Quoting:
Well, looking at the spelling of the thread title, my guess is illiteracy?
End Quote

LMAO!! I was gonna say bad spelling but you beat me to it!!

Quoting:

What is the bigest problem effecting believers of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We all have at least one issue that plagues us, but what is the most general problem for a people lead by an all mighty God!!!
End Quote

Geeze, as a none believer, I really can't say.  I would hope that its the hypocracy of so may professed Christians, who claim to follow that GREAT TEACHER but also esposes racist and sexist ideas without recognizing how contraditory their professed beliefs are with the teachings of their prophet.  I was raised in a Christian faith, and I mean no disrespect, but I know lots of people who call themselves "Christians" who don't seem (from my point of view) to have the slightest idea of what "Christian charity" is all about.  Many, certainly not all by any means, of the "Christians" I know are a bunch of hypocrits.  I don't want to genralize.  I know many fine people who are commited to their beliefs and LIVE them. As A non-believer I challenge those of you who claim to follow the teaching of Christ to live up to your professed beliefs.

Quoting:
Well, looking at the spelling of the thread title, my guess is illiteracy?
End Quote

Sorry, But I can't agree.  My spelling (as a Ph. D. - and I'm not tryinhg to flip degrees) is not the greatest.  Lets hear what people want to say and not focus on trivia.  There is no spell check on this system.

Bad spellers of the world untie!  ;) You have only your dictionaries to overthrow. Vivi li Deferense ;D

Quoting:


Sorry, But I can't agree.  My spelling (as a Ph. D. - and I'm not tryinhg to flip degrees) is not the greatest.  Lets hear what people want to say and not focus on trivia.  There is no spell check on this system.

Bad spellers of the world untie!  ;) You have only your dictionaries to overthrow. Vivi li Deferense ;D

End Quote

Well, my post was merely in jest, but let's go on with this, shall we?  Spell check is irrelevant in this case.  It wasn't a case of a misspelled word, as look at biggest.  He misspelled it TWICE. Also, I hate it when problems "effect" me.  Again, this is not a spell-check issue, but rather the guy doesn't know it's affect.  I can give him slack for christains, although he bills himself as a Min. (Minister).  Wouldn't a Minister be a little more learned than this?

Sorry, the post called for ridicule, IMHO.

P.S.  It's almighty, not all mighty.  A minister should also know this.

Quoting:
What is the biggest problem hurting christians?

I'll take this question at face value and give a simple reply.

Nothing.

Nothing's hurting them. They're alive and well. They're not being persecuted.
End Quote

Au contraire, Hairspray. Do you know what happens to christians in countries like China, Pakistan and India? Do a quick Google search, or check this link.


http://www.csw.org.uk/

Quoting:
Au contraire, Hairspray. Do you know what happens to christians in countries like China, Pakistan and India? Do a quick Google search, or check this link.


http://www.csw.org.uk/

End Quote

Oh shoot!  :o  I wasn't talkin' world-wide. I should remember our member make-up here is beyond the U.S.  :P

Carry-on then.

Quoting:
If we consider ourselves Christians and if we really believe in the teachings of Christ, then we should feel guilty for not sharing our faith with our non-Christian friends.  A few Christians are good at sharing, but most of us, and I am certainly guilty, are not willing to share our faith the way that we should.
End Quote

The problem with that is that a lot of Christians I know is that they either assume that you are Christian or you should be converted to Christianity. I am not a Christian. I respect that a lot of people are and I wish that Christians would respect my religion. Religion is very personal. No one can tell anyone WHAT to believe, we can only tell people what we believe. I was brought up in an Episcopal/Jewish household. When people would come over to our house for the holidays, they would see the Christmas tree and the manorrah and asked, "Aren't these kids confused?" We weren't. Everyone else was. Now, each one of us has found our own spirital path. I have a Catholic sister, a Unitarian sister, as well as an egnostic sister. My brother, who was married in a Methodist Church, leans more towards the Jewish faith. My dad, is a (get this) Athiest, Quaker-Jew. (Try figuring that one out). I am a Pagan-I practice the Wicca Religion. We all respect each other's path. That is why it should be.




Cat

Quoting:


Well, my post was merely in jest, but let's go on with this, shall we?  Spell check is irrelevant in this case.  It wasn't a case of a misspelled word, as look at biggest.  He misspelled it TWICE. Also, I hate it when problems "effect" me.  Again, this is not a spell-check issue, but rather the guy doesn't know it's affect.  I can give him slack for christains, although he bills himself as a Min. (Minister).  Wouldn't a Minister be a little more learned than this?

Sorry, the post called for ridicule, IMHO.

P.S.  It's almighty, not all mighty.  A minister should also know this.
End Quote

Pardon me while I LMA:D

Dude, you rule! Hahaha!

Btw, I tried that bleach thing on the carpet and now all my rent deposit is gone to fix it :P "Let the chri stains remain," says I.

Quoting:



The problem with that is that a lot of Christians I know is that they either assume that you are Christian or you should be converted to Christianity. I am not a Christian. I respect that a lot of people are and I wish that Christians would respect my religion. Religion is very personal. No one can tell anyone WHAT to believe, we can only tell people what we believe. I was brought up in an Episcopal/Jewish household. When people would come over to our house for the holidays, they would see the Christmas tree and the manorrah and asked, "Aren't these kids confused?" We weren't. Everyone else was. Now, each one of us has found our own spirital path. I have a Catholic sister, a Unitarian sister, as well as an egnostic sister. My brother, who was married in a Methodist Church, leans more towards the Jewish faith. My dad, is a (get this) Athiest, Quaker-Jew. (Try figuring that one out). I am a Pagan-I practice the Wicca Religion. We all respect each other's path. That is why it should be.




Cat




End Quote

Not all of us are that way.  I, for one, hate it when people try to shove their religion off on me.  I will tell people about my beliefs if they ask, otherwise I keep it to myself.  I don't deny it, but I don't walk around telling people that they are going to hell and whatnot. (not saying that that is what you are saying, I just know people who do that).

Quoting:
The fact that creationism isn't taught as science?
End Quote

Nor should it be, considering it's not a science.

Quoting:
I can respect someone not being Christian. I believe and follow the 8 points to the best of my ability, and wouldn't try to tell anyone else how to believe. I do not have the answers for you , I only have what works for me.  :)
End Quote

I wish everyone were like this.  I do not judge people based on their religion or lack thereof and wish they wouldn't do it to me.

Quoting:


Nor should it be, considering it's not a science.
End Quote

I was being sarcastic. All those things I wrote were a joke. Creationism is incredibly stupid. It makes me very sad that science books in the Bible belt actually present creationism as a viable scientific theory.

Quoting:


Creationism is incredibly stupid.
End Quote

I don't know if you realize how offensive this comment is.  I personally believe in Creationism and don't think it is stupid.  There are others on this board who believe in Creationism, also.  If you don't believe in it or you think it is stupid, that is fine...it is your opinion.  Just watch how you word things.  Had you added "in my opinion" to that sentence it would not have offended.

Quoting:


I was being sarcastic. All those things I wrote were a joke. Creationism is incredibly stupid. It makes me very sad that science books in the Bible belt actually present creationism as a viable scientific theory.
End Quote

I think Darwinism is incredibly stupid.  There are valid arguements for both sides, and I choose to believe in creationism.

Quoting:


I don't know if you realize how offensive this comment is.  I personally believe in Creationism and don't think it is stupid.  There are others on this board who believe in Creationism, also.  If you don't believe in it or you think it is stupid, that is fine...it is your opinion.  Just watch how you word things.  Had you added "in my opinion" to that sentence it would not have offended.
End Quote

Well put, Dag!

Quoting:


Well put, Dag!
End Quote

Thanks :)

Quoting:
OK, this may seem sappy but I'm going to write it anyway.
I think the biggest problem Christians have is that they lack the faith to act as their Lord and Savior would have them act.
I'm not pointing fingers here OK? I'm talking about your average Joe Blow Christian dude.
There are some real specific ways to act and react in the sermon on the mount.
I'll be the first to admit that some of the things Jesus taught are hard to understand. What does it really mean to love your enemy?
But some are straight forward. If a man forces you to walk a mile with him, walk with him two. That's easy to understand.
If a man sues you under the law and takes your coat, give him your cloak also. That's easy to understand.
If a man smites you on your right cheek, turn unto him your left. That's easy to understand.
How many firm believers in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of the world have the faith to act in this manner?
Most good Christians I know would call someone an idiot who would let someone beat them up and not do anything about it.
Most good Christians I know would call someone an idiot who would give someone more than what they took them to court and sued them for.
I really think that the biggest problem Christians have is a lack of faith in the teachings and promises of Jesus Christ.
End Quote

Amen!

I could also add "Thou shalt not kill"
That doesn't take too much figuring out!

Quoting:
How can you believe in creationism when there are two seperate creation stories in the Bible?

I think it's rediculous bull crap psuedo-science. It's a story written by a people trying to understand the world around them. It was written to explain traditions (e.g. resting on the sabath). It was not written to be a history book.
End Quote

It's called faith.  If you don't believe then that is your opinion.  But I would appreciate it if you would respect mine.  I don't call Evolution bull crap...please respect my opinions.  Other than that we will have to agree to disagree.

Quoting:
Next time you creationists look at a St. Bernard and a chihuahua you will be seeing evolution in action (human engineered to be sure).  The scientific basis of evolution is well established whether you choose to believe it or not.  You might read some of the writings of Steven J. Gould on this, and "Inherit the Wind" which does a fairly accurate job of portraying Clarance Darrow's defense in the Scopes trial.
End Quote

I am not trying to convince people otherwise, I am just asking for a little respect of opinions.  I don't think it is right to call other beliefs stupid...wether it be evolution or creationism.  I respect your opinion on evolution I just disagree with it.

Quoting:
Evolution is not something you can have an opinion on. You can argue all you want that the grass isn't green, but that don't make it so. Denying the theory of Evolution is like denying the theory of gravity.End Quote

Don't you just love evolution though?  I think of evolution as the "philosophy" of biological sciences.  Theories are essentially pulled out of their @$$es and they can never really be "proven."  Why do I use all these quotes?  Because we don't have time machines, and evolution as a science is like psychology, in that it's sketchy at best.  My opinion though.  But if you look at evolutionary theories, they've been dished out and disproven since it became a science.  Nobody really knows what's going on, they just try to teach what makes the most sense.

Quoting:

Are you just ignoring the fact that there are two creation stories? The first one is in Chapter one of Genesis. That's the seven days one. The second creation story is the one where God creates man first out of mud, then goes on to do the rest of creation. Both are beautiful stories full of poetry and majesty, but neither can be seen as fact.End Quote

It's just a book, dude.  People can believe in whatever the hell they want to.

Quoting:

If you deny Evolution, you might as well deny DNA, germ resistance to antibiotics, and Biology all together. Everything that we know in Biology today is based on the theory of Evolution. There's no way you can deny simple facts.
End Quote

Ah, but in the same tone, how can you deny the existence of God?  Just because you can't prove he exists doesn't mean he's not there ;)  For all you know, "science" as you know it could be God's little gift to the universe  :D

And this coming from an agnostic ;)

Quoting:
Evolution is not something you can have an opinion on. End Quote

This is where you are wrong.  I can have an opinion on anything.  I do not believe in Evolution, plain and simple.  I am a Creationist and that is final.  You can fight with me about this til you are blue in the face and I will still disagree.  I intensely dislike being told what I have to believe.  Like I said before, we will have to agree to disagree.  Move on, ok?

Quoting:

And this coming from an agnostic ;)

End Quote

  Shhhh...dang, Cube!  Never show your hand.  Takes all the fun out of it... ;)

Quoting:
I believe in God, most certainly. I just think it's folly to believe everything the Bible says word for word. I cannot prove that there is no God, no one can. The difference is that I can prove that the creation story is...well... a story.End Quote

OK, not only am I really curious how you can believe in God, and yet then not believe in Creation, but even more curious am I to hear how you can prove that the story of creation is nothing more than a story.

There's not two stories there, they are two different tellings of the same story.  Read Genesis 1:1 through 1:31 again.  Nice brief telling of the creation of the world and everything on it, right?  Yes, it certainly mentions the creation of Man, but it's brief, fleeting, just part of the whole.  Now, go read Genesis 2:1 through 2:25.  Wow, a much mroe in depth telling of the creation of Man.  Not a different story, there's nothing in it that changes what the first one said, just a lot more descriptive, since it focuses on Man, and not the Heavens and the Earth.

Open your eyes, and let in the light.  Someone is not wrong because they don't believe what you believe.  Evolution has not been proven any more than Creation has.  One is based on scientific speculation, the other based on Faith.  Until physical, tangible evidence is introduced to prove one way or the other, it's all we have to go on, and you must learn to tolerate the opinions of those who don't agree with you.  Otherwise, you come across as simply an arrogant a**.

Quoting:
there's nothing in it that changes what the first one said
End Quote

Yes there is. Genesis 1:25 and 1:26 says that animals were made before man; Genesis 2:18 and 2:19 says that man was made first.

Quoting:


Yes there is. Genesis 1:25 and 1:26 says that animals were made before man; Genesis 2:18 and 2:19 says that man was made first.


End Quote

Mea culpa.  That part is different.  But the spirit of my argument remains, in that Genesis Chapter 1 is the story of the creation of all things, and Genesis Chatpetr 2 describes the creation of Man in particular, and that it doesn't mean they are two different stories of Man's creation.

edit to change "does mean" to "doesn't mean".  Brain got ahead of fingers.

Quoting:

Mea culpa.  That part is different.  But the spirit of my argument remains, in that Genesis Chapter 1 is the story of the creation of all things, and Genesis Chatpetr 2 describes the creation of Man in particular, and that it does mean they are two different stories of Man's creation.
End Quote

;D  I agree. They tell the same story, just get a bit confused about the details. The Bible is like that a lot.

Quoting:


This is where you are wrong.  I can have an opinion on anything.  I do not believe in Evolution, plain and simple.  I am a Creationist and that is final.  You can fight with me about this til you are blue in the face and I will still disagree.  I intensely dislike being told what I have to believe.  Like I said before, we will have to agree to disagree.  Move on, ok?
End Quote

Sure you can BELIEVE in anything you like.  If you find Genisis comforting, fine.  What you can't do, to my mind, is deny facts.  Western civilization is based on rationalism, religion is based on faith.  If there is a God, and he created the universe, maybe he did it through evolution, and gave us the rational minds to figure it out - to his glory.  Like I said in a previous post, human cotrol of animal breeding is an example of evolution in action.  Some day that St Bernard and that Chihuahua will not be able to breed, and we will have created to spiecies out of one!

Quoting:
Like I said in a previous post, human cotrol of animal breeding is an example of evolution in action.
End Quote

Actually, that's an example of genetic engineering or selective breeding. For it to be a true example of evolution, the dogs would have to change into a new species.  ;)

Quoting:
Some examples of de-evolution

1. Anna Nicole Smith
2. Marlon Brando
3. Michael Jackson
4. Ozzy

End Quote

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! LMAAAAAO!!

Quoting:
Examples of recent evolution:

1.)The advent of the AIDS virus
2.) Trees in heavily polluted cities have adapted to the poor quality of air by evolving leaves with fewer stoma.
3.) Bacteria becoming resistant to anti-biotics.
4.) The virus that causes the common cold has evolved into 1000 different strains.
5.) Dogs that escaped owners in Australia evolved into the present-day Dingos.
6.) Our appendix doesn't do anything now. It's an evolutionary left-over.
7.) Killer bees.
8.) That new respiration disease that has infected people in Asia.

You also want it to be replicated in the lab? We did that in our highschool biology class. We added DNA to a few E. Coli bacteria that gave them a resistance to anti-biotics and caused them to glow under ultra-violet light. We put them in a petri dish along with regular E. Coli and added anti-biotics. After a few days, the dish had been taken over by the glowing E. Coli.
End Quote

Not one of these are "proof" of evolution. People, animals, and bacteria are adaptable, that doesn't mean that I came from an ape.

Quoting:
I just want to jump-in with a question -

How do the dinosaurs fit into creation?
End Quote

No one can really say how long it took God to create Earth and all the creatures on it, or how many have been done away with over time....they were created before man, and destroyed long before man came along. I am sure there are other more traditional Christians who might argue with me on this, however, and say it took 7 days. There are some who interpret the bible literally.

Quoting:


No one can really say how long it took God to create Earth and all the creatures on it, or how many have been done away with over time....they were created before man, and destroyed long before man came along. I am sure there are other more traditional Christians who might argue with me on this, however, and say it took 7 days. There are some who interpret the bible literally.
End Quote

Didn't it take six days, and on the 7th he rested?

A Jehovahs witness who used to come to my house a lot described it the same way as you, saying that one day to God might equal 10 million to man.

Quoting:


No one can really say how long it took God to create Earth and all the creatures on it, or how many have been done away with over time....they were created before man, and destroyed long before man came along. I am sure there are other more traditional Christians who might argue with me on this, however, and say it took 7 days. There are some who interpret the bible literally.
End Quote

There are also passages in the bible that say that one of God's days is not the same as one of our days.  Thousands of years.  

Quoting:
You are correct, Dag:


Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:


The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).

The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8 ).

The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalms 105:8 ). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology.


End Quote

Thanks for posting those, Shaz.  I was having a lazy moment and couldn't pick up the book.   :)

Quoting:


Thanks for posting those, Shaz.  I was having a lazy moment and couldn't pick up the book.   :)
End Quote

I can't take credit for it, those are excerpts from one of my favorite sites on the web, www.godandscience.org ...  :)

Quoting:
Some examples of de-evolution

1. Anna Nicole Smith
2. Marlon Brando
3. Michael Jackson
4. Ozzy

End Quote

Let me add George II and President President Jelly Bean to your list.  There are lots more.

Quoting:
Why is the Bible creation story different from any other culture's creation story? If you believe in the Bible's creation story, why wouldn't you believe in the Norse story of creation? Why isn't the dome of the sky made from the skull of one of the gods' father?

I don't care what you have been told, there is no evidence supporting creationism. Zero. There is evidence out the wazoo that evolution exists.

While we're taking the Bible literally, do you think God really tried to have sex with Moses' wife? Do you think it should be against the law to wear clothing that is more than one color? Do you think that the murder of a servant should be punished with a fine?

Your argument is full of holes. The Bible is full of holes because it's not a history book. It is a guide to how we should act or it is a way of explaining traditions. You are looking for God in a simple story instead of examining who God really is. You have decided to see God in a way that requires a miminum amount of thinking. Again, I don't care what you choose to believe, but I am telling you that the Bible was never intended to be taken literally.

P.S. Carbon dating would date how old the rock is, not how long it was since the eruption. Take your psuedo-science and begone.
End Quote

John-read my posts again- I never said that I take the bible literally. Let's move on.

Quoting:
The biggest hindrances to evolution include the fossil record.  The geologic column and the fossil record should work hand in hand.  Yet show me a place on this Earth where the geologic column/fossil record, as stated by evolutionists, exists.  Shouldn't it go from simple on the bottom to complex at top?  Fortunately or unfortunately, it doesn't quite work out that way.  Complex organisms have been discovered with that of simple and so on.  In addition to those items, no transitional fossils exist.  Not one has been found at any time.  Even Darwin himself was quoted as saying that the biggest evidence against his theory was the fossil record.
Let's not even get into spontaneous generation.  Even most scientists have rejected this idea based on the foolishness that, for example, a reptile could suddenly be born from an ape.  Okay, that may not be how it's presented, but you get the idea.
Ahh, carbon dating.  Such a marvelous way to approximate a year to items, yes?  Sure.  Until a piece of volcanic rock from a volcano that erupted in recent times (name escapes me) was tested with carbon dating.  The date was assigned only a mere few million years.  I'd say it was fairly accurate.
There is large difference between humans and animals.  You tell me where there is an animal on Earth that can reason and you win the prize.  Reason and logic is the largest difference easily spotted.  Spoken and written language is another difference.  Now don't tell me that those hoots and hollers of these animals is a language.  They aren't going to set down and write those grunts into an alphabet.  Only humans are capable of doing this.
Both creationism and evolution must be believed through faith.  No person was around to witness either account.  Only Christians can claim they have a witness, that being God Himself.  Aside from that, creation has a lot of evidence going for it here, honestly.  The circular reasoning of evolution of the complete lack of historical facts supporting it should not be something accepted as a scientific fact.  For this man-made theory to be accepted as a scientific fact, it has to be tested and shown that a human can come from an ape, as well as the host of other "facts" that evolution claims.  Likewise, creation can't truly be accepted as fact.  Yet the biblical account of creation and successive reports are in support of it.  If the theory of evolution is going to be taught in schools, then the "rivaling" theory should be taught as well, yes?  It only seems fair, after all, since neither can be proven as facts, though I am a large creationist.  Remember that each theory is propped up by each individual's faith who believes in their respective theories.
One last comment before I finally finish.  Since humans derived from monkeys, would it not be possible for each kind to breed between each?  If that can be achieved, I'd love to see the first child born to a human/ape couple, wouldn't you?  Really think about this and the impossibility of the scenario posed.

Respectfully I close,
-MG
----------
Proud to be American, even if it is politically incorrect!
----------
End Quote

This post is filled with so many anti-facts and misunderstandings that one hardly knows where to begin.  Last first.  DNA tests demonstrate that we share about 98-99% of our genes with Chimps.  Can we interbreed  with them?  No, we are different spicies.  That 1 or 2 % make it impossible for we and chimps to produce viable off-spring (even if some horny guy....), and that's the definition of a spicies, so that last bit here is utter nonsense.

The  fossil record: Of course it is incomplete!!!  Do you have any idea what the odds are of any one individual creature being fossilized?  Probably 1 in at least 1 billion.  The conditions just don't occure that frequently.  So sure there are gaps.  There are also (remarkably) continuities that clearly show the transformation of one spicies into another.  Any competent biologist can point you to them.

Are there still questions abouit evolution?  Of course.  Is it a slow, incemental process, as some think, or is it marked by long periods of equalibrium punctuated by rapib change, as others suggest?  Of course, the ultimate question, which science can never answer, has to do with the role of God.  Maybe we haven't yet gotten to the 6th day!!!???  But that's for religion, not science.  And since religion has gotten us into so much trouble throughout human history, I'll take science (which admittedly ain't perfect either).

Quoting:
You're still trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Ever think "thousands of generations" just means "a lot"? If you aren't taking the Bible literally, then you are picking and choosing the parts that you like. Whatever contradicts what you like, you just ignore.

As Ned Flanders once said: "Why me, Lord? I'm a good man. I did everything the Bible says! I even followed the stuff that contradicted the other stuff!"

I'm done arguing. I just suggest that you seriously examine your faith and question it. Questioning your faith brings you closer to God. Look over what you believe and decide "Is the story of creation really that important for me to believe?"
End Quote

Now you're preaching to the choir. ;) I am not going to say it again. Let's get past this and move on.

Quoting:
Darwin's theory of evolution is not that simple to explain and it is silly to try to disprove one theory over the other at a messageboard. The best place to do a feat as great as that would be in a dissertation, so anything stated here is only part of the game.

First off the theory of evolution, it is to be approached as five major theories: 1) perpetual change, 2) commom descent, 3) multiplication of species, 4) gradualism, and 5)natural selection. The first three are generally accepted as pertaining to the living world. The last two are what evolutioninsts fight themselves about endlessly. They are strongly argued for by a large portion of them (and to go against it would be to try to re-write almost every biology book used from primary education all the way up to the university level). These last two are thought of by evolutionists as being a crucial part of the evolutionary process, even though their explanatory power is described by some as "circular thinking" (mind you, I do not have the level of intelligence to be able to speak in such irrefutable terms). The problem with this is that creationists misrepresent this and use this as an excuse to try to dis-prove the first three. Before engaging into something as deep and complex as this, people should read the labels of their product or else they may end poisoning themselves and others. The first three are supported by valid facts.

1. Perpetual change. This theory explains how the world is always changing. How it is not constant nor is it cycling. Organisms go through physical transformations across generations. This was an idea that came before Darwin, but gained notoriety once Darwin put in in the context of the other four. It's funny, but perpetual change includes the fossil record! It is viewed as scientific fact because scholars see it as something that has withstood repeated testing and observations (now, we could go from here and start talking anthropology 'til the cows come home, but there are literally entire sections of library just on this topic alone! Most in agreement.).

2. Common descent. This theory states that all forms of life descended from a common ancestor (thus, like the poster above me stated - you can't get humans from a monkey and vice-versa! They are variations of a common ancestor. That's why if you look at their DNA, there hardly is any difference. In fact, it's almost impossible to tell one from the other). The idea that organisms arose independently, linearly, in unbranched genealogy has been pushed aside by studies of form, cell structure, and macromolecular structures (such as DNA! Ta-daaah!). These studies are what gave rise to the fact that life's history has a branched structure; something called, phylogeny (this is what is known in science as the "evolutionary tree"). Phylogenic evidence of ribosomal RNA have been used to group organisms into three-domains: the archaea, bacteria, and eucharia. The branching goes further into each. An illustration of this phylogenic tree shows how organisms diverged (each branch-point representing a common ancestor). This scheme also shows how animals, plants, and fungi are only a small portion of the whole thing. The fossil record again comes into play again as a supplement. It is a sketchy record, but it does provide some explanation for life prior to 600 million years before the present (multicellular organisms are postulated to have come about 700-900 million years ago).

I would go even further discussing these two previous points (especially the second one), but unless we have an understanding of chemical evolution. We'd really be going in circular thinking. I would suggest anyone read up on the experiment performed in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey as well as some basic knowledge of polymerization reactions, replication through complementarity, and the idea of compartmentation before considering voicing an opinion as to the scientific basis on the origin of life. Rice Cube: You're welcome to take pot-shots, if you wish.

3. Multiplication of the species. New species are produced from the splitting and transformation of older ones, basically. Species are reprductively distinct populations of organisms that usually differ from each other in form (not always the case, though). This study is what drives a lot of evolutionary studies: the trying to define what exactly is a "specie" and how exactly the process of splitting lineages occurs.

4. Gradualism. The large differences in anatomical traits and how they originated over very long periods of time (through small incremental changes). Genetics is one major aspect of this. One small change in the genetic make up of any organism and it'll cause large defects... usually harmful.

5. Natural selection. Aha! I don't even know where to begin! Faaa, man. I won't even go into that one since I can mangle the definition of it so easily, but Darwin's books are still in print :D The Descent Of Man, Voyage Of The Beagle, and, of course, The Origin Of Species.

g. b.

----------------------------------------------------------
Proud to be Un-American 'cause it gets me libertine chicks 8)
----------------------------------------------------------
End Quote

Thanks Goat boy, but my guess is that the true believers who REALLY WANT to accept the bibilcal explanation will not even read your very well done post.  Mine have been less scientific, but the same idea ;D

Quoting:
Oops, stumbled into the wrong room.  I didn't know we were doing a creationism vs. evolution thing here.

I've always thought people turned to the Bible, or the Koran, or even nature for spiritual nourishment and enrichment.  
And, for a detailed understanding of how things work, there's Darwin, Sagan, Gould... or, in my case, yet another baffling "for the general reader" book on quantum physics.

Tell me, does it take a leap of faith to believe in this scientific fact?

Schrodinger's cat

End Quote

Physics... ugh! I failed physics! I didn't even get to the quantum stuff and I was so thrilled at the prospect of being able to see what all the hubbub was about in physical chemistry...

It takes a leap of faith because it sometimes works so well in mathematical equations and in laboratory experiments. After a couple of times of assuming the same thing which has worked, there isn't much of a leap - maybe just a step forward.

Oh! And I didn't create the debate of creationism vs. evilution. I just put some more logs into the fire, that's all 8) The topic asked a simple question and some posters (from both sides) took it upon themselves to make feeble attempts at discrediting each other. Everyone is shooting from the hip, of course :) :D ;D It's all a game to me ;)

As a side note, I thought of the bible, koran, etc. the same way you did. That's why I'd love to read up more on Zen philosophy. I can see it as adding lyrical beauty to my skewed, meaningless existence.

Gracefully, respectfully,

g. b.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Proud to be Un-American if only for the attention it gets me 8)
-----------------------------------------------------------

Quoting:
The biggest hindrances to evolution include the fossil record.  The geologic column and the fossil record should work hand in hand.  Yet show me a place on this Earth where the geologic column/fossil record, as stated by evolutionists, exists.  Shouldn't it go from simple on the bottom to complex at top?  Fortunately or unfortunately, it doesn't quite work out that way.  Complex organisms have been discovered with that of simple and so on.  In addition to those items, no transitional fossils exist.  Not one has been found at any time.  Even Darwin himself was quoted as saying that the biggest evidence against his theory was the fossil record.
Let's not even get into spontaneous generation.  Even most scientists have rejected this idea based on the foolishness that, for example, a reptile could suddenly be born from an ape.  Okay, that may not be how it's presented, but you get the idea.
Ahh, carbon dating.  Such a marvelous way to approximate a year to items, yes?  Sure.  Until a piece of volcanic rock from a volcano that erupted in recent times (name escapes me) was tested with carbon dating.  The date was assigned only a mere few million years.  I'd say it was fairly accurate.
There is large difference between humans and animals.  You tell me where there is an animal on Earth that can reason and you win the prize.  Reason and logic is the largest difference easily spotted.  Spoken and written language is another difference.  Now don't tell me that those hoots and hollers of these animals is a language.  They aren't going to set down and write those grunts into an alphabet.  Only humans are capable of doing this.
Both creationism and evolution must be believed through faith.  No person was around to witness either account.  Only Christians can claim they have a witness, that being God Himself.  Aside from that, creation has a lot of evidence going for it here, honestly.  The circular reasoning of evolution of the complete lack of historical facts supporting it should not be something accepted as a scientific fact.  For this man-made theory to be accepted as a scientific fact, it has to be tested and shown that a human can come from an ape, as well as the host of other "facts" that evolution claims.  Likewise, creation can't truly be accepted as fact.  Yet the biblical account of creation and successive reports are in support of it.  If the theory of evolution is going to be taught in schools, then the "rivaling" theory should be taught as well, yes?  It only seems fair, after all, since neither can be proven as facts, though I am a large creationist.  Remember that each theory is propped up by each individual's faith who believes in their respective theories.
One last comment before I finally finish.  Since humans derived from monkeys, would it not be possible for each kind to breed between each?  If that can be achieved, I'd love to see the first child born to a human/ape couple, wouldn't you?  Really think about this and the impossibility of the scenario posed.

Respectfully I close,
-MG
----------
Proud to be American, even if it is politically incorrect!
----------
End Quote

With all due respect, your understanding of the sciences involved here is flawed. First of all, the very volatile nature of the Earth itself unfortunately prevents a continuous fossil record. If the Earth was like Mars, with no tectonic, volcanic or seismic activity taking place, then tracing the fossil record would be remarkably easy, because it would not be upset and broken apart by upheavals, eruptions, etc. However, the surface of the Earth changes every day, and many things buried under the surface will never be discovered. The discovery of any kind of fossil requires the discoverer to be in exactly the right place at the right time. It's not just a matter of digging down and finding a skeleton.
Secondly, complex and uncomplex organisms still co-exist to this day. Why shouldn't they be found together in various layers of the fossil record? Jellyfish and dinosaurs co-existed, just as jellyfish and humans co-exist today. That doesn't disprove evolution. It merely show that some organisms evolved, and others didn't.
"Transitional" fossils haven't been found because it's likely that such "transitional" creatures (like a Missing Link) simply never existed. The ancestors of the human race didn't just spring off from their primate cousins in one or two generations: it took gradual changes over the course of millions of years. What we do know is that the fossils of ancient animals like dinosaurs aren't found with fossils of ancient Man, because Man didn't exist then. We know this. That's a scientific FACT. Unfortunately it's a common failing of the human mind to grasp the vast amounts of time these types of things take. Life has existed on this planet in some form or other for an estimated 1 BILLION years. That's so long ago few people can comprehend it. So yes, no "transitional" fossils have been found, because the transitions took so long, over such a long period, because it didn't just happen over night.
Thirdly, cross-species breeding can't happen. Humans and "monkeys" (apes, actually: there is a difference) are related, yes, but turtles and alligators are closely related also, and you can't breed them together.
Lastly, the "theory" of Creation should not be taught in schools as SCIENCE, because it's not. Creation is FAITH, not science, and should not be taught as such.

Quoting:
but turtles and alligators are closely related also, and you can't breed them together.End Quote

Well, like, if I were a turtle I would strongly object to the suggestion !  ::)

Better to remain celebate... :)

Quoting:


I can't take credit for it, those are excerpts from one of my favorite sites on the web, www.godandscience.org ...  :)
End Quote

Thanks for the link, I will check it out when I get home from work.  

Quoting:
It takes a leap of faith because it sometimes works so well in mathematical equations and in laboratory experiments. After a couple of times of assuming the same thing which has worked, there isn't much of a leap - maybe just a step forward.

End Quote

But, it's just theory so far.  Nobody has put it to the test.  And the laws of quantum mechanics are bursting with things traveling backwards in time, entities moving faster than the speed of light and accelerating as they lose energy...  one branch of its philosophy holds that nothing exists, the wave collapses, without a sentiment mind observing it.  
I guess another way of putting it is: Should I accept on faith a scientific theory I don't understand, has never been tested, and is counter-intuitive?

Quoting:
I guess another way of putting it is: Should I accept on faith a scientific theory I don't understand, has never been tested, and is counter-intuitive?
End Quote

No you shouldn't, and no one expects you to. That's the thing about science. You don't have to believe any theory unless it has been proven as a law. You are quite able, even encouraged, to develop your own theory, as long as that theory itself isn't contrary to things that have been proven beyond doubt. You can't for example come up with a theory that suggests the Sun moves around the earth, because it's been proven that's not so. You also can't put forward as a scientific theory an idea that suggests that the universe and everything in it is just your own imagination, for example, because there's no way to prove it; it is, in fact, not science at all but a personal belief - faith, if you like.  :)

Quoting:


But, it's just theory so far.  Nobody has put it to the test.  And the laws of quantum mechanics are bursting with things traveling backwards in time, entities moving faster than the speed of light and accelerating as they lose energy...  one branch of its philosophy holds that nothing exists, the wave collapses, without a sentiment mind observing it.  
I guess another way of putting it is: Should I accept on faith a scientific theory I don't understand, has never been tested, and is counter-intuitive?
End Quote

No. You shouldn't accept it. You should study it. Study the facts that led to this theory and then you can choose to follow suit. That's why I cannot dis-claim evolutionary theory seeing as to how my knowledge of it is minute. The things which I have studied has led me to think there might be something to this theory.

Whereas with the bible and other faith-based books, there is nothing substantial for me; everything is "open to interpretation." One must really take everything stated there upon faith. An inquiry as complex as whether knowing or not knowing that god exists suddenly becomes fact: He exists and he possesses great power and wisdom and he dispenses justice among men. It's taken for granted and not many question as to why these things are the way they are and if some do, few get a reasonable answer.

I've asked these before of a self-proclaimed christian (either unfairly or fairly, I do not know): Does god possess the power of forethought? If he does, does god know every decision, every choice you will make during your lifetime - even before you came into existence? All your good actions and all your bad actions? Why is god considered a "judge" of our actions? What is the point of god judging his own creations when it is he who created us AND our choices in the first place? This is tantamount to a judge knowing the verdict before you enter trial.

The idea of "free-will" in a christian setting is null and void to me. God knows exactly what I will do. He created me. He has forethought of every decision I will make even though I am unaware of it. In other words, I have been programmed by the grand-puppeteer and now carry out his will. There is nothing for me to do, except live.

On the other hand, god doesn't possess this knowledge and is just as curious to know the result, like the good scientist that he is, but, then, he wouldn't be all powerful and all knowing. He is very powerful and is smarter than the average bear (Yogi reference), but not infinitely wise and powerful by all accounts. He is still subject to faults...

Disclaimer: I know very little of the bible and of the semitic religions themselves, so anyone considering an "attack" on my views should take it easy. There's no need to crush a marshmallow with a hammer :) :D ;D

Quoting:


No you shouldn't, and no one expects you to. That's the thing about science. You don't have to believe any theory unless it has been proven as a law. You are quite able, even encouraged, to develop your own theory, as long as that theory itself isn't contrary to things that have been proven beyond doubt. You can't for example come up with a theory that suggests the Sun moves around the earth, because it's been proven that's not so. You also can't put forward as a scientific theory an idea that suggests that the universe and everything in it is just your own imagination, for example, because there's no way to prove it; it is, in fact, not science at all but a personal belief - faith, if you like.  :)
End Quote

Funny you should use that example.  This is from page 149-150 of John Gribbin's Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality (paperback edition):
According to Peierls (who, as we have seen, is an unreconstructed Copenhagenist), 'the moment at which you throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscious of the fact that the experiment has given one result.'
This is the line of reasoning that leads John Wheeler to infer that the Universe only exists because we are looking at it.  The quantum mechanical description is seen, in this interpretation, in terms of knowledge, and the existence of the mind is absolutely crucial....
John Wheeler has argued that it is only the presence of conscious observers, in the form of ourselves, that has collapsed the wave function and made the Universe exist.

If anyone is interested in a short biography of John Wheeler, here's a link:  http://www.usd.edu/phys/courses/phys300/gallery/clark/wheeler.html  

Edited to add:
I don't want anyone to think I'm pulling an "aha!" here.  
There is similarity, though, between an active sentience "imaging" a universe and a passive sentience "observing" a universe. The phrase "I think, therefore it is" could apply to either.  Is it still just a belief?  If not, why not?
Certainly Wheeler's theory can be tested, or at least judged against existing knowledge.  The problem is I don't have the firepower of a Stephen Hawking. Lord,  I'm lucky to have a tenuous grasp of wave-particle duality, and that's only because I'm re-reading every paragraph three times.
In this case, I have placed my faith in the priest (Gribbin) to interpret the teachings of the high priests (Wheeler.) This is the only way I can participate.