Arrogant scientists: Creation was not science.

Good point . . . fiction is a much more descriptive term.

You don't seem to understand what science is. And you clearly don't understand what it has taught us.

Surprising that you try so hard to emulate science in your posts when you clearly have no respect for it.

Yes, creationist do! I love science as well as math, so this topic of... to be or not to be (created that is) is something that I have looked into. I might only be a high school student but I'm sure not stupid. You atheists think that we believers are ignorant to science but your dead wrong! On the contrary, we actually use science to disprove what so many of you people consider the truth. We also agree to some of the things you do to. For example, early Earth was not made in 7/24 hour days but through out millions of years, and we accept that. We see those days as simbolic to when God has acheived a goal, but you guys have formulated a thoery that , randomly, life started to form and organized into what is now known as the theory of evolution. But what you guys deny is the fundamental law of nature stating that with no order to start, the result is still no order, and this is just one thing we have disproven through logic and your proofs. Lets illistrate it like this... a box is full of many balls all with different colors, a few red and a few blue, et cetra. If you were to throw them in the air, would they land in groups to their corrosponding colors? Absolutly not! They would be RANDOMLY spread out, WITHOUT ORDER! And their is no chance that the results could be different/organized (not even by accident!). Think before you post.

The last time I checked, a box full of colored balls couldn't reproduce. Nor does your analogy contain any type of selection. You seem to have ignored two of the three fundamental components of the evolutionary process. Before you disagree with the theory of evolution, you should at least understand it well enough to know what you're disagreeing with.

I agree that you are certainly not stupid. But judging from your post you have been misled or poorly educated with respect to understanding at least one fundamental scientific theory (evolution).

What state or country do you attend High School in? I would be curious to know where you are getting such a science education.

There are a number of scientists who are also religious. A number of biologists and paleontologists who are strong Christians, Jews and other religions. There are a small minority of th religious who need to believe in a literal interpretation of their sacred books , like the Bible, and who, as part of their creeds, try to deny and dismiss scientific evidence about the planet earth and its geologic and biologic history. This is not sciences problem because the evidence is very strong to support an old earth in which life began as simple celled creatures which then, through time, gradually evolved into more complex forms. SCience has been based upon theory, tested precepts, repeatable experimentation, prediction and topped with more evidence. Why this weeks NATURE, has an article in which paleontologists have discovered a fossil mammal of the late Jurassic that still retained some reptilean features in the middle ear. The fossil is called Liaoconodon hui, and, when the full anatomy is published, it appears that this is as important a find as wasArcheopteryx sp.. This gives us a sweeping series of "Intermediate" fossils that show evolution from the reptiles to mammals. Only a small percentage of the religious wish to deny all this discovery (as well as things like continental drift, age of the earth, descent measured within DNA, and cladistics).
Yet every farmer on business understands the concepts and engineering involved with artificial selection (Selwective breeding to create new varieties of livestock animals).

You have a hard road to convince most reasonable people that there is any science at all among these few deniers of evidence. The fundamentalist Christians who hold the beliefs that Creation was a God -induced sudden thing that occured 6000 years ago. Further, it would require that, if you actually believe in Creationsim, that all the animals that ever lived were all created at the same event . Thats a bit ridiculous on its face.Why dont you see fossil elephants and humans in the earliest earth strata?



Youve done nothing of the sort. The second law of thermodynamics in a living state always has ebnergy in which the living state is providing order to its own mechanical state. All that is accomplished within the living state is accomplished while the creature is "alive" or able to process and internally react its own chemical energy . (The fossil record alone shows this, unless you deny its very existence). When the creature diews, it no longer is anything but a structural remnant of its living form.

NOWHERE has any Creationist been able to apply any reasonable logic re: the Second law of thermo (the equation itself will not support your attempts).

As far as proofs, the Creationists (old earth or yound earth) have failed to prove anything to support their case. They have no evidence at all. If you call your Creator an "Intelligent designer" then why are there so many examples of "mistakes" or "short lived expwerimwents" and many many attempts of various forms wherein the morphology of the animals were trying to provide one specific solution to a design problem (eyes, "sabre toothness' tusks, necks , eye sockets, naries, featjers, gills,etc etc). The designer ws apparently a "tinkerer" and wasnt as intelligent as you seem to wanna believe perhaps.

The fact that evolution tracks the various cataclysms that befell the planet through geologic history is , to me, pretty convincing that the play of life on the planet was adapting to emergencies as the environments changed rapidly .Then continuing change occured more gradually as the system "Settled down" a few million years after the cataclysms were over. For all this we have mounds of evidence and data. What do the Creationists have besides some crude attempts at trying to deny the scientific wevidence? DO you actually believe that theres a big cabal of scientists out there who are purposely fudging data to adb=vance some atheistic worldview? That would be totally nuts because , any scientist who could find out that there was actual evidence for an intelligent designer or a creation (or whatever the Creationists want to use as their examples du jour), well that scientist would be probably awarded a Nobel prize for such earth shaking discovery. SCientists are mostly honest to their work. Their religious beliefs dont run their reearch. That would be kind of fraudulent dont you think?