Creationism in Museums and Schools

I also believe that evolution takes place, and not just within the man-made confines of microevolution.

But I still believe God created Adam directly, not through bacteria. I think the ability to evolve was implemented through intelligent design. Maybe that is controversial to mainstream creationists, but if you consider how animals were supposed to cover the earth from around Babel it makes sense they should have the ability to adapt to their surroundings. We see evolution happening, there's no need to deny it. If we see new species develop, its not a big deal. We draw the line when we say they are a new species.

But equally I don't see how a Christian could deny that humans were created directly by God. :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I also believe that evolution takes place, and not just within the man-made confines of microevolution.

But I still believe God created Adam directly, not through bacteria. I think the ability to evolve was implemented through intelligent design. Maybe that is controversial to mainstream creationists, but if you consider how animals were supposed to cover the earth from around Babel it makes sense they should have the ability to adapt to their surroundings. We see evolution happening, there's no need to deny it. If we see new species develop, its not a big deal. We draw the line when we say they are a new species.

But equally I don't see how a Christian could deny that humans were created directly by God. :inquisitive:

---

eh? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

For the issue of carbon dating and fossils, don't natural disasters have a big impact on the conclusions drawn from them? For example, it is widely accepted that thousands of years ago there were a series of superfloods which covered areas such as the Caspian Sea, the Aegean area, the Mediterranean etc. Also, there was a Great Flood, caused by the melting of the ice sheets, which had taken place by 8,000 years ago. Without directly relating this to Biblical floods, these superfloods did have a massive effect on the landscape. Not just the obvious affects the floods themselves had on sediment layers, but through the other natural disasters they triggered, eg supervolcanoes, tsunamies etc. I'm not a scientist but from what I remember these can dramatically alter readings gained through carbon dating, making fossils appear much older than they really are.

Also I think I should be more clear on creationist views towards evolution. Your standard US Evangelical tends to believe in microevolution, but rejects macroevolution. However, there is little need for this split within forms of evolution, and this is the viewpoint taken by the vast majority of scientists. The boundaries between the two are purely man-made, despite some vague ideas about fertility and the ability to reproduce. How do we judge when something evolves to a new species? In this respect, Christianity should not conflict with issues such as vestigial organs. I know some Christians argue penguins have wings to help with balance for example, but I don't really accept this idea myself, as it doesn't make sense in the long-run. Although I do appreciate that my views differ from the creationist mainstream in this and so I understand why the point was made.

Of course, I still do not accept that humans evolved from apes. Which brings me onto the point regarding our imperfect bodies. Admittedly, the point about the eyes and detaching retinas is a tough one. As a Christian, ridiculous as it sounds to many here I do believe that we were designed for living a peaceful existance in Eden, not in the violence of the world we know. By that logic, we wouldn't need to be built like tanks to protect ourselves. They're not that weakly designed anyway, I've taken my share of knocks and my retina's still attached. On the flip side, why would we evolve so bizarrely, especially considering that it is so unsuitable for our surroundings? Design flaws are tough for creationists or evolutionists to answer, maybe we simply don't understand the designs perfectly.

On the issue of having two legs, I think its an isue of interpretation. Why think of ourselves as an improvement over the apes (physically), instead of just being different? It is a fair line of thought to think, "we look similar to apes, so we must have grown to be genetically superior from them". But on the other hand, the apes are much better suited to their surroundings than we would be. Of course we have physical similarities, we live in the same world after all, but humans are better suited to the way they live. Of course we are not meant to sit in front of a PC all day as many here including myself probably do, which is why we tend to have so many back problems. We simply aren't using our bodies for what they were designed for (through a creator or evolution).

---

Now, that is a well-mannered post. If my previous post sosunded aggressive, excuse me; I was reading "The Merchant of Venice" and the antisemitic Italians were rankling me.

Anyhow, about bad evolution: basically, scientists believe that these flaws that I was pointing out have to do with simple mistakes; much of evolution is a process of making up for those mistakes. The bad eye design, for example, is resent in a wide variety of animals; in fact, I believe it is present in all vertebrates. Actually, what is remarkable about the eye is the degree to which evolution has managed to overcome such a terrible design over hundreds of millions of years. I mean, for organisms whose eyes see backwards, we see remarkably well. So, the argument is, it's just a matter of circumstance. The organism that all vertebrates are believed to have evolved from (which, incidentally, is believed to be a tiny wormlike/lancetlike organism living in the ocean) just happened to have backwards eyes attached by jelly, so now all its descendants do too.

The upright human problem is another victim of circumstance; since, according to the theory, we all evolved from four-legged organisms, we could not just grow extra limbs; evolution doesn't allow for something this radical, the genetics involved being far too complex. So we just adapted our already fairly useful tree-hugging feet into arms and hands, and the lower limbs developed into paddles, i.e. feet, for better support. Again, this worked out quite well; we have fairly good balance for creatures that hae to depend on a bipod for standing (although getting drunk certainly can show the flaws in this design at times.) But, the back problem remains, and this is a major problem with your post. The people who develop back problems are the people who work more, not those who sit around. Now, your reponse would probably be, "of course;" but consider, for a moment, that during the stone age (you do believe this happened, right? :beam:) people would have had to do one hell of a lot of work, especially walking and running. Spending your whole life on your feet, even if you don't do a lot of lifting, causes MAJOR lower back problems late in life. That's a flawed design by any estimation.

So, basically, the back can be explained two ways: either we weren't supposed to do any work in Eden so it didn't matter if we had backs that were ill-designed for work, or we evolved from organisms who had back support because they had four limbs, and we no longer have that support after standing up, hence the back problems. Now, disregarding the idea that macroevolution does not exist, will you at least grant that the second theory makes sense?

this isn't just directed at Joe, but the discussion as a whole. i'm just quoting the latest post for efficacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

about bad evolution: basically, scientists believe that these flaws that I was pointing out have to do with simple mistakes; much of evolution is a process of making up for those mistakes.

---

it is not really useful to think of 'mistakes' in biological evolution. evolution is a results-based process. it's an observation of what has been successful and what was less successful.

Quote:

---

The bad eye design, for example, is resent in a wide variety of animals; in fact, I believe it is present in all vertebrates. Actually, what is remarkable about the eye is the degree to which evolution has managed to overcome such a terrible design over hundreds of millions of years. I mean, for organisms whose eyes see backwards, we see remarkably well. So, the argument is, it's just a matter of circumstance. The organism that all vertebrates are believed to have evolved from (which, incidentally, is believed to be a tiny wormlike/lancetlike organism living in the ocean) just happened to have backwards eyes attached by jelly, so now all its descendants do too.

---

it's important to remember that evolution works on what it is given. if we can model a hypothetical design for a particular organ that is much more efficient than the actual organ, it does not follow that we "should" observe that design in nature.. that some sort of "mistake" has taken place.

Quote:

---

The upright human problem is another victim of circumstance; since, according to the theory, we all evolved from four-legged organisms, we could not just grow extra limbs; evolution doesn't allow for something this radical, the genetics involved being far too complex. So we just adapted our already fairly useful tree-hugging feet into arms and hands, and the lower limbs developed into paddles, i.e. feet, for better support. Again, this worked out quite well; we have fairly good balance for creatures that hae to depend on a bipod for standing (although getting drunk certainly can show the flaws in this design at times.) But, the back problem remains, and this is a major problem with your post. The people who develop back problems are the people who work more, not those who sit around. Now, your reponse would probably be, "of course;" but consider, for a moment, that during the stone age (you do believe this happened, right? :beam:) people would have had to do one hell of a lot of work, especially walking and running. Spending your whole life on your feet, even if you don't do a lot of lifting, causes MAJOR lower back problems late in life. That's a flawed design by any estimation.

So, basically, the back can be explained two ways: either we weren't supposed to do any work in Eden so it didn't matter if we had backs that were ill-designed for work, or we evolved from organisms who had back support because they had four limbs, and we no longer have that support after standing up, hence the back problems. Now, disregarding the idea that macroevolution does not exist, will you at least grant that the second theory makes sense?

---

i'm not sure what this discussion is all about nor how it relates to biological evolution. remember though, the point of an organism is to reproduce genes. behaviors and structures that increase the chance of that happening become better represented in successive generations.

Quote:

---

I also believe that evolution takes place

---

Wow thats a turnabout , all the way from evolution is a myth via a website that denies evolution happens arriving at evolution happens .

Looks like the guy had to fall on his sword.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4768820.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

You are 80 years behind again. Google 'fruit flies' and ' evolution' and try to grasp the basics. You probably won't even try, as usual. You expect people to take your views seriously and answer your points, but you never, ever return the courtesy. It makes you by far the worst debater in this forum. I seldom bother with your posts.

---

Fruit flies? Experiments on fruit flies actually help to disprove evolution because all the mutants die out since mutations are almost always bad, not good (which evolution would require). Yes there are a few freak exceptions to this, but it is not the general rule. It is also disproves evolution because they never transformed into anything else, like common ancestry requires.

The author Ian Taylor has an extremely poignant quote about fruit flies in his Darwinism-debunking book, "In the Minds of Men". This quote always crack me up when I see it. It is hilarious because it's so true.

Quote:

---

Experimentation with fruit flies began in the 1920s with
Thomas Hunt Morgan and today is still a minor "industry"
among researchers. The stubborn fruit fly has endured
every genetic indignity possible, but so far not one has
ever produced anything except another fruit fly.

---

Incidentally that book can be read for free online at this link: http://www.creationism.org, and it also debunks many of the other Darwinists claims made in this thread.

Chapter 6 of that book has some good scientific debunkings of Darwinists' species quagmire:

http://www.creationism.org/books/Tay...4WorseOrBetter

For the claims not debunked in that book, there are other sites that also debunk all the other Darwinist claims such as:

http://www.answersingenesis.org
http://www.trueorigin.org/
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200809.htm

In regards to Big John's big quote from talkorigins, there is zero evidence in there, or anywhere else in the world, of a lower form of life evolving into a completely different, more complex, higher form of life with new, additional genetic information. All there is in that quote is evidence for variation within a kind, which is something that no one disputes. Darwinists using semantic wordplay with the word 'species' does not prove that the sort of evolution described which is required for common ancestry has ever occurred, or is even possible.

just on a point of clarity; are we into the whole earth is 5000 years old business?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculu5

just on a point of clarity; are we into the whole earth is 5000 years old business?

---

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

---

Nav....I am just wondering...

have you considered taking up juggling? :juggle2:

something tells me you have the natural talent to pull it off...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The trouble many of you are encountering in debating Navaros on this issue is simple. He doesn't accept your basic premise that "The Scientific Method" is the paramount tool for explanation of phenomena (in fact, he labels this belief as a "religious" belief). Since he does not accept this basic premise, he does not place any kind of "central" value to theories derived/proved thereby.

It is as though you are trying to argue about the nature of a specific color with someone who sees only on the infra-red end of the energy spectrum -- there is a basic disconnect.

You might think about this as an instance of differend, because you are speaking past one another and not really connecting.

---

This post is sort of correct and sort of not correct.

I reject the premise that the scientifc method is applicable to theory of evolution. It isn't. That is why belief in the theory of evolution must be taken on faith, and is therefore, a religious belief.

The scientific method can explain phenomena which can be observed, tested, and repeated. A lower form of life evolving into a higher, more complex, completely different form of life with new genetic information is applicable to none of the above.

The quoted post is correct though, in that I would never be 'convinced' by any argument from the other side. I have my point of view which isn't ever going to change by anything Darwinists have to say, and the Darwinists have their points of view which probably aren't ever gonna change based on what Creationists have to say. But, I can correctly challenge the Darwinists' common, yet untrue, assertions that their opinions about these matters are facts (they are not), are science (they are not), and do not require faith (they do).

The quoted post also touches on that Darwinists require everything in the Universe to be explainable by 'natural processes'. But, not everything is a result of natural processes. God created. He did not use 'natural processes' to do so. So in trying to fit all the creation and diversity of life into the tiny little box which it cannot fit into - 'natural processes' - leaves no possible alternative other than for men to fabricate explanations off the top of their heads, and then accept those fabrications based on faith alone (since what they fabricated in their own minds never occurred in reality, thus they can never legitimately be proven --- just like macroevolution.)

As usual the godfearing come up with the ususal claptrap about the theory of evolution requiring faith. No it doesn't. This is along the same lines that atheists must have a faith that god does not exist. It's like a blind spot for them, they just do not get it. Perhaps this is because faith plays such a huge part in their day to day lives that they cannot concieve of a world view that doesn't have any. A requirment for faith is the suspention of disbelief. A total absence of critical thought. After all, when all said and done, the creationist can always turn around and just say "God did it".

It's almost like arguing with a small child.

First off I'm Agnostic.

But concerning what Navaros is saying, if there is a God and he is all powerful, one can not prove that the universe is billions of years old by extrapolating data gained now. Perhaps God made it look that way - we'll never know. Perhaps the laws of physics were altered to make it appear differently.

I only have a problem when people who try to square the circle with "proving" the bible using science. I'm happy that everything is as it says, and everything that appears different is merely because God made it that way - fair enough. But to state that the laws of physics are correct, and somehow a large flood can make rocks look 2 billion years older is going too far.

Macroevolution can be "proven" given enough time. That we've not monitored change for long enough does not disprove the theory.

Embryonic changes are the clearest view of evolution at work - humans have gills which they then loose for example; snakes have legs which again dissappear.

Of course, God could have decided that it was more "fun" this way, instead of mammals only developing with structures they'd need as adults.

What is a "natural process"?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The figure is usually closer to 10 000 years old, although it can range from 6000 - 10 000 in some cases.

I personally do not know how old the Earth is since the Bible isn't specific about the age of the Earth. A few things must be noted, however:

1. God can create things with age as He did with Adam & Eve (Ie: they were never babies). So even if the Earth is old, that does not necessarily mean that Earth has actually existed for the years of age which it contains.

2. No one knows exactly how, and to what degree, the Earth was changed as a result of the damage from the great Flood (Ie: potentially causing artificial signs of age in all sorts of things as a result of damage from the great Flood), and other natural disasters.

3. All the Darwinists 'dating methods' that they allege 'proves' how old things are, have been proven to be erroneous & unreliable; and believing in their accuracy requires faith in unprovable assumptions to begin with.

---

thank you for clarifying that. *scared*

Science has nothing to do with the popularity of evolution. People like to believe it because it means they have an excuse to ignore the Bible. Pure and simple. That's why you can argue all the scientific facts with an evolutionist and never make a dent.

Oh, and did anyone around here hear the term PC before?

Quote:

---

The author Ian Taylor has an extremely poignant quote about fruit flies in his Darwinism-debunking book, "In the Minds of Men".

---

That wouldn't be the Ian Taylor who is widely lambasted for his sloppy reasearch which he puts down to his own sloppy memory , who after retracting what he claims then makes more claims based on more thorough research that he then has to retract because his sloppy memory meant that his new research was again suffering from his sloppy memory....
or would that be an entirely different Ian Taylor who wrote "in the minds of men"

Bloody hell Nav you just make it too easy to ridicule your views , you really must try harder .

Speculating that God made the Universe to look old is a cop out. We may as well speculate that the universe was created complete with our memories five minutes ago. It may be true, but there are an infinite number of such theories and they are all completely untestable. This is why scientists at some point have to apply Occam's razor. On one hand we have an infinite number of theories, all of which require us to assume a priori the existence of an omnipotent creator who for no clear reason sets out to systematically deceive his creations (or some other, henceforth completely unknown reason why the universe could simply pop into existence fully made) and all of which are utterly untestable. On the other hand we have a theory which makes no a priori assumptions and instead states all life forms to have been produced by a natural, already documented phenomenon, as well as making testable predictions such as requiring the Earth to have been around for an awfully long time.

Incidentally, amid all this clutching at straws regarding carbon dating and such, I hear no attempt to address any of the astronomical evidence regarding the age of the Universe. For instance, the evidence that all the visible galaxies appear to be expanding out from a Big Bang some 14.2 billion years ago, or the evidence that our sun is apparently a main sequence star about 6 billion years old. Am I supposed to believe that this evidence was also planted by a flood?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

This is along the same lines that atheists must have a faith that god does not exist. It's like a blind spot for them, they just do not get it.

---

well...in order to be fair to Navaros I must agree with him partly on this.....depending on what definition of Atheism you are using....if you refering to a "Strong" atheist that basically says "I know there is no God" then that person is establishing something as a fact that he has no way of really knowing.......this is partly a faith based position I´d have to agree.

Whoever a "weak" atheist or an apatheist do not profess such a strong conviction as "knowing" there is no god....they either think it is unprobable and ilogical given the known facts that god exists or are unconcerned by such the question of a god....I´ll include myself in this last group.

I´ll agree with you that evolution requires no faith......we say it is likely that things happened a certain way given the presented facts....nobody can say they are sure unless they where there at the time to witness the events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

Science has nothing to do with the popularity of evolution. People like to believe it because it means they have an excuse to ignore the Bible. Pure and simple. That's why you can argue all the scientific facts with an evolutionist and never make a dent.

Oh, and did anyone around here hear the term PC before?

---

Sir...I aplaud you for honoring your chosen forum name in such a fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

Sir...I aplaud you for honoring your chosen forum name in such a fashion.

---

:applause:

Couldn't have put it better myself. :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignoramus

People like to believe it because it means they have an excuse to ignore the Bible.

---

People have been ignoring the Bible (or at least "interpreting" it) for thousands of years before Darwin ever came along.

Similarly even if there were any evidence contradicting evolution it still would not be evidence to uncritically accept the Bible's version of events. We would simply be back at square one with an infinite number of untestable theories to choose from.

I have never yet heard any convincing arguments against the Flying Spaghetti Monster critique of Creationism.

Call me crazy, or maybe just a religious softy, but I always rather interpreted the creation story(well, ya know, the 2nd one :wink:) as a general parable about how God gave man life, and man turned from God. Rather than a specific and exact account of actual events. Plus, I was always a bit miffed that Cain suddenly got married, yet the only other people who had been created, if we are to take it literally and exactly, were his father and mother.~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Embryonic changes are the clearest view of evolution at work - humans have gills which they then loose for example; snakes have legs which again dissappear.

Of course, God could have decided that it was more "fun" this way, instead of mammals only developing with structures they'd need as adults.

What is a "natural process"?

---

Humans don't have gills. Some Darwinists just fabricated an opinion that they do, than that opinion caught on, and now it commonly gets spread around as if it's a fact. This is also the exact same way how all the other unproven aspects of evolution caught on as well. This is all evolution can do; rely on spin-doctoring opinions as empirical evidence in order to misrepresent those opinions as facts. Because there are no empirical facts for evolution to stand on. It always all boils down to faith in an opinion.

Here is a good article that debunks the opinion-based 'humans have gills' claim:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c024.html

A natural process is a process that exists in this Universe, and happens on it's own, automatically.

I distinctley remember a piscine appearence on a human foetus when I was taking my O level biology. It had both gills and a tail. That is unless they had photoshop back in'76. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I distinctley remember a piscine appearence on a human foetus when I was taking my O level biology. It had both gills and a tail. That is unless they had photoshop back in'76. :laugh4:

---

Well, I can clear that one up for you:

Your dating system is based on the premise that the earth is billions of years old. It is in fact between 6000 to 10.000 years old. So, what you think was "back in '76", was in fact last thursday. Around noonish. And yes, they did have photoshop last week.

~;)

I think the 'human embryo gills' is not true. I think it is an outdated biological concept, that is, the thought that embryos follow the shapes of previous stages of evolution. There is a word for it, but I can't remember it right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

There is a word for it, but I can't remember it right now.

---

Yeah, it's in that book I haven't read or heard about. ~;)

I was not being sarcastic. More importantly, I remember it now! :idea2:

'La théorie de la récapitulation'. Which, if there is a benevolent God, hopefully simply translates as 'theory of recapitulation'. Which is now considered an erroneous biological theory.

Which no doubt will please the critics of biology.
A rejoicing, which, in turn, will to the science crowd only further attest to their unfamiliarity with scientific concepts, progress and perennial critical evaluation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Which no doubt will please the critics of biology.
A rejoicing, which, in turn, will to the science crowd only further attest to their unfamiliarity with scientific concepts, progress and perennial critical evaluation.

---

It is the circle of "Org" life :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Design flaws are tough for creationists or evolutionists to answer, maybe we simply don't understand the designs perfectly.[...]

---

Non, non; design flaws do not exist in the theory of evolution. What ever lives and breeds, lives and breeds. That's all you need to think of.
If a man strongly physically disabled because of his genetics sitting in a wheel chair, a very fit athlete and a woman are the only human survivors left on Earth; and the physically weak man has a gun, while the athelete does not, who'll win the theoretical rivalry between the two? The weak man will just have to shoot the athlete; and in this case, the man sitting in the wheel chair is the fittest, while the athlete is the one who is weak.

Quote:

---

Of course we are not meant to sit in front of a PC all day as many here including myself probably do, which is why we tend to have so many back problems. We simply aren't using our bodies for what they were designed for (through a creator or evolution).

---

It's a false assumption that the human body is meant for anything. It is clear that the enviroment has had its impact on what's ideal; but every enviroment has its pros and cons. There is no such thing as an ultimate enviroment/lifestyle for humans; it fully depends on what goals one want humanity to reach. Numbers? Personal health? Galactical domination? The list goes on for eternity.