No. Better arguments are paying off. Theories of creation that include a rib woman and talking snake just don't persuade. I'm sorry.
I really wish conservatives would stop putting so much effort into creationism. The conservative philosophy doesn't need creationism to order to work.
Not science. Brianwashing. Creationists readily accept natural selection.
At Elizabeth G. Lyons Elementary School in Randolph, Mass., one of a handful of states where the program is being tested, 4th graders have finished a unit on plant adaptation, in which they watched the changes to a water-sensitive-plant population as the amount of water available was altered. The class is now extending the computer model to include rabbits and will soon add hawks to illustrate a basic food chain, said lead researcher Paul Horwitz, a senior scientist at Concord.
Again, no one disputes a food chain.
such as the idea that changes in the environment will prompt changes in a population over time.
Everyone believes this and it has nothing to do with evolution.
The scientific ‘community’; yes indeed that is enough to squelch any would be opponent to their ‘doctrine’.
Not saying that ID or creationism is valid or even to be considered, but the article mentions ‘overwhelming evidence’ to back nebulous notions.
First, ‘evidence’ is not proof and any mention of ‘evidence’ requires inference based on ‘consensus’. We have all seen how AGW Consensus was led by scamming frauds with an ability to skew ‘evidence’ as they wanted towards their political goals. In my own experience, this happens often inside some protected classes of academic utopia.
Second, the nebulous nature of evolution is commingled with valid observations of natural selection. Intraspecies variations can certainly be tied to environmental stresses causing a natural or unnatural selection, whatever the hell ‘natural’ is understood to mean.
Third, the positing of interspecies differentiation and hierarchy is in the details of the analysis always an act of extreme inference bordering on the religious. That weak maximum likelihood estimates based on scant data or imputed data lead to such conclusions that man ‘descended’ from chimp or some common ancestor or vice versa is an affront to any serious seeker of scientific truth, and such seekers are generally turned off by the leftist dribble that spews from those in the field who insult by saying they are scientists.
Fourth, there are miscreants in science. Science as an activity of humankind is not immune to all the failings of humankind, i.e. some ‘scientists’ can lie and know they lie.
Fifth, this so-called ‘scientific community’ was funded by whom? By the federal government in all likelihood. And that speculation is enough to demand equal funding for alternatives by ‘credentialed’ scientists, those with a reputation and track record of investigating in a true scientific manner. And I am sure such scientists exist that would undertake a thorough and honest contrasting study of the various thought pathways.
As for me, we need to purge and clear the so-call ‘scientific community’ because most are nothing more that bureaucrats groveling for tax/stimulus political fed dollars. Start by defunding all of them and let the cream rise to the top. And I can guarantee you the real cream of science will have nothing to do with this political bullshit that clogs and smells up the faucets of our thinking.
bump
Just because a lot of books have been written about evolution, doesn't mean that it's true. There are a lot of books written about vampires.
The most compelling evidence against life springing up without God and evolving is the astronomical odds against abiogenesis. The odds of one protein to come about by accident have been calculated to be 10 to the 321st power against.
To give an idea of how large this number is, the number of total fundamental particles in the entire universe are only 10 to the 134th power.
“Many famous evolutionists have calculated the odds of a cell or even just the proteins in a cell randomly assembling. These odds (again calculated by evolutionists themselves) so discredit the theory that they typically are not mentioned in discussions of the topic. The famous atheistic astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated the odds of even just the proteins of an amoeba arising by chance at one in 1040,000, i.e., one followed by 40,000 zeroes (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 130). Harold Morowitz, former professor of Molecular Biophysics and Biochemistry at Yale University, calculated the odds that a simple, single-celled organism might randomly assemble itself from pre-existing building blocks as one in 10100,000,000,000, i.e., one followed by 100 billion zeroes (Morowitz, 1968, p. 98). Carl Sagan and other famous evolutionists (including Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA) have come to similar conclusions (Sagan, et al., 1973, pp. 45-46).”
~http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3511
Evolution is just so hard to swallow. It's not observable. It's not a law or a fact.
Evolution presupposes that the Earth is Billions (or at the very least millions) of years old to support the theory. Perhaps the Earth is not so old.
Consider these Scientific ideas....
Evidences for a Young Earth:
The Sun is shrinking at the rate of 5 ft/hr. The Earth is 93 million miles away from the Sun. In less than 20 million years, the Sun would have been so large that it would touch the surface of the Earth. Further, if the Sun had more mass, the gravity pull would be much larger and the Earth would have been sucked into the Sun long before 20 million years.
Short-period comets, like the Haley Comet in our solar system, whose life expectancy is only 10,000 years old, would have been blown apart by the solar winds years ago if they were older.
Absence of fossilized meteorites in different layers of strata on Earth proves that Evolution is a farce. According to evolution, different layers of strata were exposed for billions and billions of years, but only the top layers of the Earth have fossilized meteorites, and that in abundance.
The Moon is receding from the Earth every year. If the Earth were billions of years old, then the Moon would have been too close to the Earth. According to the inverse square law, the tides would have been so strong that everything would have died twice a day!
Saturn's rings are still unstable, showing they are possibly less than 6,000 years old. If they were billions of years old, they would have stabilized by the binding of the denser particles and the smaller particles together.
Jupiter, Saturn, and its little moon “I-O” are cooling off very rapidly, but they are still very hot. If billions of years had passed, they should have been cold already.
The Earth's magnetic field is decreasing half a life every 830 years. This magnetic field can't be more than 10,000 years; there is no way to reverse it.
The Erosion Rate of the continents is so large that the Earth would have eroded to sea level in 14 million years.
The top soil formation on Earth is formed at a steady rate which shows only a few thousand years.
Oil Pressure would have leaked out if the earth were billions of years old. Scientists can get garbage and turn into oil in a lab in 20 minutes.
The size of the Mississippi river delta ÷ The amount of mud being deposited = The time the delta has been in existence. This shows less than 30,000 years old. Noah's flood deposited 80% of the delta in a few days.
The Earth slows down as it spins at a rate of a thousandth of a second. In a million years, the earth would have been spinning too fast for life on earth.
There is only a small amount of settlement on the ocean floor.
The largest stalactites and stone formation in caves around the earth only show a few thousand years, like in the Sequoia Cave in Tennessee. Stalactites grow rapidly, at a rate of 1 inch every year; the largest stalactite shows to be about 4,400 years old. In Florida, there are stalactites of 16 inches growing from an electrical wire.
The Sahara desert is expanding. Once the soil is depleted, it is irreversible. The expansion rate is 4 miles per year at the present moment. At a rate of ¼ mile per year, the age of the Earth would come to about 4,400 years old.
The seas are getting saltier every year. If the Earth was billions of years old, the oceans would be too salty for any form of life by now.
The current world population is 5½ billion. If we started with 8 people 4,000 years ago, this would give us a population of 5 or 6 billion.
More about how “scientific” evolution is:
http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Evolution-Of-Man-Scientifically-Disproved2.html
Objectively...Evolution is as big a myth as creation. Given the choice of which of two myths to believe, some prefer to choose the dirt/snake story as opposed to the chimpanzee story. What the heck is the big deal anyway?!!!!!
The last time I checked in on an Evolution-vs.-ID/Creationism thread, the defenders of science seemed to me holding their own, doing quite well, and putting ID/Creationists on the run.
This time poor GeorgeSaden is holding down the fort all by himself -- with Indians attacking from all sides. ;-)
And the ID/Creationists arguments seem to be rather well thought out and organized, with long lists of reasons why science is really bunk, and their religion is really science.
Yes, indeedy it is... </sarc>
Let me simply point out (again), that: by definition Evolution is science -- that is to say, a natural explanation for the natural world -- while ID/Creationism is not.
Evolution is based on literal mountains of evidence, and now volumes of DNA analyses, accumulated by scientists over centuries.
ID/Creationism is based on, well, the Bible and alleged "holes" in evolution theory.
But those "holes" are often mis-characterized by ID/Creationists, and in no case point directly to an "Intelligent Designer."
Indeed, there is no direct physical evidence for ID/Creationism.
That's why it's not science, among other reasons.
So here's the bottom line: I have no doubt that God created the Universe, and everything in it.
As to how He did it, science has natural explanations, including evolution.
And, whether God, or some other "Intelligent Designer" intervened directly to influence certain key developments (the eyeball is often cited), remains a scientific possibility -- however improbable and currently unsupported by any physical evidence.
But let me suggest something to our religiously oriented thinkers here: while ID/Creationism remains scientifically possible (if evidence were ever found to support it), it will always be theologically impossible!
How can that be, you ask?
Because, for God to intervene in His own creation (the Universe) to miraculously force natural events on the tracks He intended, that would imply the natural Universe was not from the beginning, God's perfect creation -- and that would suggest God Himself is less than perfect.
Well, I'd say this is not only theologically impossible, but contradicted by the Bible which tells us, over and over, that God considers His creation "good."
Please notice I'm talking about the natural world, and not human beings, who are acknowledged by all to be necessarily far from perfect, indeed natural born sinners in constant need of God's guidance and intervention.
And these are just the kinds of things taught in religion-oriented classes.
But they are not science.
Oh, and as for “teaching evolution bearing fruit” -
yep, we see that every day in the devaluation of human life.
Right now there’s a thread about some teens who “killed because they were bored”.