h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

why do you not more frequently name names for your prestegious scientists? is it because they are not real people or are you the scientist? also how can you use modern classing techniques on a world 6 million years ago? the world was a different place in every imaginable way in the early evolutionary terms so how can you put a modern label on it without being horrendously wrong or ignorant to the facts of the time space continuum. much of your evidence presented is merely circumstancial and much of it has been proved wrong. and lastly is your faith stronger than the facts of life?


Tsagadai

I don't know why I am bothering to reply to this , here goes...

I'll put it very simply for you.

Creation versus Evolution 101.

Creation is the factual and accepted explanation of life on earth. There are no contradictions or discrepancies in the creation of life, there is a God, he created everything.

Evolution is a theory, a man made attempt at debunking the existence of an Almighty Creator. Every aspect of Evolution can be critiscised for it's ambiguity and contradictions. There is no quantifiable evidence that backs up the Evolution theory.

'Nuff said

Have a good one...

Sludge

For a response to this post please see the title of this thread.



Ste

A few small points:

1) Evolution is NOT a threat to the almighty Creator. It is science. Science attempts to find natural explanations for phenomena. God is above nature, and by definition is supernatural. Therefore, nothing said by science can prove or disprove the existence of God. I am not saying that there is no God (I myself am an Orthodox Christian), and neither is anyone else, unless they are omnipotent (and in that case, they would be God).

2) Gaps in the fossil record do not disprove evolution. All it proves is that rocks have gone through periods of erosion or non-deposition throughout geologic time. (BTW- that kind of shoots down the Great Flood theory, where creationists claim that all rocks were deposited in 40 days and 40 nights without periods of erosion or non-deposition)

3) You don't need to look too far to find conclusive evidence for evolution. It's in your genes. I'm a geologist, not a geneticist, but I know enough biology to know that we share the same basic structure of DNA with all organisms except viruses, from dogs to dinosaurs to diatoms.

4) And if you EVEN bring up the second law of thermodynamics...

Sludge wrote: "Creation is the factual and accepted explanation of life on earth."

There are no 'facts' in creationism! Creationism is all about believing what you are told from the bible. Modern creationists attempt to fit the odd 'fact' into their theories to justify their arguments and claim it as 'science'. However, they also discard all the uncomfortable facts which don't match their world view. This is not science!

'Accepted'? Only by people who don't have the 'facts'.

Sludge wrote: "Evolution is a theory, a man made attempt at debunking the existence of an Almighty Creator."

Theory yes, but a theory built upon facts! You are misconstruing the use of the word 'theory', to mean 'incomplete' or 'a guess', which is wrong. Theory in the proper context means 'a consistent framework of ideas and evidence' which is used to explain what we observe.

Let's say you walk up to your car, and find a teenager with a screwdriver in one hand, and your door lock in the other. The teenager says "I was walking down the road, and saw your door lock on the floor, and decided to fix it".

What are you to believe? If you are from the creationist school of 'belief', then you will believe what you are told, which is that he is a helpful passer by. If you are from the scientific school of 'thought' you will believe what your eyes tell you, which is that he's a little theif.

Creationists should not attempt to use science to either strengthen their own case, or to try to weaken evolution. They will lose every time.

Check out Talk Origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Dahh! Silly h2g2 not letting me edit comments...

Sludge wrote: "...a man made attempt at debunking the existence of an Almighty Creator."

Science is not an attempt to discredit the existence of God. That's just paranoid whingeing. Science is there to attempt to explain things in a rational and demonstrable way.

However, science -does- tend to discredit the existence of an actively participatory God, but this is merely a bonus.

I find many things interesting about this post. Firstly the amount of interest it has drawn, secondly the fact that science is increasingly being used to back up age old theories instead of asking questions of the universe and lastly that creationism is even an issue at all. The idea the earth is 10000 old is almost laughable today as saying the world is flat. Claiming that creationism has popular support is also worth destroying while Sludge brings it up. Less than 45% of Australians have any mildly strong religious belief and I can only assume there would be similar statistics in Britain. I’ll leave the fervor-filled citizens of the US out because I just don’t know about them. Fossil records are not the be all and end all answer to evolution. I am in research Psychology and factors of our cave dwelling past and even very close causal psychological relationships in vast arrays of areas are shared with our primal cousins and even dogs. Of course scientific facts can be proved wrong that is the point of scientific theory to disprove and refine. Finding a gap in Darwin or Newton or anyone’s theory for that instance does not prove it wrong in all cases. Once there is significant proof of omnipotent creation I’ll sign up for bible study, until then I’ll examine facts.

For thousands of years man has been seeking out Gods divine plan. Why are we here and what are to do while we are here. I do not plan to discuss those here because simply I do not know. However people often over look a blatently obvious connection of the 2 theories. Who is to say that God didn't put evolution into action. Why can't the 2 co-exist both theories require faith as their foundation. Faith is paramount because we simply just don't know what really happened. Creationists say without a complete fossil record or other sources of concrete evidence the theory of evolution can't be true. Well give me one concrete piece of evidence of the existance of God. Evolutionists try to point to the fossil record we have to date and in my opinion credible evidence of a gradual altering of our species to back up their theory. I truly believe in evolution I have faith that this theory is true. It's my faith in man's abilty to reason and discover that allow me to make these assumptions. However man has not been able to show where evoultion originated from. That is our God factor, what caused this to happen. Was it divine intervention or a freak occurance we will probably never know. But that is the point it's the search that gives our lives purpose and meaning. If we reject evolution on the basis that it can't be proven then we must in turn reject God because he can't be proven. The fundamental paradox of the universe.

The problem with asking "what started the Universe" is that whatever you decide began it must itself has a cause. If god is self-creating and eternal, then why not the Universe itself?

Physics and evolution gives a good explanation of how, without any interference or guidance from an intelligence, the Universe can change from simple to complex.

We keep coming back to the burden of proof. If you claim the existance of an interventionist god is proven, you prove it. You can choose to believe what you want to, but don't claim that Creationism is scientific. It doesn't stand up to the first principle of science - the ability to test your theory.

I'm sorry if this sounds a bit argumentative but Creationism simply doesn't fit the facts and should be regarded like flat-earthism as a belief long since disproved.