creationism and creation science

The nature and history of the universe is not subject to your vote.

Perhaps, but shouldn't we teach pleasing lies and myths to enhance our self-esteem? For the children, of course.

[This isn't really a brilliant remark, just a bump so I don't lose the thread.]

until science can explain how dust and gas ( with a low order of entropy) evolved into you and me (extremely high order of entropy) arguments of this kind only demonstate that there are different kinds of faith: religeous and scientific.

Interesting attitude. Notwithstanding the thousands of things that science has obviously explained, you are determined to call it a mindless cult unless it answers your personal question. Okay, you're entitled to your opinion.

I said: "there is no doubt in my mind that individual forms adapt and change over time"

I stipulate to the existance of the fossil record. It's the SciDogma that fossils are sufficient proof of the theory of evolution and anyone who points out that the fossil record says nothing about the creation of the basic forms, only how they changed, is deluded-out-of-the-box. Should they also profess to a religious belief, they are automatically relegated to the ranks of creationists, although I have twice stated I am not. Please stop attacking me where we agree and explain how Stegasaurus A,B, and C speaks to the question about the gills, feathers, and kidneys.

In no way does the fossil record explain how life began, how individual cells came together to form vital organs, why a gill or a lung or a wing would be a positive survival trait before it was functional, and not a detriment to survival.

You said: "The nature and history of the universe is not subject to your vote."

Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!-- further, the evolutionary model he proposes "Punctuated Equilibrium" requires the unexplained, the unobserved, and the unrecorded(in the fossil record) to work. There are several far brighter mathmatical types on these posts as well who offer fascinating reads on probability and survivability of incomplete systems.

One of the hallmarks of sucessful scientific discovery has always been an open mind and the refusal to accept the status quo

Give it a whirl, cast off your preconceptions, question your beliefs.

. . . the fossil record says nothing about the creation of the basic forms, only how they changed . . .

Are you sure? Are you familiar with how far back the fossil record goes and what kind of changes it does show? Just an example of what I'm talking about:

Phylum-Level Evolution, by recovering YEC Glenn R. Morton.

. . . why a gill or a lung or a wing would be a positive survival trait before it was functional . . .

If it's a positive survival trait, it's functional enough to make a difference and be retained. The early function may be much less than, or even qualitatively different from, the later function. (For instance, a bat's wings were once grasping hands.)

Again, not even Gould is willing to accept evolution "sola scriptura" as immutable truth instead of theory--he says he can construct experiments to disprove any evolutionary theory he knows!-- further, the evolutionary model he proposes "Punctuated Equilibrium" requires the unexplained, the unobserved, and the unrecorded(in the fossil record) to work. There are several far brighter mathmatical types on these posts as well who offer fascinating reads on probability and survivability of incomplete systems.

Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium is an important theory, like that of Darwin which it modifies and extends. It is the theory, and not Gould or Darwin, which is important. Science is not a religion--dispite the claim (a projection of their own belief system?) of creationists--and does not have saints or infallible authority figures.

Placemarker.

These people never quit, positing anyone who dare question evolution as a creationist. The fact is that 99.9% of the scientific community do not accept evolution as a scientific fact. After 150 years, not a single series of fossils have been found that demonstrate a gradual mutation of one species into a completely different species. This would require such gradual changes as one sees in the frames of a movie. No scientist, or group of scientists, or all scientists together, have put together such a gradual mutative change. Rather, changes are by great leaps, which modern evolutionists admit, and for mating purposes, such leaps would have to occur simultaneously in two animals. This is what Darwinists have to explain before their theory becomes a fact. That such leaps occur replies as much faith in their "science" as does the creationists faith in their "science." If you read Gould, even Darwin, carefully, they admit the limitations of the theory, but those limitations are not widely taught. If you want to hear them in the Darwinist's own words, read Phillip Johnson's, Darwin on Trial.

Evolution is a faith based system

The fact is that 99.9% of the scientific community do not accept evolution as a scientific fact.

Gee, with that kind of support you'd think you'd be able to come up with one, just one, peer-reviewed article published in a reputed scientific journal supporting this contention -- after all, it can't be a conspiracy on the part of 0.1 percent of the scientific community to keep the the rest in line -- they wouldn't have the clout.

The truth of the matter is, 99.9 percent of the scientific community accepts evolution as fact; the actual mechanisms behind evolution are what is debated, but the contention that all organisms change over time and have arisen from common ancestor is not in any way questioned. As one biologist put it back in the 70s, evolution is the foundation of the modern biological sciences. You can rant and rave all you want, but until such a time as you, or one of your ilk, put forth a theory which does a better job at explaining the Earth's biosphere than does evolution, you will be pretty much urinating in the face of a gale. As to such a theory, here's a hint: claiming a supernatural cause (i.e., "God did it") is not a scientific theory.

Evolution is a faith based system

Nope. Evolution is a theory, supported by evidence, that explains the Earth's biosphere. No "faith" is required, as one need merely study biology, paleontology, anthropology, etc., to realize that evolution is accepted in the scientific community simply because it does a better job at explaining the life around us than any other theory to date. Now, accepting a religious treatise formulated by nomadic shepherds three millennia ago as a scientific theory -- that requires faith.

bump

Creation Science is a pseudoscientific theory which claims that ...(b) Genesis is incompatible with the Big Bang theory

There are others besides creationists who question the Big Bang Theory. Just about every year someone comes up with a new dark matter, black hole, brane, etc., that they say questions the Big Bang theory, or so challenges tenets of it as to make it indescribably different.
If challenging = pseudo-science, then deciding = faith. I'd prefer to call things on some scale such as first, second, third order theories. Call the Big Bang a 1st order theory. Call this "brane theory" a 2nd order theory. Call creationism a fourth order theory. Call the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle a 100th order theory. I don't see anything, except propaganda, aided by different sides using emotionalism against opposing theories.

From Space.com, 13 Apr 2001, "Faster than you can say "Ekpyrotic Universe," a movement has taken hold -- albeit like fingers on a ledge of eternal skepticism -- that would blow one of the basic tenets of the Big Bang to smithereens. Think parallel branes and five dimensions. Science never sounded so cool. The new idea would not replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved. But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our universe was created when two parallel "membranes" collided cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an exceedingly long period of time. These membranes, or "branes" as theorists call them, would have floated like sheets of paper through a fifth dimension that even scientists admit they find hard to picture intuitively. (Our conventional view of 3-D physical space, along with time, make up the four known dimensions.) "It's almost crazy enough to be correct

Archaeopteryx. Definitely has the characteristics of both therapod dinosaurs and birds.

Two points. One, My reading shows that archaeopteryx is at best an unsubstantiated wish. There is still debate over whether it is a fraud or not. Two, if it is a species, it is not a common link - a common link would be a demonstrable series of this birdlike lizard showing different stages of mutation from no wings to wings. This is something that is completely non-existant - and not just in regard to archae. Not one single instance can be shown in the fossil record of actual change taking place over long durations which end up in an added set of wings, a change from gills to lungs, fins to legs, etc.

In trying to propound the preposterous, evolutionists ignore the stark obvious. Organs and limbs are not mere things, they are complex systems that must be worked into other complex systems. Absence of single components in the system can cause death. And because these are complex systems, they require genetic change on a large scale all happening at random yet cooperatively - which doesn't happen in practice. The odds of even a single change are astronomical and there is nothing saying a single change wouldn't be a fatal one. Grouping enough changes to keep the process going or to do it all in one shot is so astronomical even for one creature that it is beyond belief that scientists can stand straight faced and say it has happened millions of times.

Archaeopteryx is either a fraud as it has been shown to be in the past, or it is just another of a diverse group of animals that have existed; but, it lends no support to the notion of evolution. It demonstrates a species, not a step in evolution.

Archaeopteryx. Definitely has the characteristics of both therapod dinosaurs and birds.
Two points. One, My reading shows that archaeopteryx is at best an unsubstantiated wish. There is still debate over whether it is a fraud or not.

The fraud claim was put to bed in the 1980s. Please see On Archaeopteryx, Astronomers, and Forgery for a detailed accounting of how the fraud claims were addressed and the conclusions drawn.

Two, if it is a species, it is not a common link - a common link would be a demonstrable series of this birdlike lizard showing different stages of mutation from no wings to wings. This is something that is completely non-existant - and not just in regard to archae. Not one single instance can be shown in the fossil record of actual change taking place over long durations which end up in an added set of wings, a change from gills to lungs, fins to legs, etc.

Should the one species have representatives of the whole series of transitions? Methinks you do not understand the concept of evolution, let alone the idea of transitional species. Please avail yourself of these links:

Bird Evolution

Transitional Fossils

As you will see from a quick perusal, your accusations on the dearth of transitional forms is erroneous, to say the least. I really wish people would avail themselves of The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource before making statements which have already been addressed.

In trying to propound the preposterous, evolutionists ignore the stark obvious. Organs and limbs are not mere things, they are complex systems that must be worked into other complex systems. Absence of single components in the system can cause death. And because these are complex systems, they require genetic change on a large scale all happening at random yet cooperatively - which doesn't happen in practice.

Ah, the old "Irreducible Complexity" argument. That's been covered, too:

Irreducible Complexity

The odds of even a single change are astronomical and there is nothing saying a single change wouldn't be a fatal one. Grouping enough changes to keep the process going or to do it all in one shot is so astronomical even for one creature that it is beyond belief that scientists can stand straight faced and say it has happened millions of times.

But there are millions of such changes going on all the time. The odds become increasingly likely in that event that something is going to happen. The odds may be astronomical that any particular individual will win the lottery. However, with millions of folks playing the odds that one of them will win are pretty good.

Archaeopteryx is either a fraud as it has been shown to be in the past, or it is just another of a diverse group of animals that have existed; but, it lends no support to the notion of evolution. It demonstrates a species, not a step in evolution.

Dear sir, all species are steps in evolution. One would have to have a terribly compartmented mind not to see that organisms change throughout the fossil record. One can draw one of two conclusions from this observation: that the organisms come from related organisms that appear earlier in the fossil record, or that some dude pops in from time to time and makes new species out of whole cloth. As the former is in keeping with the evidence and does not rely on a supernatural element, it is far more likely to be testable, and therefore scientific. If you can come up with a theory which explains the evidence better than evolution does, feel free to publish your findings. You probably will be given the Nobel Prize.

One would have to have a terribly compartmented mind not to see that organisms change throughout the fossil record.

The footprints of man in fossil form walking alongside dinosaurs pretty well messes with the "fossil record" as You guys put it. You don't have proof of change in the fossil record, you have a show of diversity. And isn't it interesting that fossils require bodies being covered in mud in order to form. Carcases are not covered over by neatly sifted layers of different types of dirt, sand, minerals etc.. layers in normal cycles are layed down as an amalgumation. Only with liquifaction can you get thoroughly sorted layers of strata which blows the strata theory of dating right out of the water (no pun intended).

And if we evolved from apes, why is it that the apes are still with us while none of the other forms of 'man' are. Yeah, I'm sure ya'll have a theory for everything; but, that's just it, it's all a bunch of theory based on assumption - The only facts you have are a bunch of bones. But, you can't honestly claim to be able to date the bones with any degree of accuracy. And that is true because no one knows the level of contamination the samples have been subjected to - which means that every single date applied to anything is a guess. You may use equipment to make the guess; but, in the end, that's all it is. Theories piled upon guesses and lauded as fact. Do you want to guess how many shows I've seen on archeology that ever mentions the word "theory" with regard to evolution - less than 1%.

I love following Egyptology; And in following it, I get to see the moronicism innate in modern science on a regular basis. I've seen the story of the two tombs - one cut into and built around another. The one added later is said to be the first though there is no possible way that can be. But, it is stated as fact because altering that plays with earlier conclusions based on shoddy work. Everyone wants to look good and no one wants to admit being wrong at any cost. That is smug eliteism, not scholarship. But that's what passes in the scientific community as "knowing something".

The Paluxy River Man Tracks have been roundly refuted, even by Creationists. Get with the program, man!

As for the old "if man came from apes, why are there still apes" canard: No evolutionist says man came from apes. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. We've been over this ground many times. Either you are new to these threads, or you are suffering from a major case of amnesia.

It takes faith to believe everything came from nothing.

Sorry, forgot I was having this conversation. "Are you sure?"

I visited that link, thank you, it was very instructive. HoweverTwo of the points he make are fairly easily disputed.(whether they are true or not is another matter)

1. He talks about forms evolving from one distinct type to another. As his primary example he offers a fossil of a long animal with lobopods (lumpy feet for people like me)Here is one of the fossils he provides:

He does not talk about its date precisely seems to hold that its from the Vendian period (620m-540m bce)

The point he tries to make with this fossil is that it shows a worm on its way to evolving to another species, in short, a classic transitional form.

Here is a current photograph of what appears to be a very close relative, not at all fossilized, that does not seem to have "transited" anywhere:

2.(the other point that was disputable) He claimed the apparent big explosion of life in the Cambrian was misleading in that it just indicated this is when all the disparate forms all evolved shells, and their shell-less precursers did not leave fossils. There are two quick points on this. Firstly a LOT of different forms suddenly appeared. To surmise that they all evolved shells in parallel strains credulity but its certainly not an adequate refutal of the claim. The more convincing refutation, to me, occurs farther back on his own page and is the first image posted on this reply: It is a fossil from an earlier age that is soft.

It appears from his own supporting evidence that his assertions are not conclusive.

Please send more links if you have them.

Regards
v.

Can you come up with one peer-rewiewed article in a scientific journal that refers to evolution as fact rather than theory? I am still under the impression that the term "Theory of Evolution" means what it says, and that Scientific writers whose reputations hinge on the accuracy of their words hold fast to keeping that term "Theory" in there, regardless of their beliefs.

I do not think his statement is innacurate even given the lack of anti-evolution articles you seem to require, notwithstanding that you might even agree with me that finding such articles in the venue you discribe would be a lot like finding pro-abortion articles in Official Catholic publications. It ain't gonna happen