Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed

[~JESUS~]

Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed

Ken Schalfley, Midland Daily News
06/04/2006

There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution.

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?

I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."

Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.

Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.

Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?

http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16735297&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472539&rfi=6

[Grav]

Are you actually diehard Christian, or just being a dumb internet-character?

[kaos]

The Galapagos Islands: Approximately 600 miles away from any other land, meaning they are completely surrounded by water for around 600 miles.

Diving Iguanas that dive and can stay underwater for around 45 minutes are the only type of iguanas that can swim, found ONLY in the Galapagos islands. There is no other type of iguanas anywhere in the world that can do this.

So why don't the iguanas found in African jungles swim, huh? Explain THAT, Jesus boy. Animals evolve according to their habitat. Thats why animals around the world that live in their habitat can survive in them. You don't see penguins living in the desert.

[Lenny]

Either you ARE a diehard Christian, or the alternative as put forwrad by Grav. So how would you feel if your government was Hindu, and in the schools they forced everyone to learn the Hindu beliefs about creationism?

Evolution is based on scientific fact, and is currently the accepted 'version of events' for life on earth. Creationism is an idea.

Science is the medium between everyone - Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Jedi's, whatever religion. Their beliefs on how everything came about are different, but Science stays the same.

As it is, I believe your government to be made up of the world's greatest idiots. Not only do they try to use religion as an answer to things like the war in Iraq ("God came to me in a vision and told me, George, you have to invade Iraq"), but they then try and force it on EVERYONE in your country.

If someone wants to learn creationism, then they should go to a Christian school that will have nothing to do with anythig that the Bible says is wrong. Normal schools cater for a lot of faiths, and so cannot teach everyone ONE religions views and expect them to take that as the truth. Sure, maybe if they taught all the views of the major religions, but not just Christianity.

If that was happening here in England, there'd be murder. Especially up here.

---

Btw, we've already got a Resident Jesus... Black Jesus, in fact.

[~JESUS~]

The Galapagos Islands: Approximately 600 miles away from any other land, meaning they are completely surrounded by water for around 600 miles.

Diving Iguanas that dive and can stay underwater for around 45 minutes are the only type of iguanas that can swim, found ONLY in the Galapagos islands. There is no other type of iguanas anywhere in the world that can do this.

So why don't the iguanas found in African jungles swim, huh? Explain THAT, Jesus boy. Animals evolve according to their habitat. Thats why animals around the world that live in their habitat can survive in them. You don't see penguins living in the desert.

Thats not evolution...they are still iguanas. All kinds of animals are designed to adapt, not change into other kinds. A dog is a beagle is a wolf...its still a kind of animal..it will never change into an iguana., no matter who many make believe millions of years you throw on it, or what environment it lives in.

[~JESUS~]

Either you ARE a diehard Christian, or the alternative as put forwrad by Grav. So how would you feel if your government was Hindu, and in the schools they forced everyone to learn the Hindu beliefs about creationism?

Evolution is based on scientific fact, and is currently the accepted 'version of events' for life on earth. Creationism is an idea.

Science is the medium between everyone - Christians, Muslims, Hindu's, Jedi's, whatever religion. Their beliefs on how everything came about are different, but Science stays the same.

As it is, I believe your government to be made up of the world's greatest idiots. Not only do they try to use religion as an answer to things like the war in Iraq ("God came to me in a vision and told me, George, you have to invade Iraq"), but they then try and force it on EVERYONE in your country.

If someone wants to learn creationism, then they should go to a Christian school that will have nothing to do with anythig that the Bible says is wrong. Normal schools cater for a lot of faiths, and so cannot teach everyone ONE religions views and expect them to take that as the truth. Sure, maybe if they taught all the views of the major religions, but not just Christianity.

If that was happening here in England, there'd be murder. Especially up here.

---

Btw, we've already got a Resident Jesus... Black Jesus, in fact.

Evolution is not based on scientific fact.

It was a THEORY proposed by a wife beating racist failed preacher 150 years ago and used by the controling elite to shape your young fragile mind ever since.

Science does not stay the same. Gods word does. Science can not prove evolution. Actually, it proves DESIGN and creation. Do your homework and try to use what God gave you in your head. Either everything is random and chaotic, and all you see just so happend to be perfect as we speak through random unguided mutations!...or EXTREMELY precisly designed...everything in the world obviously points to the later. Do some research on who Charlie Darwin was and what he really said. He says in "Orgins" that a whale evolved from a bear that jumped into the water to get fish over millions of years!

Schools are controlled now by a small group who want the human race in bondage. If you are taught that the world is an accident, then you think YOU are an accident..hence Columbine High School.:(

Does the world around you look chaotic?

If you know REAL PROVABLE science, then you know about design and creation.

here are some films to watch, if you really want to learn the truth...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4281697020288458642&q=The+miracle+planet
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3954156199145885147&q=The+miracle+planet
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1595996413039321190&q=intelligent+design

[Lenny]

In fact, it IS evolution.


1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See synonyms at development (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=t10h4x38niql?tname=development&sbid=lc12a).

2. a) The process of developing.
2. b) Gradual development.

Biology.
3. a) Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
3. b) The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

In scientific terms, evolution is when a species changes - not into a completely different species, but within itself -- adaptation is a big part of evolution. It IS evolution.

The first organisms adapted to their environments - and evolved. Some lived in water, other lived on land, some went mad and decided to fly. Eventually, that one original single-celled organism evolved into every living creature we see today.

[~JESUS~]

In fact, it IS evolution.

In scientific terms, evolution is when a species changes - not into a completely different species, but within itself -- adaptation is a big part of evolution. It IS evolution.

The first organisms adapted to their environments - and evolved. Some lived in water, other lived on land, some went mad and decided to fly. Eventually, that one original single-celled organism evolved into every living creature we see today.

No it isnt. You cant have best of both worlds. Even though you HAVe to...

Lets take Dog Variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment.

Before considering how life began, we must first understand the term “organic evolution.” Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theory—or macroevolution

Microevolution, on the other hand, does not involve increasing complexity. It involves changes only in size, shape, color, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. Macroevolution requires thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as “horizontal (or even downward)” change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an “upward,” beneficial change in complexity. Notice that microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution. [micro + time ≠ macro]

Creationists and evolutionists agree that microevolution occurs. Minor change has been observed since history began. But notice how often evolutionists give evidence for microevolution to support macroevolution. It is macroevolution—which requires new abilities, increasing complexity, that results from new genetic information—that is at the center of the creation-evolution controversy.

Because science should always base conclusions on what is seen and reproducible, what is observed? We see variations in lizards, four of which are shown at the bottom. We also see birds, represented at the top. In-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species. A careful observer can usually see unbelievable discontinuities in these claimed upward changes.

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have made excuses for why the world and our fossil museums are not overflowing with hundreds of thousands of intermediates! None are found!

Organic Evolution Has Never Been Observed.

The Law of Biogenesis

Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.a

Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis.b However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life only comes from life.

Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations observed in living things. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are LIMITS to such variation. Breeding experimentsb and common observationsc also confirm these boundaries.

Natural Selection

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. THIS IS THE HOAX! Actually, natural selection PREVENTS major evolutionary changes!

Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost ALL observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal! No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors!!!

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.a Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence.

Codes, Programs, and Information

In our experience, codes are produced only by intelligence, not by natural processes or chance. A code is a set of rules for converting information from one useful form to another. Examples include Morse code and braille. Code makers must simultaneously understand at least two ways of representing information and then establish the rules for converting from one to the other and back again.

The genetic material that controls the physical processes of life is coded information. Also coded are complex and completely different functions: the transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems, without which the genetic material would be useless, and life would cease.a It seems most reasonable that the genetic code, the accompanying transmission, translation, correction, and duplication systems were produced simultaneously in each living organism by an extremely high intelligence.

Likewise, no natural process has ever been observed to produce a program. A program is a planned sequence of steps to accomplish some goal. Computer programs are common examples. Because programs require foresight, they are not produced by chance or natural processes. The information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs.

Life contains matter, energy, and informationd. All isolated systems, including living organisms, have specific, but perishable, amounts of information. No isolated system has ever been shown to increase its information content significantly.e Nor do natural processes increase information; they destroy it. Only outside intelligence can significantly increase the information content of an otherwise isolated system. All scientific observations are consistent with this generalization, which has three corollaries:

* Macroevolution cannot occur.
* Outside intelligence was involved in the creation of the universe and all forms of life.
* Life could not result from a “big bang.”

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html

[Jessifer]

Quick question; Do you even have a valid thought of your own, or is everything you say C&P from someone else?

As for the topic, it is my personal belief that there should be an optional class for those who do believe in creationism.

[Willkillforfood]

There are plenty of philosophy/religion classes. However, individual classes for said religion would have to be made for EVERY religion and hence the reason why it's dumb to make individual classes. Even some person that worships a blade of glass could demand a class be taught in his/her religion's honor.

[Lenny]

Of course there's been macroevolution!!

So from a single-celled organism that can do sweet F.A then split itself down the middle, to billions upon billions upon billions of different species, classifications of animals, everything, is all microevolution?

You can't observe evolution unless you do an experiment over hundreds of years. It isn't possible. You'll see gene mutations, for sure, but not proper evolution. It occurs over a long time span. If you could observe it happening, then why don't we see certain species changing and adapting to their continuously changing environments? Sure, it wouldn't be Macroevolution, but it would certaintly be Microevolution.

-----

Just building on Jessifer's point - there is no point pasting pages and pages of pure science from a blatantly creationist site to prove a point. You take the facts and add to them your own words - make them your own argument. Don't try and argue someone elses.

Sure, I'm not the greatest at that, but at least I don't copy and paste directly from sites.

[Kaneda]

Lenny is intelligent. ~JESUS~ is a pawn.

[~JESUS~]

Of course there's been macroevolution!!

So from a single-celled organism that can do sweet F.A then split itself down the middle, to billions upon billions upon billions of different species, classifications of animals, everything, is all microevolution?

No...its MACro

and it cant happen. They were made as there own kind in the beggining, which is why there are NO intermediate transitional forms and why "lower" complexity kinds are found mixed in with higher complexity kinds in the different layers of the earth.

The "geological column" does not exist anywhere but in your textbooks and imagination.

You can't observe evolution unless you do an experiment over hundreds of years. It isn't possible.

I agree...which is why its not SCIENCE. In fact it breaks the entire scientific method. You know, OBSERVABLE AND PROVABLE facts based on theories.

It is a religion based on ignorance and faith with ever changing definitions based on convenience that worships time.

You'll see gene mutations, for sure, but not proper evolution. It occurs over a long time span.

Again, this is not changing one kind to a completely different based on WHATEVER factor you want to throw at it. It is micro, or a reshuffling of information in gene structure for survival.

A new species changing from one to another has never been observed. Jeez, what a great time to be alive, everything we observe just so happens to have fully functional non-transitional members! Why stop now!

If you could observe it happening, then why don't we see certain species changing and adapting to their continuously changing environments? Sure, it wouldn't be Macroevolution, but it would certaintly be Microevolution.


First of all, what environment is continuously changing? Secondly, if it did (for debate sake), it would never over a trillion years turn into a completely different kind! The information in the DNA would not allow it! Information runs the show! Darwin said that future would prove his theory correct when new discoveries of transitional forms were found. THEY HAVENT BEEN FOUND!

Open your eyes people. Do some research.

Science is facts that can be proven and observed. If you dont have an answer, then dont teach it as fact! Thats all I am saying.

If you want to teach biology then teach biology, but dont go into orgins when you don't know for a fact what the orgin is and then call it "science"! ..and if you are going to pick theories to teach, well then pick them all, not just one that is actually proven wrong.

Lets look at what the people have to say....

Tuesday, Jun. 6, 2006 Posted: 9:26:33AM EST

WASHINGTON — Almost half of Americans believe that human beings did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so, results from a new Gallup Poll revealed.

In a May 8-11 survey of American beliefs on evolution, 46 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

In comparison, only 13 percent chose the answer: “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

[Grav]

Welcome to Zonalon 2.0.

[crazyeye]

I think lenny has many good points and so dose ~jesus~. I also think that some of the stuff that they both say as well are worng and dont match up or work, but as I said that they do bring across good points. Thats what I think, and I dont fell like typeing alot like every one else right now to get what I think across.

[crazyeye]

You know what I do fell like typeing more so here I go. Evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence of meaning, and therefore an absence of moral absolutes. This is clearly in conflict with the Bible. Evolution results in a philosophy of nihilism (the denial of any basis for truth), which ultimately ends in despair. The Bible claims to have the Truth, which gives ultimate hope. (John 14:6, Colossians 1:27) The Bible not only fits the evidence of scientific investigation, it provides an answer for why the world was created. Evolution does neither.

[Grav]

It doesn't matter if what is observable by humans does not match up with fiction writen by humans.

[Kaneda]

Now that I have some time to type. You say It is a religion based on ignorance and faith with ever changing definitions based on convenience that worships time.
OMG YOU JUST DEFINED EVERY RELIGION IN EXISTANCE! EXCEPT FOR THE SCIENTIFIC EVOLUTIONARY THEROY! Good job on contridicting yourself.
Christianity is based souly off of a book. A single book and it's believers. Keyword believers. You see this religion like most has no facts, no tangible evidence, no form or shape, it has multiple definitions depending on what church you go to or whom you talk to. It lives on because you BELIEVE in it. Just like the toddlers that my girlfriend teaches at her work BELIEVE in a Santa Claus my friend. You see how utterly absured that sounds? A god!? A GOD!? A SUPREME OMNICIENT BEING! Your kidding yourself. It's stupid. It's following. Your not any smarter than all of Charlie Mansons followers. Hey guess what, they BELIEVED he was a Jesus incarnate. Hear that, so that must mean its http://supportthetruth.com right? Charlie Manson = Jesus = Santa Claus = Lochness Monster.
Go fuck yourself.
Tuesday, Jun. 6, 2006 Posted: 9:26:33AM EST

WASHINGTON — Almost half of Americans believe that human beings did not evolve, but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years or so, results from a new Gallup Poll revealed.

In a May 8-11 survey of American beliefs on evolution, 46 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

In comparison, only 13 percent chose the answer: “Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process."

Yea and over half of Americans read fucking People magazine and actually care what the fuck Angelina Jolies baby looks like. Americans for the most part. Hell HUMANS for the most part are run by a herd instinct you fool. You tell them "Hey, if you don't eat carbs, you'll look sexy and people will like you." So for a half a year they ALL stop eating carbs.

There is NO reasoning with you people. You simply close off your minds to everything other than your dimwitted FAITH! Dear god, your complaining that evolution has no FACTS! Which it does. YOU HAVE NOOO FACTS! NONE! Look at fucking scientology. It has just as much substancial evidence as your christianity does!

Oh and Derek. Evolution offers no real purpose for life, it results in an absence of meaning, and therefore an absence of moral absolutes. Sorry buddy, but this is simply out of line. We are animals, we have no purpose other than survival and procreation. Do dogs have a purpose other than survival? Do they have morals? Do chickens have morals? No, therefore they are meaningless?

[~JESUS~]

It doesn't matter if what is observable by humans does not match up with fiction writen by humans.

Right.... and the bible has stood the test of time. Do some research, they found Noahs ark exactly where they said it would be. They found the remains of Sodom and Gommorah and the Tower of Bable and thousands of sites, remains of ancient cities and tombs just where the bible stated they would be. They even found the egyption chariots at the bottom of the red sea! Every person place and thing is varified to be accurate so far...the Bible says his word would survive the test of time.

Check out the book of Job. It is the Oldest book in the bible. God ask Job over 50 questions, many that explain things science has just verified in the last 50 years! things about the wind, sun, electricity, and nature of animals.

Back in those days, prophets of God were few and far between. If one thing you said was found false the penalty was death.

The Bible is the inspired word of God. 66 books written over 3,500 years by 44 authors. 100% accurate. no other book makes such claimes. Except the Koran which is a cruel hoax coppied from the biblw (poorley I might add, and not accurate) allmost 2,000 years after the first books of the bible were written and 600 years after Christ, by a pedephile that has continuiously changed. In fact, there are nearly 30,000 verified original manuscripts which we get our bible from. No other great ancient works that exist today from the past can even come close to making that claim. Homer, socretes..or any others. our entire society is based on the laws and rules of the bible for a reason!

Lets say hypothetically, there IS a creator and he made us in his image like the bible says, and we are observably complex and advanced in ways of knowledge compared to other life forms we see and observe. Lets just say he wants to get a message to his children. How would he do it so it would be the most benifical to that objective? Lets just say that, as the case may be, this message is VERY COMPLEX and is a needed set of guidlines for his children to live and function. The message would need to be sent over a period of time, piece by piece to overcome hostile jamming.

If this is for debates sake true, well then how amazingly fortunate are we to have this available in this day and age!

[Lenny]

Do some research

Stop fucking saying that! You don't yourself. The majority of your posts have been copied and pasted from some Christian site.

Except the Koran which is a cruel hoax coppied from the biblw (poorley I might add, and not accurate) allmost 2,000 years after the first books of the bible were written and 600 years after Christ, by a pedephile that has continuiously changed.

Smoothly put.

If you want to go on about the age of religions, then I'm sorry to say that Christianity has absolutely nothing on Hinduism.

One is 2,000 years old, the other can be traced back around 1.7million years.

http://www.gitamrta.org/religion.htm
http://www.gitamrta.org/bridge.htm

Oh look, I can prove that legends are true. I must be a Holy Book!

-----

found Noahs ark exactly where they said it would be.

Sure, "Do some research".

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a001.html

-----

Ooooh! You got something right. Sodom and Gomorrah HAVE been discovered. But was it The Lord who burnt them?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a007.html

Nah.

I have also proved that I can link to Christian sites. Do I get a medal?

-----

The Bible doesn't only contradict itself in various cases, but half the supposed acts that happen cannot possibly happen.

Let's take Noah's ark, for example.

First things first - the guy was 600 y/o! Maybe the air was that little bit less polluted back then, but the human body cannot live for 600 years.

So, he took a pair, or seven, of every species on the planet onto a giant ark when it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and flooded 'the entire world'.

Second point - there is not enough water on the world flood it, nor for it to rain contiuously for 40 days and 40 nights.

Third - EVERY species? Superman wasn't involved here, was he?

That'd have to be a massive construction, just for the animals, but then we come on to the other points:

1. The animals must eat
2. What about all the waste

Where did all the food for the animals come from? Or did they not eat for weeks?

And then there's the animal waste problem. Billions of animals, on one tiny ark, all crapping. Noah would need an army to deal with that waste, he, his 3 sons and their wives could not deal with it alone. So with all that waste, there'd be a lot of disease, which would lead to a lot of death.

So, let's say be some heavenly miracle, he did manage to make it to Mount Ararat. And the waters subside, all this magical water disappearing back to where it came from, and the animals all come off the ark. In the middle of Turkey. On a bloody great mountain.

- How do they get off the mountain?
- How do they make it back to their home countries - float on debris?
- And if they do make the exodus home, why is there not a line of offspring following them?
- Surely after this flood, ALL animals would originate in Turkey, so the records must show a lot of animal speices in Turkey at this day, or at least a lot of bones from animals who did live there.

The stories are flawed. Sure, there's a few good morals, and some things are a great laugh, but they are NOT Historical.

The Bible is a metaphor. One is supposed to read it and learn the lessons, not believe every word.

[Willkillforfood]

Mm, remember watching a show about how when surveying the mountain where the ark supposedly was they caught site of a large object that could have been a boat. However, on a subsequent sweep they couldn't find it again or some shit because the snows shifted. That would be awesome if they found it though ...that'd probably be about the most important archeological discovery to man. I really doubt it's there but hey, if it was that'd be cool too, right? :P

[~JESUS~]

If you want to go on about the age of religions, then I'm sorry to say that Christianity has absolutely nothing on Hinduism.

One is 2,000 years old, the other can be traced back around 1.7million years.

Million years huh? 1.7 to be exact? lol

Again im not talking about religion.

..and actually Hinduism is idol worship brought to india by the assyrians around 500 years before christ and 1500 years after the first books of the bible.

The assyrians conqured ancient Israel in this time too. As the bible says and predicts.

Hundreds of years later, they redefined it and put a caste system to put the people in bondage. Which has worked to this day.

Ooooh! You got something right. Sodom and Gomorrah HAVE been discovered. But was it The Lord who burnt them?

Yes. Its not like he manifested in the flesh and casted fireballs! lol

The Bible doesn't only contradict itself in various cases, but half the supposed acts that happen cannot possibly happen.

Where and when? Name them...

Let's take Noah's ark, for example.

First things first - the guy was 600 y/o! Maybe the air was that little bit less polluted back then, but the human body cannot live for 600 years.

It was before the world wide flood. The earths atmosphere was completely different as the bible says.

So, he took a pair, or seven, of every species on the planet

NO. Every KIND. "KIND". Not every animal..God told hoim to bring the animal by there kind. A kind is nopt a species. for example. A wolf would be a "kind" of animal. He didnt have to get technical and bring those different sizes and shapes that make up further species if you want to call them.

onto a giant ark when it rained for 40 days and 40 nights and flooded 'the entire world'.

Legends of a world wide flood with survivors of one man and his family exist in nearly every ancient civilization all over the world, China, Hawaii, Mexican
Aztecs, exc...Look it up.

check this out...
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/noah's_ark.htm
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/noahs-ark.htm
http://www.wyattmuseum.com/images/wpe109.jpg

Up to that point there was no rain, the grounds mists waterd the earth. It says that the fountains of the deep broke open, which in turn made it rain for 40 days and nights. Do you know what the fountains of the deep are?

Again, before the flood, the world was completely different.

Second point - there is not enough water on the world flood it, nor for it to rain contiuously for 40 days and 40 nights.

watch this movie...
http://www.thetaxpayerschannel.org/graphics/creation/fonte23.mov

See above and try actually READING the bible.

Third - EVERY species?

No. Just the BASIC KINDS of animals as the bible says.

That'd have to be a massive construction, just for the animals, but then we come on to the other points:

It was, the bible says that it was allmost 500 feet long and 50 feet high. which is exactly what they found...


1. The animals must eat

what if you brought babies and or eggs?

2. What about all the waste

what about it?

Where did all the food for the animals come from? Or did they not eat for weeks?

oh they ate allright, Im assuming. and Noah had 60 years to plan this...and yes Im sure they didnt gorge themselves.

Billions of animals,

billions? where are you getting this information?

on one tiny ark, all crapping.

again eggs and babies dont make that much waste and it was a MASSIVE floating barge.

Noah would need an army to deal with that waste, he, his 3 sons and their wives could not deal with it alone.

Back then people lived alot longer then now, imagine how intelligent he must have been. Im sure he would figure it out.

So with all that waste, there'd be a lot of disease, which would lead to a lot of death.

no. Because there was not disease back then that we know of. ...also, its only for 2 months.

So, let's say be some heavenly miracle, he did manage to make it to Mount Ararat. And the waters subside, all this magical water disappearing back to where it came from,

It took a couple weeks, made lakes and different bodies of water.

and the animals all come off the ark. In the middle of Turkey. On a bloody great mountain.

- How do they get off the mountain?

it wasnt ON the mountain, it was at the base.

- How do they make it back to their home countries - float on debris?

home countries?

- And if they do make the exodus home, why is there not a line of offspring following them?

Im not following you... Line of offspring?

- Surely after this flood, ALL animals would originate in Turkey, so the records must show a lot of animal speices in Turkey at this day, or at least a lot of bones from animals who did live there.

I dont understand the point you are trying to make.

One is supposed to read it and learn the lessons, not believe every word.

Try reading EVERY WORD first before commenting.

[Lenny]

And YOU try reading MY words before commenting. Look at the sites I've posted and read what they have to say. God know's I've put myself through the crap you've posted.

And please! Use the brain 'God gave you' and actually think about my points.

-----

The waste.
Hmmm, would you really want it there piling up? How would it be shovelled away, by 7 people. All those animals.

Billions of animals.
There are more species of insects in 10 square metres of soil, then humans in the world. Then there's loads of different animals. You want different "kinds" of animals? Count them all up, including the insects (birds, insects, mammals, reptiles) and you've got billions. The fish don't enter into it - they'll have been fine in the water.

The Disease
Of course there's disease! Oh, look, it's 2000 years ago. They can't have had disease, how stupid to think they did. How silly of me.

And "it's only 2 months"?! In two months, the great plague wiped out half of London. In "two months" the Black Death killed a sizeable chunk of Europe. In "two months" a host of fatal diseases could spread through the ark like wildfire and kill everything in it. With all the animals packed together, in awful conditions, with this waste 7 people can't so anything with up to their knees, a single virus (which multiplies millions of times inside one body) can infect every single animal.

Home Countries and Offspring
If the animals hadn't gone off to their native countries, then they would all be in Turkey still, no?

Animals also reproduce a lot quicker than humans. They'd be reproducing all the way home, so you'd see some kind of traceable line of animals out of Turkey.

[~JESUS~]

The waste.
Hmmm, would you really want it there piling up? How would it be shovelled away, by 7 people. All those animals.

It was only the basic kinds of LAND animals.

Billions of animals.

There are more species of insects in 10 square metres of soil, then humans in the world.

Insects breath through there skin, water does not kill them. they were not on the ark. as the bible says it was land animals.

Then there's loads of different animals. You want different "kinds" of animals? Count them all up, including the insects (birds, insects, mammals, reptiles) and you've got billions.

No actually its ony a few hundred thousand and they can all be named in about 2 hours.

The fish don't enter into it - they'll have been fine in the water.

I agree.

The Disease
Of course there's disease! Oh, look, it's 2000 years ago. They can't have had disease, how stupid to think they did. How silly of me.

not silly, you just dont know any better.

And "it's only 2 months"?! In two months, the great plague wiped out half of London. In "two months" the Black Death killed a sizeable chunk of Europe. In "two months" a host of fatal diseases could spread through the ark like wildfire and kill everything in it. With all the animals packed together, in awful conditions, with this waste 7 people can't so anything with up to their knees, a single virus (which multiplies millions of times inside one body) can infect every single animal.

but it didnt. Obviously. Nice theory though. Hang on to that.

Home Countries and Offspring
If the animals hadn't gone off to their native countries, then they would all be in Turkey still, no?

They had to start somwhere...lol..see below
watch the video I posted.

Animals also reproduce a lot quicker than humans. They'd be reproducing all the way home, so you'd see some kind of traceable line of animals out of Turkey.

Evolutionists even acknowledge that men and animals could once freely cross the Bering Strait, which separates Asia and the Americas.

The existence of some deep-water stretches along the route to Australia is still consistent with this explanation. Evolutionist geologists themselves believe there have been major tectonic upheavals, accompanied by substantial rising and falling of sea floors.

The Bible suggests a pattern of post-Flood dispersal of animals and humans that accounts for fossil distribution of apes and humans, for example. In post-Flood deposits in Africa, ape fossils are found below human fossils. Evolutionists claim that this arose because humans evolved from the apes, but there is another explanation. Animals, including apes, would have begun spreading out over the earth straight after the flood, whereas the Bible indicates that people refused to do this (Genesis 9:1, 11:1-9). Human dispersal did not start until Babel, some hundreds of years after the Flood. Such a delay would have meant that some ape fossils would be found consistently below human fossils, since people would have arrived in Africa after the apes.

We may never know the exact answer to every one of such questions, but certainly one can see that the problems are far less formidable than they may at first appear. Coupled with all the biblical, geological, and anthropological evidence for Noah's Flood, one is justified in regarding the Genesis account of the animals dispersing from a central point as perfectly reasonable. Not only that, but the biblical model provides an excellent framework for the scientific study of these questions.

[Jessifer]

No actually its ony a few hundred thousand and they can all be named in about 2 hours.

You have two hours. Name them all. Also, even if all the animals were babes, they would still take up more room than a boat that's only 500ft long and 50ft high...

[~JESUS~]

You have two hours. Name them all.

no thanks. but others have.

Also, even if all the animals were babes, they would still take up more room than a boat that's only 500ft long and 50ft high...

no, because it was not Every single species. only the Basic Kinds of land animals.

[~JESUS~]

You have two hours. Name them all. Also, even if all the animals were babes, they would still take up more room than a boat that's only 500ft long and 50ft high...

"Scientists who study animal life are called zoologosts. They have recorded 20,000 species of fish, 6,000 species of reptiles, 9,000 birds, 1,000 amphibians, and 15,000 species of mammals."
http://www.worldstory.net/en/species.html

notice it says SPECIES. SPECIES are not kinds.

Break those numbers down considerably...you have your answers.

[Jessifer]

Maybe I should start making my sarcastic comments more noticable...

[~JESUS~]

a boat that's only 500ft long and 50ft high...

Actually it was an ark. A boat is made for traveling, an ark is made for floating.:grin:

[Jessifer]

Tch. Dictionary.com says this, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ark) and the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says this. (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ark)

A boat is an ark is a boat is an ark. Lovely linkage for you.

And, excuse me as I break out my own Bible, (Yes, I do own one. Twas my mothers.) it says in Genesis 7:2 that God told Noah to take seven pairs of every "clean" animal ("the male and his female", as it says), and one pair of every "unclean" animal. In Gen 7:3 it says "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female". SO, Noah did not take one pair of every "kind" of animal, instead there were many more than you claim.

And finally...in Gen 7:8 it says: Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[Kaneda]

What about dinosaurs? If god created the earth and flung two humans down on it soon after what about all the billions of years before there was man?

Where did your deity come from also? If we had to of come from somewhere, if the earth had to of been created at one point, where did the supreme being come from. He couldn't have just existed since the beginning of forever.

[Sovereign]

Teaching creationism in school is the first step to starting a new series of crusades. Mark my words, it is a bad idea.

[Great-Thanatos]

Are they allowed to teach made up stuff? I always thought only shit that has been proven and only mention shit that is just theory

Evolution is the way we were made....

[~JESUS~]

Tch. Dictionary.com says this, (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ark) and the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary says this. (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ark)

A boat is an ark is a boat is an ark. Lovely linkage for you.

And, excuse me as I break out my own Bible, (Yes, I do own one. Twas my mothers.) it says in Genesis 7:2 that God told Noah to take seven pairs of every "clean" animal ("the male and his female", as it says), and one pair of every "unclean" animal. In Gen 7:3 it says "Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female". SO, Noah did not take one pair of every "kind" of animal, instead there were many more than you claim.

And finally...in Gen 7:8 it says: Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth.

The word ark in the original greek is tebah: it could means something pitch coated, a certain material, a life preserver, or a certain shape.

and nice verses, but hold on there ..go back to chapter 6...

6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every SORT shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

6:20 Of fowls after their KIND, and of cattle after their KIND, of every creeping thing of the earth after his KIND, TWO of every SORT shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.

6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.

6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

Then in chapter 7...God further devides the KINDS from chapter 6 into clean and unclean...not really hard to understand.

7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens *, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens *, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

*sevens and twos in the hebrew literaly means three pairs plus one extra. This is prefered over seven pairs which would total 14 in number. The extra animal was used for a sacrifice after the flood in Genesis 8:20.

Again as i said before, it all makes sense if you just read around.:D

[Great-Thanatos]

no, because it was not Every single species. only the Basic Kinds of land animals.
So, then you say there is evolution eh?

[~JESUS~]

What about dinosaurs? If god created the earth and flung two humans down on it soon after what about all the billions of years before there was man?

billions? That is another topic...

dinosaurs were created and dwelled and lived with man. They all over the bible but not obviously called dinosaurs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6833722951687298593&q=hovind+dinosaurs

Many questions will be answered if we focus on one question, “When did they live?” Two quite different answers are usually given. Evolutionists say dinosaurs lived, died, and became extinct at least 60 million years before man evolved. Others believe God created all living things during the creation week, so man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. If we look at the evidence, sorting out these two very different answers should be easy.

Did dinosaurs become extinct at least 60 million years before man evolved? Almost all textbooks that address the subject say they did. Movies and television vividly portray this. One hears it even at Disney World and other amusement parks. Some will say that every educated person believes this. We frequently hear stories that begin with impressive-sounding phrases such as, “Two hundred million years ago, as dinosaurs ruled the earth, ...” But none of this is evidence; some of it is an appeal to authority. (Evidence must be observable and verifiable.)

Did man and dinosaurs live at the same time? Scientists in the former Soviet Union have reported a layer of rock containing more than 2,000 dinosaur footprints alongside tracks “resembling human footprints.” Obviously, both types of footprints were made in mud or sand that later hardened into rock. If some are human footprints, then man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Similar discoveries have been made in Arizona. Were it not for the theory of evolution, few would doubt that these were human footprints.

Soft dinosaur tissue has now been recovered from several dinosaurs: three tyrannosaurs (T rex) and one hadrosaur. It is ridiculous to believe that soft tissue can be preserved for more than 60,000,000 years, but it could be preserved for 5,000 years.

The Book of Job is one of the oldest books ever written. In it, God tells of His greatness as Creator and describes an animal, called Behemoth, as follows:

Behold now, Behemoth, which I made as well as you; He eats grass like an ox. Behold now, his strength in his loins, And his power in the muscles of his belly. He bends his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are tubes of bronze; His limbs are like bars of iron.

Behemoth had a “tail like a cedar.” Any animal with a tail as huge and strong as a cedar tree is probably a dinosaur. Also, Job 40:19–24 says this giant, difficult-to-capture animal was not alarmed by a raging river. If the writer of Job knew of a dinosaur, then the evolution position is wrong, and man saw dinosaurs.

The fact that drawings and ancient pottery with dinosaurs on them are further proof that man dwelt with dinosaurs, having that they never saw a fossil or a textbook!

The next chapter of Job describes another huge, fierce animal, a sea monster named Leviathan.3 It was not a whale or crocodile, because the Hebrew language had other words to describe such animals. Leviathan may be a plesiosaur (PLEE see uh sore), a large seagoing reptile that evolutionists say became extinct 60 million years before man evolved.

For the past three centuries, reports have come from the Congo in western Africa that dinosaurs exist in remote swamps. Eyewitness stories are often from educated people who can quickly describe dinosaurs. Two expeditions to the Congo, led by biologist Dr. Roy Mackal of the University of Chicago, never saw dinosaurs, but interviewed many of these witnesses and concluded that their reports were about dinosaurs and were apparently true.5 If any of these accounts are correct, man and dinosaurs were contemporaries.

Consider the many dragon legends. Most ancient cultures have stories or artwork of dragons that strongly resemble dinosaurs. The World Book Encyclopedia states that:

The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.

The simplest and most obvious explanation for so many common descriptions of dragons from around the world is that man once knew the dinosaurs.

What caused the extinction of dinosaurs? Primarily, the flood. Because dinosaur bones are found among other fossils, dinosaurs must have been living when the flood began. Dozens of other dinosaur extinction theories exist, but all have recognized problems. Most of the food chain was buried in the flood. Therefore, many large dinosaurs that survived the flood probably had difficulty feeding themselves and became extinct. also, after the flood for hundreds of years they were probably hunted off because of survival purposes.

Were dinosaurs on the Ark? Yes. God told Noah to put representatives of every kind of land animal on the Ark. (Some dinosaurs were semiaquatic and could have survived outside the Ark.) But why put adult dinosaurs on the Ark? Young dinosaurs would take up less room, eat less, and be easier to manage. The purpose for having animals on board was so they could reproduce after the flood and repopulate the earth. Young dinosaurs would have more potential for reproduction than old dinosaurs.

Certain bones in dinosaur bodies show annual growth rings, as trees do. Dinosaurs, early in life and late in life, grew at very slow rates. During mid-life, they went through huge growth spurts. Therefore, during the year dinosaurs were on the Ark, juveniles probably weighed less than 60 pounds. (A 2-year-old T rex weighed 66 pounds. The largest T rex known, lived to be 28 years. Dinosaurs did not become large because they lived long lives.


Where did your deity come from also? If we had to of come from somewhere, if the earth had to of been created at one point, where did the supreme being come from. He couldn't have just existed since the beginning of forever.

God the creator is outside of time considering time itself is irrelevant
and is dependent completely on gravity and mass.

In Genesis, God created all that is in this physical dimension, including time because of the above. That which has no mass, has no time. Like information or a memory, it doesnt age and is not subject to gravity or death or whatever else you can touch in this physical realm. God is outside of time. That which has no mass, has no time.

God created both.

[frosted_snow]

One is 2,000 years old, the other can be traced back around 1.7million years.
I hate hearing all this RUBISH about 1.7million year ago or 56million years ago mumbo jumbo.The ONLY and I repeat ONLY knowladge about how truely aged this world may be is the studied records.I like asking professors where they got that goofy idea by stating, '' Do you have physical proof besides something you thought up and wrote down after going 30 hrs. without sleep.Did you actually go back in time and see the world 2 million years ago?"GIVE ME A BREAK!The oldest history book known to man that has been known to be 100% accurate in ALL areas of science is the BIBLE.If you don't believe this, go, study all the BIBLE and its science, go and see for yourself if it is accurate.Evolution is a mere stupid condradictory way of escape from the Truth.So is the Big Bang Theory.None of them are solid.Creation is as solid as it get's.Proven time and time again it has prevailed.However,if you whant to take my word for it, fine!If not,go study it for yourself.There's a book of one man who tried such a thing.the book is Case for Christ.If that isn't enough, I would encourage ANY and EVERYONE to watch Dr.Carl Baugh videos.He has been up against some of the top dog scientist of major colledges and completely pwned them and their foolish evolution big bangist ways.If you do not beleive me here, SEE IT FOR YOURSELF BY ACTUALLY TAKING YOUR PRESCIOUSE TIME OUT OF YOUr DAY AND WATCHING THE VIDEOS.Here is a PERFECT site with FREE video watching!
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
Thanks for your time.

[kaos]

exactly bitch plz send the fuckng info to email accxt kkk I hate you fucking faggot ass blink fucking mouse suck cat peniz b4 i kill

[Sovereign]

http://www.werewolves.org/~two/Rants/2rant-religion.mp3

[Draco2003]

Okay...The Bible cannot be considered truth or even historically accurate. So that means that J.K Rowling's books are truth? And since when is the Bible the oldest known "TRUE" form of history? As for how accurate they are, and then saying scientists used SCIENCE to backdate them to the time that is spoken in the Bible? Did you know that I could write a book today about Santa Claus and 5,000 years from now, someone could read it...then find it in some form of media (magazine, newspaper, VHS tape, DVD, or other form of entertainment) and assume that it is real? I have to agree with Lenny, because all of your arguments backfire when you say that the BIBLE is truth, because SCIENCE PROVES IT.....think about that...then slap yourself a couple times....then I might think about listening to your comments.

If evolution never happened, then how do you explain stem cells being used to make another ear, or nose, or even toe? Another thing. Your explanation about Micro and Macro evolution is just a large steaming pile of evolved manure. Microevolution obviously leads to macro evolution. If you evolve something a million times in minute ways, like supposedly in the Bible, then eventually there would be macroevolution, or a large change. OMG like between monkeys and man. We only assume that we evolved from them because they almost look like harrier versions of us and we dug up their bones...the fact that their DNA is a 98% match has nothing to do with it. And in case you haven't seen National Geographic, if a man goes to live in a region where there is no civilization, look what happens to him. OMG HE GROWS HAIR ON HIS BODY!!! HE LOOKS LIKE A MONKEY!!! The Bible has more holes that swiss cheese, science has proven itself time and time again.

[Grav]

I hate hearing all this RUBISH about 1.7million year ago or 56million years ago mumbo jumbo.The ONLY and I repeat ONLY knowladge about how truely aged this world may be is the studied records.I like asking professors where they got that goofy idea by stating, '' Do you have physical proof besides something you thought up and wrote down after going 30 hrs. without sleep.Did you actually go back in time and see the world 2 million years ago?"

*sigh* You've got to be kidding me. How old are you? Have you ever taken a chemistry class? Radioactive decay. The half-lives of certain elements, such as Carbon and Uranium-238, can be used for geological dating. You could conduct such experiments yourself to prove it, if you had any semblance of ability to think and act for yourself. I am not impressed by someone stumping some insignificant dumbass professors. Even the stupid manage to get into the educational system sometimes... as shown by the ridiculous and asinine concepts such as 'intelligent design'. "Give me a break."

[~JESUS~]

*sigh* You've got to be kidding me. How old are you? Have you ever taken a chemistry class? Radioactive decay. The half-lives of certain elements, such as Carbon and Uranium-238, can be used for geological dating. You could conduct such experiments yourself to prove it, if you had any semblance of ability to think and act for yourself. I am not impressed by someone stumping some insignificant dumbass professors. Even the stupid manage to get into the educational system sometimes... as shown by the ridiculous and asinine concepts such as 'intelligent design'. "Give me a break."

carbon dating is not an accurate form of dating.

Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact Science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that.

Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C-14 is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere.

The man who invented Carbon dating knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. He assumed that the earth was millions of years old, and that it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium.

- What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old! )

***Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago.

Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon STILL in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did!

What was the original amount of Carbon in the atmosphere???

A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)

Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material
("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v)

We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.
( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii)

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations.

The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.

No carbon-14 existed immediately after creation, because carbon-14 accumulates with time. The preflood earth had more land area and less sea area, because about half of today’s water was under the earth’s crust. Therefore, what little carbon-14 accumulated before the flood was diluted with the carbon-12 in the vast amounts of lush vegetation growing on the earth, most of which was buried during the flood to become our coal, oil, and methane deposits.

Third, For carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/webpictures/carbon14.jpg

To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size!

Carbon dating is frequently an embarrassment to Scientists.
Here are some Carbon 14 dates that were rejected because they did not agree with evolution...

*Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.

*The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

*The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ("The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)

*What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)

Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age.

*A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

*Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)

*Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new “accelerator mass spectrometer” technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less!
R. E. Taylor et al., “Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,” American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1985, pp. 136–140.

*The potassium-argon method was used to date volcanic material in this next example:
"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model!

Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see, and explain away unwanted data.

Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html#wp1729594
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

[Lenny]

Once again, copied and pasted. I congratulate you on your superior knowledge of the Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V functions of the keyboard.

-----

Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see, and explain away unwanted data.

If that is the case with Science, then it must also be the case with Religion. How do you explain all the contradictions in the Bible? Look at what you and Jess were arguing about - she argued that the Bible said everything. You came back with quotes that said only kinds of animals. YOU only see what YOU want to see. You don't even have your own views!! You copy and paste everything from sites, and use what the Bible says to put forth an argument. Those aren't your views! You're arguing other people's views and the word of a book.

-----

I see you don... I'm sorry. I can see your sites don't seem to have any quibbles with Uranium-238 into Lead in rocks? Is that because you couldn't find enough sites, or is it because they know they can't say anything against it because it works?

I was looking forward to arguing against your "proof" that dinosaurs are 5,000 y/o, but that's been done.

Oooh! There's a point. Ever heard of this miraculous scientific substance called "ice". It's so amazingly miraculous that it can keep living tissue preserved for millions of years! :eek:!

Instead of arguing with you on this occasion (you're too stubborn to take anything into your head), I'm going to leave you with a nice little quote I put in my second RS exam yesterday which asked the question "Does God exist? Do you agree or disagree with this statement?":

On the sixth day, God created man.
On the seventh day, man returned the favour.

[~JESUS~]

I see you don... I'm sorry.

Dont be sorry.

I can see your sites don't seem to have any quibbles with Uranium-238 into Lead in rocks? Is that because you couldn't find enough sites, or is it because they know they can't say anything against it because it works?

No...its because the uranium-lead dating method has produced so many anomalous readings that it has fallen into disrepute, even among Evolutionists!

If you would like I could provide examples. but it might involve cutting and pasting!:grin:

I was looking forward to arguing against your "proof" that dinosaurs are 5,000 y/o, but that's been done.

Actually it hasnt and so was I.

..and why argue when we can debate. Do you know the difference Lenny?

I dont see you explaining all the examples and FACTS I have givin you.

Dont shoot the messenger Lenny. It makes you look foolish. But thats what happens when you try to shoot the message and continuiosly miss.

..and for the record, I am not a scientist, I play one on the internet.:D

[Lenny]

We've gone through debating and out the other side.

Before we carry on. How old are you? Sometimes you act like you're 40, other times 17, and there's been occasion when I think of you as 8. So, which one is it?

I'm 16, if you can't be bothered looking at my profile.

[~JESUS~]

We've gone through debating and out the other side.

Actually WE havnt. I have and you act your age.

Hers some info for you Lenny. Read slow. ENJOY!:D

There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the parent or original radioactive substance gradually decays into daughter substances. This may involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains that has no radioactivity. In some instances, the parent substance may decay directly into the end product. Sometimes, the radioactive chain may begin with an element partway down the decay chain.

A somewhat different type of radioactive dating method is called carbon 14-dating or radiocarbon dating. It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of carbon, in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and their subsequent decay to the stable carbon isotope. We will also discuss radiocarbon dating in this chapter.

SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS—At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a basic fact: Each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to EACH specimen that is tested.

Here are seven of these fragile assumptions:

(1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!

But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.

But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do!

(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.

Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct.

Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.

The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

(4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

"His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.

Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from the present rate,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.

(6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.

Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt—what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age."

By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc.

Evolutionary theorists tell us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed later. But "appearance of maturity" at the Creation would mean that, much of the elements, now classified by evolutionists as "daughter products," were actually original—not daughter—products and were already in the ground along with uranium instead of being produced by it. We already know, from Robert Gentry’s studies, that original (primordial) polonium 218 was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly and in solid form; yet polonium is thought by evolutionists to only occur as an eventual daughter product of uranium disintegration.

FIVE URANIUM/THORIUM DATING INACCURACIES—Here are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium (all uranium) and thorium:

(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product.

In addition, common lead (lead 204), which has no radioactive parent, could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field, recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297).

When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible common lead content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples.

(2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.

(3) There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also.

Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.

Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years.

(4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!

(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.

"Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age.

It is a well-known fact, by nuclear researchers, that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings; yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time when, in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.

2—THORIUM-LEAD DATING—A majority of the flaws discussed under uranium-lead dating, above, apply equally to thorium-lead dating.

The half-lives of uranium 238, 235, and thorium 232 are supposedly known, having been theorized. But whenever dates are computed using thorium,—they always widely disagree with uranium dates! No one can point to a single reason for this. We probably have here a cluster of several major contamination factors; and all of these contamination factors are beyond our ability to identify, much less calculate. To make matters worse, contaminating factors common to both may cause different reactions in the thorium than in the uranium! (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, p. 295).

"The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others."—*L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks," in Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872.

PROBLEMS WITH ALL RADIODATING METHODS —The rocks brought back from the moon provided an outstanding test for the various dating methods—because all those techniques were used on them. The results were a disaster.

The age spread of certain moon rocks varied from 2 million to 28 billion years! Now scientists are arguing over the results. Some say the moon is 2 million years old while others say it is 28 billion years old. We have here a weighty scientific problem, and a headache for evolutionists. (For more on this, see *Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17.)

Yet there is clear-cut non-radiogenic evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 4, Age of the Earth). In contrast with these inaccurate dating methods, scientific facts, such as the almost total lack of moon dust, lunar soil mixing, presence of short half-life U-236 and Th-230 in moon rocks, low level of inert gases, and lunar recession,—provide strong evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 4, Age of the Earth.)

EMERY’S RESEARCH—In order for a radioactive clock to be usable, it has to run without variation. But *G.T. Emery has done careful research on radiohalos (pleochroic halos) and found that they do not show constant decay rates. When the long half-life radiohalos (made by uranium, thorium, etc.) are examined, the time spans involved show inaccuracies in the decay rates.

JUST ONE CATASTROPHE—As *Jeaneman explains so well, just one major catastrophe—such as a worldwide Flood—would have ruined the usefulness of all our radiodating clocks.

Why would a single worldwide catastrophe reset all the atomic clocks? First, there would be massive contamination problems, as fluids, chemicals, and radioactive substances flowed or were carried from one place to another. Second, there would be major radioactive rate-changing activities (atmospheric, radioative, and magnetic changes) which would tend to reset the clocks directly. Third, a major shifting and redistribution of rock pressure occurring above radiogenic rocks would reset their clocks. Fourth, there would be reversals of earth’s magnetic core, which was caused by the shock-wave vibrations through that fluid core from what was happening closer to the surface (volcanoes, earthquakes, gigantic geysers, seafloor sinking, and massive mountain building—see chapter 14 (Effects of the Flood) and chapter 20 (Tectonics and Paleomagetism).

Now read this:

FIVE WAYS TO CHANGE THE RATES—Careful laboratory tests by *H.C. Dudley revealed that external influences can very definitely affect decay rates. He CHANGED (!) the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc. The implications of this are momentous, even astounding! (see *H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2). The sedimentary rock strata were laid down under massive pressure. This involved great stress. (See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for more on both points.) Dramatic temperature changes occurred shortly after the strata were laid down; and Earth’s iron core was disturbed to such an extent, that magnetic reversals occurred at the poles (see Paleomagnetism, on our website). Yet *Dudley showed that each of these forces would have dramatically affected the clocks within radioactive rocks.

Immense forces were at work, during and just after the Flood, that could and did affect the constancy of radioactive half-lives—which, in turn, are the only basis for radiodating methods!

The consequence is inaccurate dating results which are not reliable and which cannot be reset—since their earlier settings are not now known.

*Time magazine (June 19, 1964) reported an intriguing item which was overlooked by much of the scientific community. Although scientists generally consider that no known force can change the rate of atomic disintegration of radioactive elements,—researchers at Westinghouse laboratories have actually done it. How did they do it? Simply by placing inactive "dead" iron next to radioactive iron. The result was that the disintegration rate was altered!

Radioactive iron will give off particles for a time and then lapse into an inactive state. When the researchers placed radioactive iron next to inactive iron, the inactive iron gradually became active. In this way, the apparent age of the radioactive iron was changed by about 3 percent while the clock of the previously inactive iron was returned to its original radioactive mass. Its clock was set back to zero!

If so much variation can be accomplished in small lab samples, think what has been taking place out in the field. All that, in this case, would be required would be for radioactive lead solutions to flow by and coat inactive lead.

INTERLOCKING IMAGININGS—A brief historical review will help explain the situation:

(1) Early in the 19th century, evolutionists decided that fossils in certain rock strata should be such-and-such an age.

(2) So they gave the strata containing those fossils dates which would match their fossil age theories.

(3) Then they announced that they had thought up the dates by peering at so-called "index fossils."

(4) They declared that they could now prove the ages of the fossils in the rocks—by the rock strata they were in. Thus, they started out by dating the strata by imagined dates for fossils, and they ended up dating the fossils by applying those imagined dates to the strata!

This circular reasoning pattern has continued on down to the present day in regard to the dating of fossils and strata.

But then as the 20th century began, radioactive mineral dating began to be discovered. Repeatedly, scientists have tried to correlate radioactive dating with the dates they applied to fossils and strata a century before radiodating was known. But they have not been able to do so. Out of literally thousands of tests, they have been able to correlate only three of them (the Colorado, Bohemian, and Swedish dates given in the *Knopf quotation [a lengthy statement we did not have room to include in this paperback]. The evolutionists decided that three successes out of hundreds of thousands of test failures were enough to make their fossil/strata theory "scientific," by matching radiodating. It is on this basis that evolutionary scientists now grandly proclaim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals! See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for much, much more on this.

SOME DATING SAMPLES—To conclude this section on radiodating problems, here are a few dating samples. Many, many, many more could have been cited!

"Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years [*G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].

"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499].

"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146.

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c06a.htm

[~JESUS~]

..and this is for you Lenny.

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead
Flashing Horizontal Line.

A story about two friends from day one.

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.

Yes, my friend, it wasn't a big bang. It was a big AMEN (translated, "So be it.").
So, have we proven that evolution is dead and the Earth was created?

Well, it's faith isn't it? Either you believe in creation which requires a Creator, or you believe in evolution as a theory which ignores a creator. Basically, people who believe in the evolutionary theory either 1) deny scientific fact in order to deny that God exists, or 2) they have not studied well enough to see that evolution is not possible. Science makes it very difficult to believe in evolution because an instantaneous creation is perfectly supported. Evolution cannot be proven.

http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm

[Lenny]

I'll ask once again. What is your age?

Stop being the politician. Stop using someone elses argument.

How about this? For the next three posts in this thread, neither of us can post a link, nor copy and paste ANYTHING other than what has already been said on this site.

[~JESUS~]

I'll ask once again. What is your age?

Stop being the politician. Stop using someone elses argument.

How about this? For the next three posts in this thread, neither of us can post a link, nor copy and paste ANYTHING other than what has already been said on this site.

now Lenny, I know you didnt read all that information that fast...:weird:

How about THIS: you try to respond the best you can to ANYTHING I have posted in my thread...

feel free to use whatever sources you want.

[Lenny]

Third time lucky, maybe.

What is your age?

[frosted_snow]

Third time lucky, maybe.

What is your age?
For one, ~Jesus~ seems to be married already.
2.What does age matter,I am 19 myself, if you can't prove yourself and your beleif as he does, don't bother debating.
3.If you would actually READ ALL the info above, you might see it is VERY accurate.
4.Check out this site and watch the video 'Lies in the text books'.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
and note that dr.hovind is offered for YEARS a $250000.00 reward to anyone who can prove him wrong in a debate about evolution and big bang vs. creation.He has NEVER lost!

[Kaneda]

Thats because it can't be proven yet either way. But the aurgement leans toward evolution.

What are you Jesus partner?

I heard somewhere he had sex with the Virgin Mary.

[frosted_snow]

I heard somewhere he had sex with the Virgin Mary.
LOL!There is a GOOD reason why that stupid story about Jesus having sex with Mary Magdaline and having kids with here(The davinci code)Is placed under 'FICTION'.
Thats because it can't be proven yet either way. But the aurgement leans toward evolution.
That's what you think, to bad it is false.Creation BY FAR succeeds evolution and big bang in scientific FACTS(Not theory).Watch these videos, especially
the one on "Lies In The Texbooks''
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
This contains FREE videos you can watch online!
What are you Jesus partner?
I am merely agreeing with him in his studies.If he strays the wrong way, then I will disagree with him, but so far I have seen only good report of his studies.I go with the facts, NOT the theories.

[Kaneda]

All of creationism is completly based on faith. And thats exactly how the higher powers want it, so you don't question it, so your docile, so you do as commanded. If you get into heaven by believing then you won't have any reasons to question, you won't have to ask for proof.

[Grav]

Bullshit

Thanks for copying and pasting. It just proves you can't actually argue the topic.

[frosted_snow]

All of creationism is completly based on faith.
Not so.If you would watch the actual studies and videos, you would see that creation is actually science.
And thats exactly how the higher powers want it, so you don't question it, so your docile, so you do as commanded.
You got that a little backwards.It was Scientists and crazy politicians who put evolution into textbooks and tried to say it was fact(ALL LIES) when it is a COMPLETE unproven theory with science added.
Watch the WHOLE video of "Lies In The Textbooks" here.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
You might find it a bit interesting.
If you get into heaven by believing then you won't have any reasons to question, you won't have to ask for proof.

It does take beleiving(and repentence, baptism, holy ghost) to make it to heaven, true.However, I am not asking proof, but merely agreeing and spreading the proof given.This way, those who do not beleive, may one day beleive.

[Kaneda]

Im not watching any of your propaganda. I don't need any other information or people to tell me that life is this way or that way. I think on my own and come to my own conclusions.

[frosted_snow]

Im not watching any of your propaganda. I don't need any other information or people to tell me that life is this way or that way. I think on my own and come to my own conclusions.
I am not gonna try and force any kind of beleife on you, religious or scientific.I am just letting a door be open to you, if you choose to take it, lovely, if not, that's all up to you.Do as you wish.

[~JESUS~]

LOL!There is a GOOD reason why that stupid story about Jesus having sex with Mary Magdaline and having kids with here(The davinci code)Is placed under 'FICTION'.

..and its not even the right Mary.

Creation BY FAR succeeds evolution and big bang in scientific FACTS(Not theory).Watch these videos, especially
the one on "Lies In The Texbooks''
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
This contains FREE videos you can watch online!

Thats right. Evolution is a bi-product tool of the illuminati for slavery and the dumbing down of the planets human unity and brotherhood. The entire world has been ruined because of this special theory that takes away a purpose by the creator.

150 years ago, scientists and people in general believed in a young earth and a biblical creation. Now, as truth and history has once again become lost, (especially when shaped and controlled, and dictated by a small group of men), we are born into an illusionary pre-determined reality shell of a world, where the created is worshiped(unknowingly).

It didnt happen overnight. Nothing major ever does. Its very calculated and fine tuned. But God allways wins in the end.

check out the video above, it really is excellent. The textbooks are written and controlled. What our children are learning is dicated VERY carefully. The truth is out there, and it will set you free.

The thing is, the bible says this would come to pass. It has to.

I go with the facts, NOT the theories.

I tip my hat to you brother.

I only wish others would not be afraid of the truth. But thats what shaping of the mind does. Everyone can sit comfortably and make jokes and play video games and live for land that doesnt belong to them all they want, its comfortable I know, but meanwhile things are gonna get worse. If anyone really cares about the future of mankind, unity and true peace, (at least of the mind) then they will wake up and listen, then try to help there fellow man. Its actually our duty!

[frosted_snow]

I only wish others would not be afraid of the truth. But thats what shaping of the mind does. Everyone can sit comfortably and make jokes and play video games and live for land that doesnt belong to them all they want, its comfortable I know, but meanwhile things are gonna get worse. If anyone really cares about the future of mankind, unity and true peace, (at least of the mind) then they will wake up and listen, then try to help there fellow man. Its actually our duty!
Very well said.....

[~JESUS~]

Im not watching any of your propaganda. I don't need any other information or people to tell me that life is this way or that way. I think on my own and come to my own conclusions.

Thats easy when THE CHOICES COME FROM ONE SIDE ONLY!:(

Frosted is right. Your "conclusion" is backwards.

Ask yourself a question, if you "think on your own" like frosted does, then why wont you open your mind to all the facts and information out there? I mean, do you realize how very fortunate you are to even be able to? TAKE ADVANTAGE BROTHER!!!!

[Sovereign]

The Earth has been around for a very long time. 4.5-5 billion years. In that time, the very solar system itself has rotated around the galactic center many times. There are so many cosmic events that could have happened that may have caused the creation of Polonium. Maybe there was a MASSIVE solar flare in the early days of earth that caused all this, or maybe we were too close when a supernova went off and we got shot in the face with a galactic shotgun of high energy particles. Who knows?

Just because science has yet to or can't explain why those halo's are there, doesn't mean that God created everything in an instant. Humans still insisted that the Earth was FLAT until some schmuck had to take a boat and sail across the ocean to show us otherwise.

I don't think I have any right to claim to know how the universe was created, how life came around, or what happens when we die. I don't think anyone does. What we all have are our very own personal theories on everything that should be kept to ourselves until the human society as a whole has evolved enough to stop trying to shove THEIR opinions down others throats.

We're probably all wrong anyway.

Btw, moved to Opinion and Debate.

[frosted_snow]

Just because science has yet to or can't explain why those halo's are there, doesn't mean that God created everything in an instant. Humans still insisted that the Earth was FLAT until some schmuck had to take a boat and sail across the ocean to show us otherwise.
God didn't do it in an instant, he took 6 days and did it.what is funny is that the BIBLE says the earth was round and it was written years before columbus ever whent.
I don't think I have any right to claim to know how the universe was created, how life came around, or what happens when we die. I don't think anyone does. What we all have are our very own personal theories on everything that should be kept to ourselves until the human society as a whole has evolved enough to stop trying to shove THEIR opinions down others throats.What we are trying to say is that Evolution should not be put into text books unless creation is.This way we all get a fair chance to have our beleifs noted.Sure, if they whant to have evolution in their text books,fine,but why not something that was proven even moreso then evolution.It isn't fair that we had to sit through school and listen to the teachers bash our beleifs, call us a supreme monkey, then tell us we came from a goop that was created by some weird rain that hit a certain rock(Evolution), ect. while we sit there and keep our cool.What even worse is that whenever we say something about it, we get brought to court and sued for some wacked out can't spread BIBLICAL truth law.I say if they can have a Non-Proven Theory in textbooks, then they can have a PROVEN source (Creation) in textbooks as well.And I state again, THE BIBLE HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN WRONG.It is 100% accurate in all scientific studies.

[~JESUS~]

Who knows?

god knows.

..and you can too..if you really want to!;)

read these pages...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html

Just because science has yet to or can't explain why those halo's are there, doesn't mean that God created everything in an instant. Humans still insisted that the Earth was FLAT until some schmuck had to take a boat and sail across the ocean to show us otherwise.

no actualy ,the bible says its round..you just have to know where to look!

I don't think I have any right to claim to know how the universe was created, how life came around, or what happens when we die. I don't think anyone does.

sure you do, you are special man. feerfully and wonderfully made! thats why you were made, and have the ability to choose. ...and to observe and ponder and give praise to the creator!!! nothing else can, the world and stars and heavens were created just for you!!!!
God gave you the answers man cannot explain! What a gift!

What we all have are our very own personal theories on everything that should be kept to ourselves until the human society as a whole has evolved enough to stop trying to shove THEIR opinions down others throats.

Its easier for some more than others. Facts are facts and opinions and lies are another...

the truth IS obviously out there...and it will make you free! imagine...o_O

[Sovereign]

The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.

God didn't do it in an instant, he took 6 days and did it.

Make up your mind.

what is funny is that the BIBLE says the earth was round and it was written years before columbus ever whent.

And I have a high school textbook that states the universe is shaped like a sphere that is expanding at a idenical speed in all directions. If future science prooves that true will my text book be the spawn of a new religion? Not really trying to poke fun but that's the only comparison I could think of at this hour. It's interesting that it was stated, yes, but I think it was by mere luck more then anything.

EDIT: And I'm off to bed. Happy debating!

[~JESUS~]

God didn't do it in an instant, he took 6 days and did it.what is funny is that the BIBLE says the earth was round and it was written years before columbus ever went.

Thats right! amongst other things..check out JOB!

What we are trying to say is that Evolution should not be put into text books unless creation is.This way we all get a fair chance to have our beleifs noted.

Exactly! :D

If you are gonna teach biology, teach biology, you can without going into orgins. if you are gonna teach theories of orgins, call them what they are, not factual science..it confuses people for the worse! give them the truth!!!..let them take it from there as God intended.

when a group controls all the information sources and further, LIEs about that information, well that means that there is a motive. ...and believe me, your BEST interest is not it!

Recent studies show that over have of the people today still beklieve and support creation by God!

[frosted_snow]

~Jesus~ said:
The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.



Frosted_Snow said:
God didn't do it in an instant, he took 6 days and did it.


Make up your mind.
However, if granite and Polonium are part of the earth, it is very possible He
(God)Made the outer layer(crust,rock,gasses)at the same time,I dunno,what I do know is that it took HIM 6 days to make it ALL(Earth water rock animals mammals humans ect.)WOW I am really tired, i can tell in my typing.My mind isn't strait right now so I will check this post later and see if I am accurate.

[~JESUS~]

Make up your mind.

In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth. The days were not yet, time was not yet...then he made the first day by making the sun and moon for that very purpose, amongst other things..)

It's interesting that it was stated, yes, but I think it was by mere luck more then anything.

I dont believe in luck or coincidence or chance.

EDIT: And I'm off to bed. Happy debating!

good night!:D

[~JESUS~]

the earth, granite and polonium are all one. Granite is the earths crust.

The rest of creation (the contents there of) took 6 days total.

Read the bible and you will see.:grin:

[~JESUS~]

However, if granite and Polonium are part of the earth, it is very possible He
(God)Made the outer layer(crust,rock,gasses)at the same time,I dunno,

nope..you know!

yes thats what the bible says...and science..:)

but what I do know is that it took HIM 6 days to make it ALL(Earth water rock animals mammals humans ect.)

Are you sure its 2 different people? amazing, must be luck! :weird:

[frosted_snow]

Are you sure its 2 different people? amazing, must be luck!
LOL, funny ~Jesus~.

[Lenny]

You still haven't answered my question. :(

So instead, 2 more questions. Answer them and you will find out why they are relevant.

1. How old do YOU think the Earth and the Universe are. No posting from Websites for this, it's PERSONAL opinion. Use your Bible if you really must.

My answer is 13.5 billion years for the universer, 4.5 billion years for Earth.

2. Do you believe in the Pentecost (apostles started speaking in tongues, flames above their heads)? If so, is that a good indication of their holiness?

If you really want me answer, then I'd say it was another metaphorical story to prove 'Gods Power' to believers.

[Jessifer]

In the end what it comes down to for myself an many others is seeing proof. "Seeing is believing", eh? I have yet to see any solid proof. All of your C&P nonsense? Just not proof enough, imho. For me...though I do believe in a higher being, and I'm open to all religions, I find it impossible to put all of my faith into a book that was written by man, and not God himself. Men err, and it's my belief is that the Bible has contradictions.

Erring comes naturally to humans. We learn from mistakes, and forever seek the truth to everything around us. Some people find their truth sooner than others, and some never find it at all.

And for those who do find their truth? They're usually pigheaded, close-minded and refuse to believe anything other than what they believe in. It's pointless to argue really, no one ever shifts from what they believe, and that's usually the reason I never debate about religion to begin with.

[Lenny]

And for those who do find their truth? They're usually pigheaded, close-minded and refuse to believe anything other than what they believe in. It's pointless to argue really, no one ever shifts from what they believe, and that's usually the reason I never debate about religion to begin with.

That's a very good point. I'll be the first to admit that I rarely take onboard other views, and this thread and other's give evidence that other people don't either.

But it's what make arguments and deabtes and whatnot, fun! Don't you agree? It's better than arguing against a "Yes-Man", for a start. :p

[~JESUS~]

You still haven't answered my question. :(

So instead, 2 more questions. Answer them and you will find out why they are relevant.

1. How old do YOU think the Earth and the Universe are.

I believe based on the word of god and science, that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

2. Do you believe in the Pentecost (apostles started speaking in tongues, flames above their heads)? If so, is that a good indication of their holiness?

Acts 2:1~4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Penticost was a feast where jews from every nation heard the gospel of Jesus and the holy spirit filled them all, and they understood each other and what Peter preached by the power of the Holy spirit filling them all, even though Peter spoke in one language. As a result 3,000 jews were converted and believed on the name of Jesus.

"Tongues" are languages... anything else is lack of understanding the bible.

"Speaking in tongues" in the bible means languages. NOT the language of angels or god! Just different languages. Angels through the bible spoke the same language man does. Anybody who claimes they can "speak in tounges" doesnt understand the bible and further, have a bit of dillusion going on.

On the day of pentecost God provided two symbols of the spirits presence: thw WIND, which was assosiated to the Jews as spirit, and the FIERY TONGUES: which contrary to what some ignorant uninformed present day churches think, is actually understanding through the spirit coming upon them. :)

Communication can be amazing with the true power of the spirit! Communication and understanding on deeper levels by the power of there belief and conversion. Spiritual levels.

I have seen people who cant speak english yet hear a preacher preach the gospel in english and understand on a different level..a spiriual level that has no boundries. That is the lake of fire that comes upon the very soul from the holy spirit!

Simple if you understand the bible and really want to know the truth!

[~JESUS~]

further on Pentecost in general.

This day was very important, Pentecost was the third great Israelite feast mentioned in Lev 23. It was a harvest fest 50 days after the passover week. This actual pentecost , was greater then all others. The Old testament pentecost occured 50 days after Israel left egypt and the passover lamb was slain. New Testament Pentecost occured 50 days after the Lamb of God Jesus was slain. Old testament pentecost celebrated the birth of the nation Israel. New Testament pentecost celebrated the birth of the church of Christ. Old testament pentecost wittnessed the slaying of some 3,000 souls. New testament Pentecost wittnessed the SAVING of some 3,000 souls. The former pointed to the later which is the case of the bible.

The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed!

[Medieval Bob]

Couple of points...

1. ~JESUS~ if you don't stop simply copying and pasting or linking rebuttals, no matter how applicable, people are going to stop reading them and thus stop caring. Whether or not your sources are right, we're not having a research-off. We're having a debate. State your understanding and interpretation of an idea and then give your references if you want.

2. As I've read, society, as a whole, did not think the earth was round before Columbus sailed. The general consensus was inaccurate, in that they underestimated the size of the planet, but they did not believe that a person would simply fall off at the edge as dramatized in cartoons.

3. Stop responding to your own posts or to previous posts multiple times. If you can't find the edit button, then I can't imagine how you're putting forth complex and seemingly intelligent responses in a debate about the beginning of existence.

Additionally, ~JESUS~, people want to know how old you are because it is appliable to the points you are making. The life experiences you've had and the time you've been here supposedly indicate levels of intelligence. I don't believe the two are necessarily linked, thus, if I would reccomend that, if you don't want to be ridiculed for whatever age you are, you keep it secret.

[Kaneda]

I only wish others would not be afraid of the truth. But thats what shaping of the mind does. Everyone can sit comfortably and make jokes and play video games and live for land that doesnt belong to them all they want, its comfortable I know, but meanwhile things are gonna get worse. If anyone really cares about the future of mankind, unity and true peace, (at least of the mind) then they will wake up and listen, then try to help there fellow man. Its actually our duty!

Whats this have to do with ones belief in a religion. Religion is a main instigator of war.

[Bat-Melon]

I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph.

Evolution shouldn't be taught in schools if creationism isn't allowed

Ken Schalfley, Midland Daily News
06/04/2006

There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution.

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?


The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed, and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?


Are you looking in the right textbooks? When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window. The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?


This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless, and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?


The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link. It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds, and is still not fully understood. However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?


The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed. There is argument on both sides of the debate, not just one, and it is not the only demonstration of the principle (polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?


Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process), but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest (a more short term process, where genetic mutation is not paramount to its success, merely an already present difference). Also, the meaning of this paragraph is somewhat vague, and could do with some clarification of what it's getting at precisely, for instance when you use the term "net evolution".


Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?


It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.


Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?


Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found. They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?


Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven, and is used as a substitute phrase for "proven beyond reasonable doubt". It is not believed by the scientific community, which oversees what is protrayed as "scientific fact" that the current theory of evolution (not exactly the same as Darwin's original) that the theory is based on misrepresentation of "the facts". Any fact in science is up for disproof; that's what the scientific method is about, I'm afraid.

I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."


"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported. Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true, so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.

Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.


THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them, but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny, and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness. Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept. Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact, not as a religious concept, however "religious" its beginnings. By saying "other concepts such as creationism", you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned. Overgeneralisation spring to mind?

Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.


Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law. People are looking for the evidence, and it appears that "Icons of Evolution:..." would be a rather biased source; Jonathan Wells has not been without criticism. Namedropping a book such as this in an argument is a rather unsteady way to support your claims. There has been much less "evidence" (I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)

Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?


We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more. However, by using this conclusion with such unsteady evidence as above, you discredit yourself as a serious debator. Think it through yourself next time, okay? :p


http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16735297&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472539&rfi=6

[Bat-Melon]

When looking into tongues, do you entirely discount the experience of those who are from a background of worship in the power of ths holy spirit, and who can speak in their own, individual "prayer language", which is very clearly (when it is heard) not any earthly language? It does happen, really.

[Lenny]

You've just ripped an article by some other bloke to pieces here. Nothing in the post is any of ~JESUS~' own words.

Classy first post though. And now I understand why you started raving about fruit bats. :p

[~JESUS~]

You've just ripped an article by some other bloke to pieces here. Nothing in the post is any of ~JESUS~' own words.

Classy first post though. And now I understand why you started raving about fruit bats. :p

Lenny if I "rip" and article by someone else, I post a link. Nothing I said today was stolen.

Fruit bats? You need to get off the computer. Go get some exercise. It does the body and mind wonders!:)

[~JESUS~]

When looking into tongues, do you entirely discount the experience of those who are from a background of worship in the power of ths holy spirit, and who can speak in their own, individual "prayer language", which is very clearly (when it is heard) not any earthly language? It does happen, really.

Are you Lenny?:p

[Lenny]

Nope, he's one of my friends. Christian too.

-----

Nothing I said today was stolen.

I'm not talking about today. Bat-Melon isn't talking about today.

Look at your first post in this thread. THAT was an article taken from another site with no words of your own voicing your opinion.

[~JESUS~]

I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph.



The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed,


no it cant. Proteins are formed by combinations of amino acids, precise combinations dicated by information only...and environmental factors that select from present genes to survive.

and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.


proof of concept? lol

Are you looking in the right textbooks?


There are alot of them out there!

When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window.


When it was discovered, scientist thought the earth was no longer then 10,000 years old. There are no intermediates! Bats are found fperfectly complete with sonar hearing and fully extended bat wings! There are no intermediates! there should be hundreds of thousands if not millions! what a lucky time to be alive I guess, nothing is evolving anymore I guess...

The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.


Nor will they ever! But they do try to...

This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless,


dude, there are thousands of textbooks written over the last 150 years! Are you joking? Get some like every 20 years and you will laugh!

and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).


...again another opinion with no foundation. Lets debate facts and not discuss what people would or wouldnt do...

The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link.


oh but it is. My nephew has it in his textbook!

It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds,


Oh yeah? where are the rest?

and is still not fully understood.

..and it wont be, iits been proven a hoax!

However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.


..oh is that it, hence? lol...yes that MUST be the reason. Such an exact science!

The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed.


another played out hoax!

polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).


point about what? Its not evolution, its adapting to the environment! This is not evolution, you cant have the best of both worlds! The definition of evolution sure has come along way in the last 150 years, WAY more than the actual proof for the original theory! Its ALL information that had to have had a designer.

..and by the way, its still a bear!!!!

Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process),


yes it does, which is why its used.

but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest


Natural Selection actually is the exact opposite of survival of the fittest as a means of explaining "evolution"..but the definition has evolved to include it as well..with a twist of couse.

Natural selection occurs, but nothing evolves. Nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

People think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. In actually, natural selection PREVENTS major evolutionary changes!

It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.


Not improvments for say... Just the goal MANS INTERVENTION deliberatley set out to accomplish by taking one gene and mixing it with others. This is FAR from explaining orgins or evolution for that matter!

amazing also that everything just so happens to be fool proof just as it is, the way God made them huh? lol

Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found.


Or not found, we as humans have imaginations. Plant an image, it stays. Very useful tool for proaganda.

The examples givin were proven that the people were told to make the drawings!

They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.

opinion and false.

Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven,

what? Are you joking? Are you just bending rules to fit the mold? lol

"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported.

Say the entire name of the book. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

..its because it HAS to be. Do research on who controls the museums, research funding, boards and everything under...

Evolution is a tool for control.

Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true,


Obviously.

so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.


Another opinion. He said and did alot of things. Big deal. Most HURT his "theory"

THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them,


you got that right...

but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny,


Another opinion that doesnt hold. Look at the scientific community then, what influence did it have compared to today? lol

and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness.


Useless to you. Another unfounded opinion.

Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept.


what something is regarded as means nothing.

Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact,


what something is regarded as means nothing. Facts are facts. If you teach one as ABSOLUTE when it isnt, there is a reason...

not as a religious concept,


yes because not being absolute it is faith based that worships time that can not be proven, how convenient!

By saying "other concepts such as creationism",

what?

you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned.

Lets say I actually know what you are talking about, thats not what Im implying Im sure.
Dont divert attention from the facts. One is taught as absolute without ANY regard for the other, facts, or what people believe or want! It and its concepts are constantly changing and expanding for lack of evidence and the dumbing down and unknowingly ignorant acceptence by the controlled masses. Obviously.

Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law.


give me a break dude..:haha:

(I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)


wonder why...lol

spin spin

We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more.

when you START with a conclusion and warp what you find to fit the mold it isnt science. Its propaganda.

[~JESUS~]

Nope, he's one of my friends. Christian too.

-----
I BET!

He sounds christian...

honesty is best Lenny...

I'm not talking about today. Bat-Melon isn't talking about today.

you like speaking for others dont you..wishfull thinking or delusion?

honesty is best Lenny...

Look at your first post in this thread.

what about it?
It was an article. Do you know how things work Lenny?

THAT was an article taken from another site with no words of your own voicing your opinion.

My opinion is known Lenny, if you cant figure it out, go back and read...and read, and read...

then try to find some information that disputes the facts because quite frankly you sound like an ignorant little boy on a computer. ..and thats all.

[Kaneda]

Dog = God backwards.

[Lenny]

I don't believe you. I don't believe you at all!

I BET!

He sounds christian...

honesty is best Lenny...

What is it with you?! He IS a Christian! Ask him if you don't believe me.

The only difference between you and he is that HE takes the Bible with a pinch of salt. You, however, take every word as the pure truth.

My opinion is known Lenny, if you cant figure it out, go back and read...and read, and read...

The usual thing to do is post the article, than voice your opinions. Not just post the article and leave it at that. For all I know you could be posting the article because it is absolutely ludicrous. Look through the News and Debates threads, see how many voice opinions in the first post? Look at the News threads I post, see how I voice my opinions?

you like speaking for others dont you..wishfull thinking or delusion?

honesty is best Lenny...

I AM being honest you dimwit. Read the post. Comprehend the post. Or do you work on a special Bible time that means every day is the same day?

[frosted_snow]

LOL, ~Jesus~ vs. Lenny, LOL. Anyway, I just got on and did a quick reveiw of all the recent posts.Lemme say this, This thread seems to be the most happining thread in opinion and debate(YAY!),however,I AM being honest you dimwit name calling is for the Flame forum.Now my 2 cents about evolution vs. creation in textbooks.This one is for ~Jesus~.The BIBLE(100% accurate) talks about deaf ears.If they simply will not receive the Truth no matter what you say, then kick the dust off your feet and go on.Now to Lenny, the BIBLE has NEVER been proven wrong in its scientific facts, evolution has, big bang theory has.Some people say the BIBLE is wrong, but never give solid facts in why they think that, all they do is comment on their theory in why they think it is.Evolution and the 'ol Big Bang Theories made their houses in the sand so to speak, not on a solid foundation.We have given studies, movies, ect. that have been SOLID FACTS and the most anyone can say is ,oooo you cut and copier.Common dude, I enjoy seeing ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC FACT even if it is a cut and copy.As long as his point gets accross about evolution should not be in schools unless creation is,then I wouldn't mind seeing every word he posted a C&Copy.

[Kaneda]

The bible has never been proven TRUE! You dimwit. You can't say that damn thing is 100% accurate in any way shape or form. It's been rewritten and re-translated so many times. Plus it's a fucking book! Anyone can have written it for any purpose they had in mind. Ugh. Stop saying it's all facts. You obviously don't know what a fact is. None of it has been proven.

Lmao, I've never seen Lenny so livid.

[crazyeye]

[QUOTE=Kaneda]Sorry buddy, but this is simply out of line. We are animals, we have no purpose other than survival and procreation. Do dogs have a purpose other than survival? Do they have morals? Do chickens have morals? No, therefore they are meaningless?[QUOTE]

LOL I was just fucking around I just wanted to see what people would say. I just made up all that bull, and I really dont care about all this

[Lenny]

Lmao, I've never seen Lenny so livid.

It happens to the best of us. :weird:

He can insult me all he wants, I don't care. But when he starts calling me a liar, in such a condescending way, and insults my friends at the same time, well, if he wasn't in America I'd be tempted to play a good old fashioned game of Fisticuffs at dawn.

-----

Talking about books and that "anyone can have written it for any purpose they had in mind", the Books of Lenny pop into mind as being very relevant.

[Sovereign]

Lenny should pen a bible.

[Atnas]

Wow, has this strayed from the topic! I take my bible with a pinch of salt, like Lenny kindly phrased. In Genesis(no I won't post Genesis, I'm not god or anything...pun! Jesus was posting it!) Anywayz, in genisis it says that the world was made in 7 days. Go ahead, believe that! But back when the Bible was written, they didn't write like we do now. Back then they didn't wright lliterally, but more philosophically. I mean, if you do take the bible with no salt, but moreover a Popsicle, which has been proven to make you more diehard so to speak...Mebe... Well, you would find the fault...'Who the hell told Adam and Eve it was 7 days?' God? I don't think so. We're a very curious race, and in being so curious, we have found that faith requires alot...alot, of leaps. There are holes in the bible, and although it seems to be your religion, I think it's better to base your religion on something... That way you'll never be totally wrong. And since when did Jesus start calling people liars? If you want that name, Lord, you'd better go new testament on them and be forgiving. Really...Why teach any of this at school? Why bother kids with another subject, life science. Just teach crap like formulas, forensics, physics, and leave the kid's damn religion to himself.

[Lenny]

I learnt where that phrase came from t'other day. :)

In Medieval times people believed that Salt was a cure for all poisons. So they put a lot of salt on their food (which also explains why we put salt on everything) - ie. took everything with a pinch of salt to avoid being poisoned.

-----

I agree with you there - that the Bible is written not literally but as an idea.

And you tell the kid what for! :p :)

-----

Lenny should pen a bible.

Maybe one day, if I get really bored.

[Atnas]

I actually thought that the phrase came from when superstitious people throw a pinch of salt over their shoulders, but the medieval thing sounds right.

http://www.picaroni.com/holy_bible_copy.png

[Lenny]

Rofl, I'm loving the "Ineffallible". :p Two of my best sides in one word. ;)

Haven't seen ~JESUS~ for a few days... and just when it was getting interesting. :(

[Jessifer]

Shh! You're not supposed to mention that!

Btw, which is it:

Ineffable
Ineffallible
Ineffallable

?

[Lenny]

I've been:

Inflatable
Inedible
Inflammable
Ineffable
Infallible
Ineffallible
and Ineffallable

I'm flexible that way. :)

[Jessifer]

Hahaha...Inflatable...

[Lenny]

That's always everyone's favourite. :(

My new nickname: Lendrip Brocolli-Head on account of my hair spouting from my head like Brocolli, apparently.

[Willkillforfood]

They should teach about Lenny in the classrooms.

[frosted_snow]

They should teach about Lenny in the classrooms.
LOL, that is pretty funny.Is that pic on you site(Lenny) really you?

[Lenny]

Inane grin? Giant hairdo? Weird hats?

'Tis indeed.

[Atnas]

lol, I hate it when my hair gets curly...At one inch it's straight, 2 curly, 3 curly, 4 semi curly and 5(which actually looks like 3 because my hair is curly)
is my favorite. lol...guess I just can't have what I can't have!

[Sovereign]

Alas. Twas a good thread while it lasted.

[Demosthenes]

Out of sheer boredom, I've decided to reply to every one of Jesus' posts in this thread. Why? Because most of them make no sense. And I hate that. Lenny already did a hell of a job. I think I was on a temporary hiatus when all of this went down otherwise I would have been all over this. However the fact that this moron decided to copy and paste most of his shit bugs me.

Anyway. most of my replies are going to be what I like to call common sense. There's really no point reading anything I write past this point unless by some chance this guy decides to come back. I just feel like arguing with somebody, so I'll use the shit he's already posted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, we need to define what evolution is, so we can have some basic premise to build upon. In the biology community, evolution is defined as a gradual change in allele frequencies in a population. It's that simple. Macroevolution and microevolution are generally not distinguished in a biology class. They are based on the same mechanism. So-called macroevolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of microevolution.

Now that definitions are not in the way, we need to look at the ideologies driving the institutes that you quote, and what drives the scientific community. The scientific community looks for the truth. As new evidence comes in, scientists tweak and modify their theories to fit the truth to the best knowledge that humanity has gathered. We may not yet have a crystal clear picture of the truth, however the detail in the picture becomes finer and finer as new evidence piles on. Your institutes are driven by religion. They come in with a pre-conceived notion of the truth, and then try to find evidence to fit that. When that fails, they twist, or outright fabricate evidence to fit their pre-conceived ideas.

Scientists may seem dogmatic about their theories. That is because the evidence is so pervasive. Evidence found so far in nature fits the evolutionary paradigm. Any evidence found contradicting that paradigm is usually unverifiable, or only seems to contradict the paradigm on the surface. This is why scientists generally don't question evolutionary theory. Now, if there was any evidence against evolution, such as a human being born to a monkey, scientists would seriously have to rethink their position. However, no such evidence exists.

The arguments that the discovery institute advocates are simply tautologies of the past 50 years that are constantly being rephrased. Over the next few days I will point out these tautologies in the posts that you have copied and pasted, and I will also attempt to show how your evidence against evolution is either fabricated, as it contradicts an enormous amount of already verified evidence, unverifiable, or how it can fit the evolutionary paradigm.

There have been several recent letters to the editor concerning the teaching of evolution and creationism in the public school curriculum. Proponents of evolution say it is based upon scientific evidence and creationism is not, therefore, creationism should not be taught. I would ask those who favor only evolution to consider the following questions derived from the Discovery Institute in Seattle concerning recognized icons of evolution.

Before the questions presented in the article that follows the above quote are answered, I would like the creationist to consider a concern of my own. You want your theory in my science class? Fine. Make it a scientific theory, and follow the process of science. Convert your tautologies into a scientific theory. Submit your theory to peer-reviewed journals. Have it gain some acceptance in an academic setting before it is taught in school. That is, after all, the process that any scientific theory must go through before it becomes rightly acknowledged. You, however, want to skip this well established process, and simply have your theory accepted and taught as fact. This is not science. It is, however, the epitome of religion.

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Creationist, you are too preoccupied with the details of the experiment, which has caused you to overlook its overall significance. What the real environment of the Earth was like 4 billion years ago is not all that important. The significance of this experiment is that it shows how organic matter can rise from inorganic matter through purely natural processes. It voids the prerequisite of a supernatural cause for abiogenesis.

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Creationist, you are maliciously deceiving those who read your article. Most textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion at length. Furthermore, they provide viable explanations of the Cambrian explosion that entirely fit the evolutionary paradigm. Creationist, I recommend you learn about punctuated equilibrium. I also suggest that you learn some basic geology so that you may understand the process of fossil formation.

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?

One person exaggerated about embryonic similarity. That is shameful. However, it is also primal human instinct to desire fame, and thus this exaggeration may have been based on that. That said, no reputable biology books show that picture anymore except to point out that at one point in time someone over-exaggerated embryonic similarities. Though not quite to the extent of the pictures you allude to, many embryonic similarities do exist. Once again, I suggest that the creationist educate himself on modern embryonic anatomy of various species.

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

The archaeopteryx is almost certainly an ancestor to modern birds. You are simply decreeing by fiat that there is probably no link between the two. However, morphological homologies don't lie. A link almost certainly exists.

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?

Creationist, why do you cite one esoteric piece of information, and then induce that if your guesses are true about this piece of information then the entire structure of science is overthrown? As a matter of fact, what does this have to do with evolution?

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?

Dear creationist, you are sadly misinformed. Nobody claims that beak changes in Galapagos finches explains the origin of species by natural selection. We simply say that it is an example of natural selection. It is also an example of the common lineage of the various finches. Also, beaks did not shrink after the drought ended. You need citation for this claim. It seems absolutely bogus to me. More likely than that happening, you are employing a mischievous tactic which has you fabricating some information on an esoteric subject making it difficult for me to verify. A citation on this particular claim would help explain your case.

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Textbooks use evidence of fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence for DNA mutation because probably is DNA mutation, if again, this isn't one of your "fabricated facts." Whether or not this mutation is deleterious is irrelevant. What is significant is that it is an example of a mutation.

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Because all fossil experts agree that our ancestors were primates. They simply don't agree on detail. As an analogy to explain this phenomenon, consider the following question: What did one of your ancestors look like 6 generations back? We could ask you and a sibling of yours. If you were asked to draw, their would probably be certain similarities between your drawing and that of your sibling's. For instance, we can assume that both drawings would consist of arms, legs, hair, head, and other common features. We can assume that both drawings would be a depiction of a human. However the drawings would differ in detail. This is what happens when fossil experts try and understand who our ancestors were. Make no mistake, though, everybody agrees that they were primates. Everybody agrees that modern apes and humans descended from them.

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?

This is simply a lie. While it is true, Darwin himself was incorrect about certain things, those have been corrected over the last 150 years. Even in Darwin's time, the theory of evolution was based off of scientific fact. It is much more so in our time.

I have always been under the impression that Darwin's theory of evolution is just that -- a theory. Darwin himself, in his work, Origin of Species, said, "For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in the volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived."

Creationist, I find your ignorance on scientific vernacular disturbing, especially since your are advocating your own scientific theories. In science, the term theory does not necessarily imply any uncertainty.

Also, "this quotation has been lifted completely out of context. Darwin is not stating that his theory was no better than its opposite. Quite the contrary. Examine Darwin's full statement below, which includes the sentences that directly preceded the above quotation: "This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements...I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

In context, Darwin was merely admitting that it was "impossible" for him to state his case completely, and balance it out by raising and answering all possible objections, since the Origin was merely an "abstract." For instance, elsewhere in the introduction he stated, "...it will take me many more years to complete it [my work], and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this abstract." Being merely an "abstract," he expected that people would raise questions, "adducing facts...apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived." Note his use of the word "apparently." But once "both sides of each question" had been "fully stated," Darwin was confident that a "fair result" would vindicate his theory rather than "the opposite." Darwin also stated in his introduction, "I have not been hasty in coming to a decision," a "decision" built on many years work, many more examples, and finely tuned arguments, than he could possibly fit between the covers of his little "abstract."

In fact, Darwin was so certain that a "fair result" would favor his view, that he ended his introduction with these words: "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable [changeless]; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendant of some other and generaly extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged variations of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive means of modification." Why don't the editors of The Revised Quote Book cite that summation of his introduction? Don't they want their readers to know what Darwin said in full context? Perhaps they are ignorant of it themselves."

Reflecting on his work near the end of his life, Darwin stated, "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion of them." I find it interesting that Darwin compares his work as a religion to those who reveled his work. Based upon what he said, if other concepts such as creationism should not be allowed in the public schools, neither should the theory of evolution.

This is a lie propagated by Lady Hope. Even if it is not, science does not rest on the authority of one man. We have great scholars, we don't have prophets. If Darwin considered his work akin to religion, it is most certainly not that anymore as it has been tested, and empirically verified.

Is Darwin's theory of evolution worthy of discussion and investigation? Of course. Should it be given scientific law status? More conclusive evidence needs to come forth before that can ever happen, which appears unlikely, since some of the critical "evidence" for evolution has had to be altered. For more indepth information, get a copy of "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?," authored by Jonathan Wells.

There is no scientific theory with more conclusive evidence than the theory of evolution. Germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity do not come close to being nearly as conclusive as the theory of evolution. I am deeply sorry that science contradicts your holy book, dear creationist, however it is not science's job to appease you, no matter how belligerent you become. If anything deserves scientific law status, it is the fact of evolution.

Since education is to be a quest for learning, it is proper to investigate any queries to creation. Our Forefathers would approve, why can't we?

I wholeheartedly concur. Investigate. When you have a proper scientific theory, we will have something to discuss.

[KagomJack]

How the hell did I miss this thread? Oh wait, I was internetless...right.

You obviously never understood evolution.

[Demosthenes]

Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on Earth, when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?

Why don't textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion, in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for common ancestry, even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and that the drawings are faked?

Why do textbooks portray the archaeopteryx as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection, when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don't normally rest on tree trunks, and that all the pictures have been staged?

Why do the textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection, even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended and no net evolution occurred?

Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence the DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

Why are artists' drawings of apelike humans used to justify claims that we are just animals --when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

Perhaps the most important question to be asked is why are students told that Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific fact, even though many of its claims are based upon misrepresentations of the facts?

I was perusing some websites and found a rebuttal to all these:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/7719_responses_to_jonathan_wells3_11_28_2001.asp

[areyoudaft]

Are you only posting questions or are you also providing answers? Seems to me you're just a confused school child.

[Demosthenes]

dinosaurs were created and dwelled and lived with man. They all over the bible but not obviously called dinosaurs.

Jesus Christ, when will you fuckers understand that the Flintstones was not meant to be a documentary?

[Asamin]

Nice. BTW, Thanks a lot MJ. I am just now writing an essay on this subject and your posts really have helped me along.

[Demosthenes]

Nice. BTW, Thanks a lot MJ. I am just now writing an essay on this subject and your posts really have helped me along.

Heh, np.

I have a lot more information in the other thread: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41798

I'd be interested in reading your essay.

[Demosthenes]

Also, you could try this one: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44145

[Asamin]

Thanks a lot. I turned out to be one of only four people who handed the extra credit in.