"The Creation Story!"

Real sciences don't need to keep being reinvented every two or three years.

Yes they do are you kidding me? Take Copenicus's heliocentric theory. Religous zealots like you were condemning him back in the day. However he was basically right. But he wasn't all right. His ideas needed to be changed to fit the truth. It wasn't until recently that we realized how and why the earth revolved and how the sun fit into the universe. His theory placed the sun in the center of the universe but he was wrong. It had to be changed. Theories are like that; facts generally aren't. Of course evolution is a theory not a fact anyone who says differently is crazy. Real sciences need to changed to fit the truth. IT IS SCIENCE NOT A RIGID RELIGION CLAIMING ALL KNOWLEDGE.

Prove creatinism; prove the flood; prove the bible and you will be right. Fail and you are wrong and scienc will push ever forward towards the right answers. Is evolution the right one? Maybe not but it can changed. Creationism cant. So prove it.

Charles Darwin's basic theory demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediate forms and they've never found the first one. For that reason, Gould and the others formulated a new version of evolution (punk-eek) which demands that the total lack of intermediate fossils be viewed as supporting evidence (for punk eek).

That's totally turning the entire thing around 180 degrees. No real science ever needs that.

Your father is an intermediate form between yourself and your grandfather, and your grandfather *and* your father are intermidiate forms between yourself and your great grandfather.

Every fossil is an intermediate between what came before it and what came after it.

Each generation only accumulates a tiny bit of genetic variation, so to see any large changes you have to span many many generations. So when we find fossils, we should see transitional fossils within the lineage, and we do. Horses, Whales, Humans and many others have all shown us exactly what Evolution predicted, and the changes found have even aligned nicely with geologic strata.

hmm still not seeing proof of creationism. If you wnat forget evolution and look at it as finding the truth and there are various theories. Thing is science can a accomodate new idea. Yur religion cant. you miss the point(or perhaps you conveniantly slipped over it). YOUR the one that should be providing evidence as YOUR religion demands creationism.

You clearly do not understand what the term means or what the problem is. Perhaps a few quotes on the topic from experts will help:

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..."

David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology)
Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum
Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467


"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."

Francis Hitching
The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong
Penguin Books, 1982, p.19

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
"Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?"
Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist,
British Museum of Natural History, London
As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89

"We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history and has been conservative in habitat."

G. S. Carter, Professor & author
Fellow of Corpus Christi College
Cambridge, England
Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution
University of Washington Press, 1967

"The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'."

Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and
Paleontology, Harvard University
Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977

"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (p. 206)

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292)

Charles Robert Darwin
The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint
Avenel Books, 1979


"Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."

David M. Raup, Curator of Geology
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago
"Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology"
Field Museum of Natural History
Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25

"Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record."

Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist)
Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems,
4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled."

Prof N. Heribert Nilsson
Lund University, Sweden
Famous botanist and evolutionist
As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51

Guys, seriously, you're wasting your breath. Or finger-energy, rather.

Creationism is believed by Christians. Christianity is a faith. Faith is a matter of personal opinion, and can not be proven - or disproven - by anyone, anything, any statistics or any facts. Why? Because the mind is a poweful tool, and no matter how logical it may seem to those of us outside of this faith that Creationism is false, to those who do beieve it, they will continue doing so due to it being just that - faith. You can't persuade faith with facts, as useful as it may be sometimes.

Evolution is believed by scientists. Science is based on facts, experiments, research, and theories. Scientists (by scientists, I mean those who believe in what science presents, not who work in labs) listen to the facts and disregard theories, such as Creationsim, that rely soley on belief. Science is incapable of rationalizing something that can't be rationalized.

Therefore, no matter how much Creationists try to explain to scientists that it happened - we won't accept it, because it can't be proven. And no matter how many facts scientists whip out about evolution, Creationists will continue to deny the theory, because they rely on belief and not evidence.

Niether is right and niether is wrong. This is merely a case of relating to one or the other, siding up with that cult, and then sitting down for cookies. It's useless to convince one or the other. Believe what you believe, and laugh at those who don't. :wink:

Sanctuary,

I couldn't agree more. I have no difficulty with persons who think that they know a lot of things that they have no way of knowing. I just don't associate with them.

But the same mind set seems to make them believe that they know what is best for me. Not only that but their particular god Knows that my daughters should not cut their hair, and that me and my sons must wear a beard. Even the clothing that I wear mowing the yard, and the books I read, and my private behavior with my friends are subject to the scrutiny of those who KNOW.

Thats when the problems begin.

Irrational beliefs, that is beliefs that are not subject to discussions, observations, or deductions from observed phenomena are very damaging to humans, both individually and socially.

In most cases it is both the believer and his targets who are damaged.

( Both Jews and Germans were damaged by Hitler) (Both Protestents and Catholics were damaged in Ireland) (Both Americans and Iraquis are being damaged today in Iraq) (the slave and the slave holder)

So IMO keep on combatting the forces of darkness, whether they be Pope or President, Priest or Politician, Theorist or Theologist.

I believe that unless mankind can act rationally our decendents will be forced to remain on this planet until it's but a cinder. That IMO would be a real tragedy; that no one would ever know .

I know.

It's just a way to kill time while loading Operating Systems onto virtual machines.

gunga, the problem you face is that you go to these Creationist web sits and believe their rubbish. Name me an evolution biologist whose left the science because of the "Haldane dilemma" Thats a complete bag of crap. Further unraveling of genomes has shown how closely all life forms are related genetically sothe argument about "infinite time" is just hogwash.


The Piltdown man was debunked by evolution scientists, even though another scientist tried to pull the hoax. Meanwhile the (Pa man, the Paluxy man, the Cretaceous human footprints, the "dinosaur cave drawings" and , most recently your own recent post of the fake hominid "cast" being swallowed by an allosaurus) Creationists are going to utter extremes to try to hoodwink the world.

I can name all the Creation "scientists" theres only about 25 of them in the ICR and then theres about 50+ Intelligent Designers . Theres gotta be close to a million "real" scientists in the US alone that are unquestioning defenders of natural selection


Punctuated equilibrium was not a major "turn" in evolutionary thought, It was a hypothesis to explain apparent stasis in fossil forms seemingly followed by spurts of evolution. It seemed reasonable. However, with detailed sampling, these "gaps" are slowly disappearing in the fossil record and more intermediates are being found.

Evolution doesnt have to make up any weird and magical conditions that apply in order for your Creationist crap to work.
You need a "water Canopy" in the sky to explain the presence of the flood

Youve invented a worldwide flood, even the Intelligent Design school says that a worldwide flood is silly

You need time to magically change by about 300% and then go back to a morre casual pace

You need planetary tectonics to slow down so thatthe accumulation of meteoric dust on the moon agrees with your age determination

You say the Grand Canyon was carved in less than a year. Even if this were true, how long did it take to lay down all the sediments through which the Colorado River ran? especially since all the sediments show layers of sand dunes then covered by quiet lakes , then back to sand dunes, then covered by deep ocean sediment, then limestone layers

You need sedments to accumulate in continental size areas in thicknesses that are like 2000 feet per year, then they need to "set" and hardenand then be metamorphosed/

I can think of 2 geologists on the ICR faculty who , when they show up at meetings , they only talk about standard geologic functions nothibg to do with Creationist mechanisms. Even their recent papers are vanilla mechanistic papers thatdont touch their "true calling" Are they chicken? You Bet.

gunga , sorry but Im on a field site and Im posting in the Northern Lights. Youve tried posting that same line of misplaced quotes once before and we took them apart because theyre not given in context.

It merely means that you dont listen well.

You call that a proof?

Read it carefully it says that before the time of relativity came into effect we have theoretical models to describe a pre-relativistic world, not that the Big Bang is disproved - but the theoretical models of the time pre-relativity are disputed.

What is being queried here is the first trillionith of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second - pre inflationary physics for time earlier than 10 ^ -35 seconds after the big bang.

Best estimates are the four forces combined at energy levels above 10^14 GeV -> 10 ^ 19 GeV so quantum gravity - not relativity, initially ruled creation. The LHC will test the start of this premise at around 200GeV in 2007 at CERN.

I am disclined to accept dark matter or dark energy before a study of gravitational propogation topology forming an explosion backwash (net pull outwards) due to the fact inflation exceeding 50,000 times lightspeed for 10 ^ - 35 seconds. After this time energy density dropped to the point where the four forces seperated and there was a force carrier for gravity to distinguish matter and energy.

I will accept that a theoretical model - it is after all called theoretical physics - needs a model and a predictive power and testable predicitions to ratify, modify to debunk the model.

So fine inflationary physics is complex, I don't expect you to debate SuSy, but don't wield it as a shield if you don't understand it or its criticisms! Perhaps all the site is saying is that theoretical physics is under consideration.

So if you had of quoted a study from http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/ critiquing theoretical physics of inflation I'd be more inclined to notice the calibre of minds offering their thoughts.

PS - You didn't comment how an infinite energy / mass God can interact with a finite universe without spreading blackholes everywhere - nor why God needed the Universe to be so big!

g-day. Do you own a budgie? If you do, your budgie will gather as much information from your post as did gunga.

There's a really easy way to avoid being quoted as having said something:

Don't say it.

It IS proof that a lot of serious physicists (as opposed to you and farmerman) are having major kinds of problems with the idea of a "big bang" these days.

Sorry, but I regard all that sort of thing as BS.

Puny humans trying to understand everything based on the contents of your minds! How proud are we? (myself not excluded)

Throughout time men have tried to explain what he sees. Who are we to pervert their testaments just because we cannot understand them? We are but more branches on the tree. If everything turns out to be false it still holds some value for two simple reasons.
1 Our ancestors believed in it.
2 People have died for it, innocent and guilty alike, and people still die for it.

Correction - a factually incorrect idea is still factually incorrect no matter how many people live or die by it nor whether it is used for good or evil.

The desire to understand reality and better mankind is not without worth! Just because we have over 5,000 faith systems, all significantly different from each other doesn't mean science and faith shouldn't interact.

What is bad is when science acts like faith or worse when faith tries to pretend its science when it wants to justify itself. The two simply do not mix, nor should they contend other than to show each others their boundaries.

People arguing bad science in a philisophy forum is always a danger!

unfortunately, keeping ones mouth shut for fear that a bunch of anachronistic morons will misquote, isnt real high on most researchers lists. They need a good laugh also, and as far as this time in history, the creationists provide a welcome blast of "three Stooges" like humor.

next time you fill up your car with gas, thank the years of work done in unravelling the rules of uniformitarian stratigraphy and economic geology that make petroleum much more easily discovered than it was during the days of spindletop.

akamechSmith wrote:




Well, maybe. but I think the problems begin when folks take themselves real seriously, and take things real personally that are not directed personally to them, then get real defensive. If you think Christians or other believers are talking out of their arses, why should that bother you, if their comments aren't directed at you (or your daughter's hair, or the clothes you wear when you mow the yard)?