Creation vs Evolution

[rory_20_uk]

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/

I've not had time to read all the FAQs, but after delving in randomly they all basically repeat the same thing.

I liked this:

"Could it be that tyrannosaurs were mostly plant-eaters, not meat-eaters? The shape of their teeth alone can't tell us what they ate. Perhaps they used their sharp teeth and claws to tear up tough plants and fruits, not dinosaurs. Obviously sharp teeth can serve other purposes than simply cutting meat, just as kitchen knives can be used for cutting carrots as well as steaks.

Many sharp-toothed animals living today are plant-eaters and rarely (or never) eat flesh. A few of many examples include the Giant Panda, the large Australian fruit bat, and some apes and bears."

"Killing dinosaurs, biting through bones and tearing off hunks of meat should leave definite signs of tooth wear. Sometimes a tooth would have been broken or lost. An Albertosaurus (al-BERT-oh-SOR-us) was found with teeth that show almost no wear. The tips and delicate edge serration's are said to be in almost perfect condition. Yet this tyrannosaur was an adult."

Next page...

"Dinosaurs like the Triceratops had very strong jaws and replaceable teeth."

Apparently links to external sources is something not required on Creationist sites. Theories can be disproved, new ones made with a vew vague comments.

Again I liked the one (to paraphrase) science is wrong because it draws from the wrong basis. As it doesn't start with not the theory but the certainty that of creationism it is wrong. That early scientists were creationists is further evidence... apparently that the most learned men in the world were swayed from their once held beliefs by the sheer numbing weight of evidence is of course ignored.

[naut]

Why does God care specifically for humans when there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe

Well lets say there are an infinate number of inhospitible worlds in the Universe. But only a finite number of hospitible worlds.

Now a finite divided by an infinite, is undefined. So technically nothing should exist.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, seeing as the Universe is said to be finite, there are a large, yet finite number of worlds that are inhospitable to human life. Possibly not other life.

There is a much smaller number of hospitable worlds.

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

[Tribesman]

Rythmic , don't forget that according to the extention of that theory we are the descendants the of really dumb useless aliens who replaced the cavemen that didn't live in caves .
Remember to pay homage to the mice and dolpins , the true overlords of mankind .

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

42

[Duke of Gloucester]

(From your first link: http://sycophants.info/hawking.html) Hawking did use very specific phrases:

- "all right to study the evolution of the universe"
- "after the big bang"
- "should not inquire into the big bang itself"
- "moment of Creation"
- "therefore the work of God"

He will make all that up and flat out lie?

Well there are two possibilities - either the Pope did tell Stephen Hawking not to investigate the big bang itself, or he didn't. Evidence in favour of the Pope having done so is his SH's statement and the fact he has repeated it consistently i.e when he re-tells the story severall times he doesn't vary it signficantly. Evidence against the Pope saying this is:

• no similar statements from other attendees
• no evidence in the text of the address that such a statement was made
• no evidence of the Pope making similar statements at other times
• the fact that such a statement would be inconsistent with the Pope's approach to science
• to say that the moment of creation was the work of God but the rest of nature is not is theologically flawed. I think the Pope would realise this, but Stephen Hawking might not.

Make up your own mind, based on the evidence.

[Quietus]

Well there are two possibilities - either the Pope did tell Stephen Hawking not to investigate the big bang itself, or he didn't. Evidence in favour of the Pope having done so is his SH's statement and the fact he has repeated it consistently i.e when he re-tells the story severall times he doesn't vary it signficantly. Evidence against the Pope saying this is:

• no similar statements from other attendees
• no evidence in the text of the address that such a statement was made
• no evidence of the Pope making similar statements at other times
• the fact that such a statement would be inconsistent with the Pope's approach to science
• to say that the moment of creation was the work of God but the rest of nature is not is theologically flawed. I think the Pope would realise this, but Stephen Hawking might not.

Make up your own mind, based on the evidence.

Ok Duke. Coincidentally I clicked upon this Hawking 'quotes' link and behold the answer. :)

http://atheism.about.com/library/quo...q_SHawking.htm

and I quote:

At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference --

Note the line i've bolded was not in your first link's quote: (http://sycophants.info/hawking.html). Hence, what the pope said was not recorded since the event or encounter Hawking was referring to occurred after the conference. :)

[Duke of Gloucester]

Interesting, but it also says "participants" and "us". It would be interesting to see if any other delegates have the same recollection of the audience. If they do, then we can take Hawking's account as being reliable. Until there is corroborating testimony, other objections (especially the theological one) suggest to me that he has not remembered or did not understand what he was told.

[Avicenna]

Rythmic , don't forget that according to the extention of that theory we are the descendants the of really dumb useless aliens who replaced the cavemen that didn't live in caves .
Remember to pay homage to the mice and dolpins , the true overlords of mankind .

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

42

Wait, dolphins? Since when did the dolphins join in?

[Duke of Gloucester]

You need to read the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, partly because it is a really funny book, but also because you need a good knowledge of the trilogy to understand many org references. Watching Monty Python is important for the same reasons.

[Avicenna]

depressent