And they believe this is science and not a religion.

1983 | P J Banyard

[Creationist]

In the opening of any book today that involves origins, dinosaurs, ECT. you can always expect to see the term billions of years as they know for a fact. Like some one was there to record this event.
Well here is another fine example of the evolutionist religious belief.

From the book Natural Wonders of the World, by P.J. Banyard, Page 6

Once there was nothing. There was no space and there was no time. (Now you will have to understand this if there is nothing the laws of conservation of energy state you can not create or destroy matter, in short nothing can not make something. This is a religious belief on the evolutionist part that this can happen.)(Here is the exciting part)Then,between 13 and 18 billion years ago, all the primeval matter which makes up the universe (here it comes)burst out from another dimension and exploded.

So no one was there to record when the event happend thats why they can not narrow down the time line, but hey the other dimension thing is cool.
They try to say my religious belief hinders my ability to discern science. Well you have a bigger faith based religion then I do. I have a God who told man how he did it (not all of the finer details) but that he did it. And you on the other hand have a belief system based upon interpretation of visible evidence today, with the assumed backward winding of the process to nothing exploding out of another dimension wow. All praise the mighty nothing.

The book is full of evolutionary statements that start off with the unsure words like; might have, could have, we think, seems to, and then finish as though they have the facts to prove their statements.

No one can prove 100% that the Bible is how the universe and all living things got here or that The Big Nothing From Another Dimension created the universe and all living beings.

But you can rest assured that science proves the Bible with out the use of smoke and mirrors more that the ever changing theory of evolution does.

[RightWhale]

evolution is a philosophy and not a science

That's right. Evolution is not a science. It is a method of taxonomy. Information is irrelevant. Characteristics are not superadded but created by division.

[Coyoteman]

Adaptation is not addition of new information, it is a trait existent within the organism.

Here is some contrary evidence (from Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak):

• CB100: Genetics
  • CB100. Mutations are rare.
  • CB101. Most mutations are harmful.
    • CB101.1. Mutations are accidents; things do not get built by accident.
    • CB101.2. Mutations do not produce new features.
  • CB102. Mutations do not add information.
    • CB102.1. Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information.

Gotta go now. See you later.

[Creationist]

I would also like to state that when someone uses a word and adds implied meaning to it, they reduce their credibility in the understanding of the English language and therefore their understanding in what their are arguing about.

Your misuse of the word implies to me that you do not understand what you are arguing about.

[Creationist]

At least you got it right mutation are harmful and natural selection weeds them out therefore evolution has no mechanism.

[allmendream]

I am not attacking anything. Science doesn’t deal in proof it deals in evidence.

If you don't deride Astronomers and Physicists as “evolutionists” then why does your thread deride ‘The Big Bang’ theory as formulated by Astronomers and Physicists? Why would you deride any Geologist as a “evolutionist” who doesn’t twist their readings to conform to your ideas of what revealed texts convey as to the age of the earth?

Your thread posting by P.J. Banyard never even got on to deriding the actual theory of evolution through natural selection, common descent, or even abiogenesis; just a rambling nonsensical derision of the Big Bang theory as described by ASTRONOMERS AND PHYSICISTS, you know....”evolutionists”. ;)

[Coyoteman]

Your misuse of the word implies to me that you do not understand what you are arguing about.

Reread my post. It cited the only definitions from a google search of "define:apologetics" and it is their definitions you may want to argue with.

Seven of those eight definitions define apologetics in terms of defense of the Christian religion.

I think my position is very well supported, while yours (as usual) is not.

[Creationist]

As you have stated to me try reading some journals and do not get all your information from the internet.

[Creationist]

Evidence is proof of something that has happened.

That evidence must be interpreted, how it is interpreted is where evolutionary philosophy comes into play.

If you look at a fossil found in some location and interpret it as an intermediate of something else, you have invoked a philosophy.

If you look at the stars and say that it is billions of years old you have invoked a philosophy.

The theory of evolution is a philosophy, a religion, it has no testable, repeatable, evidence to it defense. Only dreams and imaginations of those who propagate it.

[allmendream]

And if you see a star and notice that it is 100 million light years away, what can one infer about how long it took the light to reach the earth? No ‘interpretation’ is needed to calculate the distance or the speed of light.

If one notices fossils of hominids that are not clearly human but much more human than any other ape, what can one infer about the existence of these almost human creatures? No ‘interpretation’ is needed to clearly see their nearly human features.

“Evidence is proof of something that happened”? Evidence = Proof? Boy you really do use your own language.

[Coyoteman]

“Evidence is proof of something that happened”? Evidence = Proof? Boy you really do use your own language.

I think what you are seeing is an example of creation "science."

Please do not confuse this with real science.

[allmendream]

I am unlikely to do so.

I have a lifetime of education in Science. The only time I remember “proof” being offered up was in Mathematics.

In Science we deal with evidence (facts) that supports or detracts from a theory.

As such Evolution through natural selection has evidence that fills entire floors of libraries with journals like “Molecular Evolution” or “Evolution” including “Nature” and many others.

‘Evolutionism’ as defined by our mutual FRiend seems to be “evidence that was not twisted to comport with my ideas of what the Bible says and the time-line that I have ascribed Divine inerrancy to”

[Coyoteman]

I am unlikely to do so.

I have a lifetime of education in Science. The only time I remember “proof” being offered up was in Mathematics.

In Science we deal with evidence (facts) that supports or detracts from a theory.

I am aware of your posts, and your attitude toward science. I agree completely.

My comment was directed to the individual you were posting to, playing off of your response.

(Actually, proof is also useful in the distillation sciences and in photography.)

[Creationist]

Yea like what you do assume the earth is old based upon fossils and rocks. Radiometric dating is a science that the people using do not know how to properly interpret, as they believe they know all and assume that nothing can effect the decay properties of specimen.

[Creationist]

I guess that the two of you have been overly educated in internet.

From Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary Page 1441

proof-1. any effort, process, or operation that attempts to establish truth or fact;atest; a trial; as to make proof of the truth of a statement
2. something serving as evidence that which proves or establishes: a convincing token or argument: a means of convictions.
The definitions go to 13 and yes mathematics, alcohol, photography, printing, armor are a few. but it does not say that evidence in science is not proof. If a theory has the evidence "facts" to back up the hypothesis that is proof.

But hey I understand you two get all your info from the Internet. That is not a good idea as you can find anything there to support what ever you want to propagate. If you wish to be taken seriously by lurkers you really should look up what you are arguing against.

Here lets look up evidence page 633

ev i dence 1. the condition of being evident
2.something that makes another thing evident indication sign

this is the one I really like it shows how the definition you appear to understand comes from a Darwinist hand book as it does not agree with the English language definition of evidence.
3. something that tends to prove; ground for belief

You two really must read hard copy as the Internet is destroying your ability to think.

[Jeff Gordon]

I mean something from nothing is not possible

Hence there is no "Creator." If a Creator existed It would have been the result of something from nothing.

[Jeff Gordon]

Many other people believe that gun control will lower deaths by guns that does not mean they are right.

Many other people believe the Bible is the word of God (but) that does not mean they are right.

[allmendream]

Nitrogen resin on someones hand is evidence that they might have fired a gun. Does it PROVE that they fired a gun?

An ATM receipt is evidence that the suspect might not have been at the scene of the crime. Does it PROVE that they were not at the scene of the crime?

Websters definitions are interesting but evidence is not proof and the two are not synonyms, especially in Science.

And if your interested in what lurkers think maybe you could write in proper English and in complete sentences.

[Creationist]

If you are a naturalist Darwinist with out a soul then you are correct. If you believe in God you would know he operates in the realm of the supernatural that which science can not measure, hence the reason they will not accept or discuss the possibility. Plus the fact if there is a God you must follow his rules.

The creator that is Jesus is above space and time he has the power to create new material and destroy completely. He made the laws we are constrained to.

[Creationist]

Dead bones are evidence that something lived and died does it prove that it is an intermediate.

Experiments to created life from nonliving matter have failed to do so does that prove that life came from nonliving matter.

It is evident that Na2So4 is table salt so the evidence that if you mix the two in proper proportions will make table salt is proof that the formula is correct.

[Coyoteman]

It is evident that Na2So4 is table salt so the evidence that if you mix the two in proper proportions will make table salt is proof that the formula is correct.

Well the formula is incorrect then.

Its been a while since I took chemistry, but back then salt was NaCl. Isn't Na₂So₄ sodium sulphate?

(You better stick to creation "science" and leave real science alone. Its hard!)