as the theory has sufficient testable evidence! Science doesn't care if there is a god or not. It's not trying to prove a certain idea; it just wants the truth.

If the god in the bible revealed himself to all human beings, science would have a way to test for god and would accept the god hypothesis due to overwhelming evidence. As there is no way to know if that god exists without him appearing before us (as this god is thought to be a supernatural being outside of our consensus reality) there is no data to rest on to support the theory "the christian god exists."

This does not lead to a conclusion, and you have no ground to stand on by making a statement that there are only two possible ways for life to originate.

What's really funny to me is that you're sitting somewhere on a computer, chatting with us over the internet, probably enjoying using electricity, refrigeration and light bulbs, and in your life you've probably driven a car, received immunizations, and maybe even flew on a plane a couple of times.

Pretty much all of the modern conveniences we enjoy were made possible using the scientific method to observe and theorize the physical world around us. Enough so that humans have created new technology and ways of communicating that would have be viewed as black magic in the dark ages when religious authority really had control.

Without science, it's possible that we would still think diseases and natural disasters were signs that god was angry with us and we were being punished.

I can see Thomas Edison now... "Light obviously comes from fire, and anyone who truly understands fire knows you can't burn it without wood. Therefore, there are only two ways to light up dark areas. Large bonfires, and torches. There is no third way.... lol

@Roll - Science is biased and therefore your argument that it only seeks the truth is false.

I never said most what you said I did. Most are quotes from other scientists and such. Thus why there are " " marks around things.

Your thoughts on what is science and not science are flawed and wrong. How many times do I have to tell and show you that? You're ignoring research that has scientific data in it. If there's data and it was obtained scientifically, then it's science. Pretty simple. You can't say it's not science because it's conclusions are that the Theory you believe in is wrong.

To further point out that the below quote is correct why don't you name the 3rd or 4th option? Notice also how there's no mention of God or the Bible in the quote and that this is a quote from an Evolutionist. Also by creation I believe he means designed/made/built or otherwise brought into existence through a planed and thought out method.

"When it comes to the origin of life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" - "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).George Wald, an evolutionist.

By constantly trying to throw the Bible into this and using the, prove there's a God argument, you're making yourself look as ignorant as B.V.

@Roll - Where did I give the impression that I was anti-science? When did I say I didn't think science was important?

Next are you going to claim that Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Francis Bacon, Michael Faraday, Louis Pasteur weren't real scientists because they believed in God or Creation?

Stop showing the world your ignorance and deceitfulness.

I actually can and will say again that creationism and your opinions on the matter are NOT science.

If you understood the scientific method used to test hypotheses, you would be able to admit that there is no way to test for god.

Yet you persist in the delusion that creationism uses science to test for something that has no metrics.

Ignorance is bliss.

trtp,

"To further point out that the below quote is correct why don't you name the 3rd or 4th option?"

Option: Life was neither created not did it spontaneously burst into existence--it has always been and will always be. It simply shifts forms in a cyclical manner.

Option: There is really no such thing as "life", and the world we see around us is nothing but a dream some other being is having in a completely different and alternative existence which we can't experience until we die/wake up from this dream.

Option: All intelligence and consciousness is a subset of one greater entity much like a single cell in your body is part of your collective whole. This vast entity has always been, and no more "created" the cells (read: less-conscious entities) in it's body than you "created" your own fingers, hair, and eyes. They simply occur through the 'nature' of this super-consciousness and are outside the scope of it's concerns.

It's easy to come up with supernatural explanations for life and existence--and neither one of them is "provable" or scientific.

As you can see, there are more options than the two you mentioned.

You seem to be incapable of seeing the difference between "science" and "philosophical implications of scientifically collected evidence".

trtp,

"Would you have rather the bible have said, 'And God made a great light; the great light to rule the day, and He also made a night light which reflected the light of the greater one to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.'

You made yourself look as ignorant as your arguments."

No, cause I don't give a crap about who made the sun or the moon...

I don't have the consciousness of a person from thousands of years ago who was incapable of questioning the world beyond one level of inquiry.

The bible tells us where "the great light" from the day comes from (god). Okay, great.

If you and I were having dinner and you asked me "Where are you from" and I replied "Oh, you didn't know? I'm from your living room. I was there, then I came into the dining room, now here I am."

The bible provides these types of useless answers.

It doesn't explain anything about where god came from, where the materials used to create the world came from, why the "designs" we see today were chosen, etc. etc. etc.

It doesn't really explain anything other than the most uselessly superficial things that only the slowest and dumbest person would ever be interested about.

Essentially, if you can't explain the existence of god, it's effectively as useless as not being able to explain the existence of the sun, or the color of the sky.

There's not much difference between these two conversations when it comes to understanding your life, existence, and perceived reality:

"Where did I come from?"
---"God made you."
"Where did God come from?"
---"I don't know..."

and

"Where did I come from?"
---"I don't know..."

The "god" answer is only satisfactory to those too disinterested to continue questioning their reality's origins.

Think about it this way.

If you and I watched a long chain of domino's falling, what would be the answer to the question, "Why did the last domino fall?"

A) Because the one before it knocked into it and knocked it over.

B) Because rolloutthebarrel wanted to provide a demonstration about causality and set up a bunch of dominoes and then tipped over the first, causing a chain reaction which resulted in the final domino eventually falling.

"A" is the answer the Bible provides. Even IF it were "true"--it's useless.

@B.V. & Roll - Since it seems your unable to read and understand I'm not sure you'll understand this, but maybe other readers will.

Below is ALL taken from - www.thinkingchristian.net/2010/01/the-evolutionists-complaint-its-wrong-to-argue-for-id-by-arguing-against-evolution-part-1-of-3/

"Last week I posted an article in which I attempted to show that evidence against evolution can legitimately be evidence in favor of Intelligent Design. I ran into some serious opposition on that, and even though my interlocutors’ objections there were often mis-aimed, they did lead me to think through the matter more deeply. I got the argument wrong last time. I’m stating it here in a corrected form. I’ll borrow some of my wording from the previous version so that this article can stand alone, though I’m going to change terminology somewhat for clarity’s sake. This article divides naturally into three separate sections, so I am going to divide it into three posts published simultaneously. For those who followed the earlier discussion, there is some new material in this post, and I would draw your attention especially to the fifth through seventh paragraphs (counting this as number one). The second and third sections are quite different from what I posted previously.

The question is whether it is legitimate to regard evidence against evolution as evidence in favor of ID. Evolutionists often complain that positive arguments for ID are lacking, and that ID offers nothing but negative arguments against evolution. I’m going to refer to that as The Complaint. It is indeed true that ID makes part of its case (though certainly not all of it) on the basis of arguments against naturalistic evolution, so ID proponents must take The Complaint seriously. Is there something inherently wrong with ID arguing its case this way? Can a negative argument against evolution really be a positive argument for ID? Or is negative argumentation conceptually flawed from the start?

I’m going to begin with the simplest level of analysis and work upward from there to a fully realistic level. This argument becomes complex later on. I have placed a tree-diagram representing the whole of it at the end of the third post in this series. You may skip ahead and use it to guide you through if you like.

I begin by noting that at this time there are only two possible explanations for biological origins on the table: either some intelligence was guiding it, or there was no such intelligent guidance. If the first is true, then some form of Intelligent Design is the true explanation. If not, then the only explanation currently on offer is undirected random variation coupled with natural selection, which I will refer to here as Naturalistic Evolution, or NE.

At the end of the movie Expelled, Richard Dawkins speaks of the possibility that life on earth was designed, and opines that ID could explain earth’s life if the designers were some alien creatures. That raised some hearty chuckles from ID proponents, but in our laughter many of us missed what else he said: that those aliens, if they existed, must have come about by Darwinian processes. For Dawkins there is only one route up “Mount Improbable” (the term he used for life’s increasing complexity in his book The Blind Watchmaker). That one route is the gradualistic path of natural selection acting on random variations.

If he is in fact right about there being only one naturalistic route to biological complexity, then there are only two options open for consideration: Intelligent Design in some form (which of course is not an option Dawkins would consider), and NE. These are fully dichotomous: if one is true, the other is false, and vice-versa. Mainstream evolutionary scientists insist that NE is fact, and that we know it is fact. One helpful way to express their certainty is to express it in terms of probabilities: their view is that p(NE)=1 and p(ID)=0.

For this analysis I define evidence E for theory T as any information that, if true, increases the probability that T is true. I distinguish evidence from proof: it is that which adds to the probability of T, not that which proves T. Evidence is not unidimensional or unidirectional; there can be evidences for and against T, and each piece of evidence E must be considered in light of its own virtues and faults, in context of all other evidences for and against T. Further, there is a time factor factor involved. E is evidence for T if p(T) at T2 is greater after the introduction of E than at T1, before the introduction of E. This before/after relationship could be logical rather than chronological; whether E existed or was known at T1 is not as important as whether it was included in the probability analysis at T1.

There are many mainstream scientists who insist, as Michael Ruse has, that “Evolution is fact, FACT, FACT!” In other words, the matter has been settled, and regardless of any possible future evidence, p(NE)=1. There is no possibility that ID is true: p(ID)=0. I can’t fathom how they can take that position. Evidence has to have some capability of influencing a theory, doesn’t it? Or is evolution true regardless of evidence? That’s hardly science.

Since “fact, FACT, FACT!” in that form is therefore fallacious reasoning and also bad science, I’ll proceed by entertaining the possibility that there is at least conceivably some evidence E that could reduce our confidence in evolution (even by the smallest fraction) such that p(NE) < 1. That’s not assuming much. It’s a lot more reasonable than insisting that NE is true no matter what evidence might surface.

Now, if Dawkins is right that NE is the only possible naturalistic route up Mount Improbable, the probability equation for origins must include only the terms stated so far here; thus, p(NE) + p(ID)= 1. These are the only options on offer. If the probability of either term is 1, then the probability of the other is 0; if the probability of either term increases or decreases by some degree n, then the probability of the other term decreases or increases by n. 1 – p(NE) = p(ID), and 1 – p(ID) = p(NE).

ID theorists argue that certain features of the natural world are inconsistent with NE. The Cambrian Explosion is one of them. It is hard to explain on NE terms how it came about. This is an example of a negative argument against NE. This post is not about whether that argument is true or not; it is about whether, if there is merit to the argument, it counts legitimately as an argument in favor of ID.

And it seems to me that given a binary, dichotomous relationship between ID and NE, it must; for p(NE) + p(ID)= 1. Suppose for the sake of argument there is some merit to ID’s concerns about the Cambrian Explosion. The effect of that must be to reduce confidence in NE by some non-zero amount. Now suppose also that before this argument was presented, the universal consensus was that p(NE)=1. To the extent that the Cambrian Explosion argument has merit, confidence in NE must be reduced by some degree n, with the result that p(NE) = 1- n, and p(ID) = n. (The degree of change, n, depends on how successful the argument actually is.) Increased confidence in ID (its increase in probability) must be numerically identical to the decrease in confidence in NE, because the sum of the two probabilities must equal 1.

Therefore any evidence E that reduces the probability of NE as an explanation for origins increases the probability of ID as an explanation.

That brings us to the end of the first stage of this argument. To recap:

1. The Complaint is that ID’s negative argumentation against NE is somehow illegitimate, unscientific, or otherwise weak or wrong.
2. ID and NE are mutually exclusive.
3. On Richard Dawkins’ view, NE is nature’s only available method for developing biological complexity.
4. Therefore on that view, ID and NE fill the entire probability space for origins: p(NE) + p(ID)= 1.
5. And therefore any successful negative evidence against NE is successful positive evidence for ID:

That is the simplest view of the argument, and it seems pretty cut-and-dried if random variation coupled with natural selection (NE) is nature’s only option for building biological complexity, as Dawkins thinks.

But when I have written of this before, some have objected to my considering only two possibilities: ID (in some form) and NE. “How do we know these are the only two possibilities?” they ask. “Science marches on, and who knows what we might discover? Why do we assume that ID is the only alternative to NE? How could we know that?”

That question takes us to the second section of this article."

This is the second stage of an argument responding to what I have called The Complaint: that Intelligent Design’s (ID’s) negative argumentation against naturalistic evolution (NE; defined here as the development of life and its complexity through undirected random variation coupled with natural selection) is somehow illegitimate, unscientific, or otherwise weak or wrong. If you have not read the first stage, that would be the place to begin.In it I showed that in the simple case where we assume there are only two options on the table, negative evidence against NE is quite clearly positive evidence for ID. I expressed this in the probability equation 1 – p(NE) = p(ID), where p(NE) is the probability that NE is the true explanation of origins, and p(ID) is the probability that ID is the true explanation.

Now we must examine the possibility of more than two options. As I said last time, this argument becomes complex. I have placed a tree-diagram representing the whole of it at the end of the third post in this series. You may skip ahead and use it to guide you through if you like.

Recall that ID stands for origins being brought about by a designer. If there is a third option it cannot involve a designer, for that frame is already filled by ID; it must be another naturalistic explanation. At this point there is no naturalistic explanation on offer besides NE, so it must be an unknown naturalistic explanation. I will refer to it as the Unknown Naturalistic Theory, or UNT.

If we are to grant the entirely reasonable assumption that science could develop some other, new naturalistic explanation for the development of life and its complexity, then the probability equation we started with must be expanded:

p(NE) + p(ID) + p(UNT) = 1

We have no way of assessing UNT’s probability, but we can deal with that by considering two possibilities.

A.
p(NE) + p(UNT) = 1;
p(ID) = 0

B.
p(NE) + p(ID) + p(UNT) = 1;
0 < p(ID) < 1;
0 < p(UNT) < 1

I will deal with A in this post and save B for the next in this series.

A is a mathematical restatement of, “We won’t claim we’re absolutely certain that NE explains life’s origins; but we’re certain that whatever the explanation is, Design had nothing to do with it.” Often coupled with this statement is something to this effect: Science has made continuous progress in finding naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. Attempts to use God (or some other Design process) to explain natural phenomena have consistently had to give way to naturalistic explanations. Therefore we think it’s reasonable to conclude that science will eventually demonstrate that the origin and complexity of life have fully natural explanations, whether NE or some other theory not yet conceived of.

The question there is, what evidence is adduced for this opinion? There is one kind of evidence that is offered, and another kind that is not even in the picture. What is offered is the history of science, and what is inferred from that is an extrapolation to the future of science. What is not even in the picture is evidence from nature. No matter what evidence E might surface in nature at any time in the future, E can only count as evidence for naturalism (NE or UNT), for p(ID) = 0, world without end, Amen. The probability of naturalism today, T1, is 1; the probability of naturalism tomorrow T2 will be 1, and the probability of naturalism at T3, T4, T5 … to infinity is 1. And this we are assured of, regardless of what evidence E might be introduced at some time Tn in the future.

That is either begging the question, simply stating ID is wrong and that’s that, regardless of what evidence should ever appear! or else, if it is not begging the question, it is placing enormous load on the evidence that has been offered on its behalf: the history of science. We must recall that science has not had uniformly increasing success in explaining what we observe in the world. It has gotten nowhere with explaining realities like consciousness, reasoning, purpose, meaning, free will, moral responsibility and even the origin of the first life. (Claims to the contrary abound, but as I — and many others — have argued elsewhere, they are philosophically uninformed.)

But even if that were not the case, extrapolation in a matter like this is hardly more than an expression of faith. To extrapolate without a supporting theory is bad statistics and bad science, and the only theory that could support this particular extrapolation is one that begs the question: the theory that all of life’s features will someday be explainable naturalistically.

So version A above is unsuccessful. To introduce p(UNT) into our probability equation that way is logically fallacious. We’ll have to pUNT (I’ve been saving up for that pUN) to version B and see whether it works. That will be the topic of the next post.

This is the third post in a series exploring The Complaint of evolutionists: that Intelligent Design’s (ID’s) negative argumentation against naturalistic evolution (NE; defined here as the development of life and its complexity through undirected random variation coupled with natural selection) is somehow illegitimate, unscientific, or otherwise weak or wrong. (This is not the place to begin if you have not read the first two posts; start here instead.)

So far I have shown that if NE and ID are the only explanations on the table for discussion, The Complaint is unjustified. I have also begun to address the possibility that NE and ID are not the only options; we have to consider that some currently unknown naturalistic theory (UNT) could surface someday as a third possibility. Using probability math, I have expressed two ways UNT could enter into consideration:

A.
p(NE) + p(UNT) = 1;
p(ID) = 0

B.
p(NE) + p(ID) + p(UNT) = 1;
0 < p(ID) < 1;
0 < p(UNT) < 1

And I showed in the last post that A is question begging.

But there is a non-question-begging way to introduce UNT into analysis, and that is B. It doesn’t assume ID is false and naturalism is true. So on first appearance it seems more hopeful, for those who would want to justify The Complaint. Could they be right, under B? Let’s take a look at this.

First, let’s recall that The Complaint has to do with how ID theorists use evidence against evolution in favor of ID. So let’s introduce our term E now. We’ll assume that at time T1 our confidence in NE was perfect: p(NE) = 1. But now we consider E, and find that it is evidence against NE, so that at time T2, our confidence in NE is reduced by n: p(NE) = 1 – n at time T2.

We can substitute 1 – n for p(NE) in our equation from B:

(1 – n) + p(ID) + p(UNT) = 1

Which is equivalent to

p(ID) + p(UNT) = n

Both terms on the left side of this equation are greater than 0 and less than 1. The question that The Complaint addresses is, can we rightly conclude that p(ID) varies directly with n? If p(ID) increases when n increases then negative evidence against evolution is positive evidence for Design.

It’s possible, mathematically, for p(ID) not to vary directly with n. It could happen in either of two ways:

Mathematically it’s possible that p(ID) is constant. In that case p(UNT) varies directly with n. Whatever evidence E appears that counts against NE, counts equally in favor of UNT. That’s really just a special case of what I argued in the previous post, however: no matter what evidence comes in at any future time, it cannot under any conditions count in favor of ID. All evidence is evidence for one naturalistic explanation or the other. For the deliverer of The Complaint to resort to that as support would plainly be question-begging.

It’s also mathematically possible that p(ID) varies inversely with n. That would require p(UNT) to vary directly with n, with some multiplicative factor such that when n increased, p(UNT) increased even faster. But that would be strange, to say the least, especially since UNT is by definition unknown. To assume that its probability varies with n that way is to assume that we know something quite unexpected and remarkable about the unknown. For The Complaint to rely on that would be nothing but special pleading.

But it’s worse than that, in reality, for in fact we do know something about UNT: it hasn’t been thought of yet. Richard Dawkins says it doesn’t even exist. So while we can’t eliminate the possibility of UNT completely, we can safely set its value near zero. And the closer p(UNT) is to zero, the more likely it is that p(ID) varies directly with n.

So how shall we assess The Complaint now? We have to allow that it is conceivably legitimate, but only if p(UNT) varies directly but multiplicatively with n. Only if we resort to special pleading, in other words. My conclusion is that negative evidence against evolution can legitimately be taken as positive evidence for ID.

This has been an extended argument with multiple branches. I have attempted in my ham-handed way to illustrate it through the following diagram, which may be useful as a guide to you in re-reading and re-evaluating these three posts. Or (since my space was limited, and so is my experience with these things) it may not be that helpful.

trtp,

I think it's you who can't read. Both rollouthebarrel and I have already stated that the "creationism is the only alternative" is a wrong assumption.

The article you posted:

"If the first is true, then some form of Intelligent Design is the true explanation. If not, then the only explanation currently on offer is undirected random variation coupled with natural selection, which I will refer to here as Naturalistic Evolution, or NE."

I just offered 3 "alternative explanations" off the top of my head in the comments above, and I'd say there are a LOT more explanations offered by all of the other mythologies, spiritual practices, and philosophies of the world.

Saying there are only 2 alternatives is delusional or ignorant.

@B.V. - You don't even see your own faults when they hit you in the face.

All your so called "alternatives" still fall into category 1 or 2. It was either a random spark and lot's of chances coming together.(spontaneous generation) Or it was a designed and directed spark that brought everything into being.(creation) An Evolutionist said this not me!

Even if we're a dream, a subset, a whatever you want to makeup. Then the same argument would take place. How did we come to be?

"After studying this issue for several years, I have concluded that very little can be gained by debating evolution vs. creationism. Two of the biggest obstacles to effective debate on the topic are: 1) the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to forever resolve the issue; and 2) the lack of open mindedness on the part of both camps. "

I've already gave you the answer to "How did we come to be?"

We have always been, and always will be.

At least that's a "claim" that could be possible through our current scientific understanding of "nature" since time is relative.

If we have always been... then we never "started" and therefore there is no need to be "created" or to "spontaneously generate".

For more information about "we have always been, and will always be" I direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation

But I do not try to pass it off as "science" ;)

@B.V. - Then I guess we don't have to worry anymore! Thanks for clearing that up.

If you want to believe you're gonna go live with a magic man in the clouds when you die because it makes you feel better... go for it.

If you want to believe you're gonna come back as another human after you die because it makes you feel better... go for it.

Believe whatever you want about the supernatural realm--just don't call it science.

And don't use your supernatural beliefs as a motivation to spread misinformation to others.

@B.V. Oh well I'd hoped you were done with your misinformation and misdirection campaign.

What you say isn't science is blatantly false. Any research study where measurements, observation, or data is collected is science. Both sides can do that same science and come to different conclusions though. Such as with DNA. One side looks at the data and says it happened by accident the other says it looks like it was designed.

If you say DNA is designed it doesn't mean your a wacko supernatural freak any more then the evolutionist is a Darwinian mutation for thinking DNA is an accident. If you think it was designed then you need a designer. It doesn't mean your science is false because you believe that the results show it was a planed and deliberate design.

trtp,

Do you not realize there is a difference between science and speculation?

If I observe a car drive past me at 60mph, the measurement I take is "science".

However, if I then say, "Well, it is obvious that the driver has just robbed a bank and is fleeing," then it is not science.

You could just as likely say "Well, no, it is obvious that there is a pregnant woman about to give birth in the car!"

It is NOT science either.

Since the car driving fast is a "scientific fact" that can be used to support both conclusions--it must be ignored when deciding on the truth.

The "scientific" thing to do would be to collect more data.

For instance, I might observe further that the man driving the car is wearing a face mask, that there is a police car chasing him, and that huge stacks of dollar bills are falling out from the shot-out back window...

I would then say, "well, I think being chased by the cops for bank robbery is more likely than rushing to the hospital with his wife."

That WOULD be science because of evidence that supports that thesis.

Creationism has no evidence other the initial observation of "Well stuff exists, I can't explain how or why, so obviously someone had to make it."

The fact that DNA exists and is "complicated" or "structured" is NOT evidence that it was created by a designer.

There are lots of things that have structure but have NO DNA and are NOT created by magic.

Snowflakes are complex and highly structured--yet they form through natural processes... "randomly".

All of the crystals on earth are very complex and structured... and appear to have been designed by an intelligent force--yet they also form through natural processes.

Or are you going to argue they burst into existence miraculously because some god commands them to do so?

@B.V. - Not sure you car analogy really makes any sense to anyone but you there. But regardless if someone does a study and is a creationists and comes to the conclusion that it is not possible for this or that to have happened by accident then it's still science. There are numerous science studies that come to wild conclusions and have no more merit then saying smurfs exist, Just because you disagree with their conclusion doesn't mean it's not science.

You say I need to prove that God exists in order for creation to be proven. I say that the THEORY of evolution needs to be proved before I believe in it.

This discussion is going in circles we're making no progress, which reflects the real world discussion of this also. So I leave you with this quote and the last word.

"Some say we’ve all been searching for a God for years in vain
And some say belief is just the easy way around our pain And sometimes I’d like to agree when they’re telling me that this is all an accident
Cause it’s hard to let this heart believe when my mind is screaming out I need more evidence!

But do I really need more evidence?

I want a miracle, something impossible
So would you help me to believe
When You say everything that’s right in front of me
Is all the proof I’ll ever need"

Good talk..

I leave you with this quote and the last-ier word:

"Well, I could be wrong, but I believe diversity is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era." - R. Burgundy

I love how this a huge theological debate is in the comment section of an article about tickling.

*there is
I must have spaced out for a moment...

lol, it is pretty funny, and as I haven't had a good forum debate in years, it was an enjoyable back and forth.

But c'mon, when you see a post like this on a science website:

"It's always strange how Evolutionists can believe that life was created by Aliens or some random un-calculable chance. But the thought that God created the world in 7 days is somehow impossible?"

... it's pretty tough to look away or ignore it. :P

I disagree with his conclusion. If he did real-time scans of their brains during tickling and honest laughter, then he would see that the brain is doing very different things. Even in packs of wolves, the social bonding comes from submission "play" and in adult wolves, real fighting. I think that tickling may have a purpose, but perhaps we don't need it. Especially because it can end it fear and pain.

Evil-oution is a myth. (all you spellcheckers happy...get a life) LMAO

Charles Darwin's grandfather was a known satanist! That says it all.

God created the universe.

No where is science has it been recorded that a dog evolved into a monkey or an ape evolved into a man, or an ant evolved into a bee.

There is no evidence...that's why it's call the a THEORY. (and a BS one at that!!)

Anyone who belevies in eviloution needs to revaluate their beleif system. Because the real powers pushing this godless agenda beleive in satan.

95% of the has a beleif in a higher creator...therefore eviloutionists are a cult.

CHEERS!