Creationists

[ima]

Real science is based on observation and experimentation and repeatability. Unfortunately, none of this applies to evolution. God does move in mysterious ways, as does the wind. No one I know of rejects the reality of wind or gravity. Yet, it would seem no matter what kind of proof is provided for the truth of living according to biblical principles actually works, its historic content, and valid observations surrounding its writings, there will be those who refuse to budge from their own little designer box ---- so they can remain in control.

Of course it does, evolution has been observed by Darwin, ever hear of him? Here, I'll give you one simple example of evolution that you can see: If you ever go into a house built in, say, 1600, the first thing you'll notice is how small the doorways are, and the ceilings are lower... everything is smaller. You know why? Because back then, humans weren't as tall as we are now (you can check any clothes from the period), and we EVOLVED to be taller, and live longer, btw. Why can't evolution be part of a creator's plan? I know, it's proves your book wrong, but who cares? Isn't the truth (about the creator) more important than some 1500 year old book of hearsay and myths?

You may wish to read the following:
What Darwin Got Wrong

As to your other reasoning: I happen to belong to a historic presevation commission. There is some truth in what you say; however, the total reality is that nutrition plays a large part in the development of living things. The early settlers lived a very hard life. They ate what was available and often it lacked certain minerals, etc... Also, once people made it to adulthood many lived to be quite old, especially if they lived a comfortable life. However, the mortality rate of babies and children was rather high. Wars are another factor. If the United States added the numbers of aborted babies, one would likely see a different picture. Now as far as houses of the period --- building materials were expensive and hard to come by. Also, lower ceilings made for warmer rooms in the winter. Beds were shorter because it was considered unhealthy to sleep lying down. People propped themselves up with pillows to sleep in a more of a seated position. Washington was over 6 foot tall.

So it's a review of 2 guys trying hard to advance a new theory, so what? People propose new ideas all the time. Oh wait... Except in religion. You're all stuck in the distant past. Evolution is part of a creator's plan, if a creator there is. Get over it. If the church can get past the earth not being flat, so can you get past this as well. So the world wasn't made in 6 days either, does that really matter? Shouldn't you be more open to what your creator actually did as we discover new things all the time?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The difficulty that creationist or ID'iot cultists have is that neither of those religious beliefs offer explanations or make predictions.

Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

Better yet! Learn some real science.

Creationism has a scientific theory.

A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.

popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.” They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity! Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.


Feigned(?) Ignorance
A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives. There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.”[2] Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism. Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts. Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone. These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature. They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying. Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration. Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.


Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart. It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly “explained” by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information. They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite “straw-man” caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done. (Don’t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model. They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific—if not outright deceptive—tactics to disparage their worst nightmare: the truth.

Timothy Wall

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Visit site for more details.

 

[Koios]

Ahh, you may wish to view the following:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/successful-predictions

Better yet! Learn some real science.

Creationism has a scientific theory.

A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.

popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.” They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity! Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.


Feigned(?) Ignorance
A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives. There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.”[2] Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism. Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts. Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone. These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers&#8221 persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature. They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying. Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration. Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.


Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart. It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly “explained” by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information. They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite “straw-man” caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done. (Don’t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model. They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific—if not outright deceptive—tactics to disparage their worst nightmare: the truth.

Timothy Wall

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Visit site for more details.

Pseudo-scientific theory, to be exact. It endeavors to prove a postulate, formed entirely on faith in an imagined entity, and rejects all evidence not in support of the objective.

That's the polar opposite of scientific method. Sorry. Just the truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.

 

[ima]

I saw no scientific theory that proves the bible right. It didn't scientifically prove that the world was made in 6 days. or anything else for that matter.

 

[Youwerecreated]

the god that runs this world is not the god that created all. He is the god that is doing the evil things you're complaining about.

2co 4:4 in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving ones, so that the light of the glorious gospel of christ (who is the image of god) should not dawn on them.

This god is satan.

according to the men who wrote the genesis tale, satan was created by your gawds. It's a bit late to be re-writing the various bibles.

fun fact satan is never mentioned in the old testament.

Actually Jews,muslims and Christians all believe in satan the Jews have a different view of what and who satan is.

S.C.J. FAQ: Section 12.35. Jewish Thought: What does Judaism believe about Satan?

What do Muslims believe about Satan

Job 1:6 And a day came when the sons of God came to present themselves before Jehovah. And Satan also came among them.

The Jewish tanakh. Who is the advesary to man and God in heaven ?

Ivoy 1:6. Now the day came about, and the angels of God came to stand beside the Lord, and the Adversary, too, came among them.




Sa·tan
[seyt-n] Show IPA

noun
the chief evil spirit; the great adversary of humanity; the devil.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
before 900; Middle English, Old English < Late Latin < Greek Satân, Satán < Hebrew &#347;&#257;t&#257;n adversary

 

[Youwerecreated]

Better yet! Learn some real science.

Creationism has a scientific theory.

A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.

popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism—including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup—is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.” They then hasten to confirm this by “evaluating” the idea of creation—without objectivity! Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.


Feigned(?) Ignorance
A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the “Talk.Origins Archive,” an evolutionist website professing to “explore” origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives. There, a “welcome” document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to “really impress the regulars” they should “come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,” which is then described as “the Holy Grail of the origins debate”—since (it is claimed) “no one’s ever seen it.”[2] Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism. Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts. Such “straw man” caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone. These same caricatures (and their Quixotic “challengers”) persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution’s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature. They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of “straw men” they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying. Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration. Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting “dishonesty” among leading creationists.


Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the “theory of creation” not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart. It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly “explained” by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information. They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite “straw-man” caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done. (Don’t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model. They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific—if not outright deceptive—tactics to disparage their worst nightmare: the truth.

Timothy Wall

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Visit site for more details.

Pseudo-scientific theory, to be exact. It endeavors to prove a postulate, formed entirely on faith in an imagined entity, and rejects all evidence not in support of the objective.

That's the polar opposite of scientific method. Sorry. Just the truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.

You truly don't know what you're talking about. by the way tell us your exp in college science ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I saw no scientific theory that proves the bible right. It didn't scientifically prove that the world was made in 6 days. or anything else for that matter.

What is a Scientific Theory?
Evolutionists’ pretensions notwithstanding, it is reasonable to ask whether there is a scientific theory of creation, and—if there is—to ask what it is. As a foundation for answering this question, the meanings of several relevant terms must first be accurately defined. This is necessary because many evolutionists tend to invoke arbitrarily contrived and/or equivocal definitions in support of their claims (such as the non-existence of a scientific theory of creation). Seeing this tactic for what it is enables serious students of the evolution/creation debate to transcend the evolutionists’ semantic smokescreen, and a balanced and informed assessment of either side of the debate—vis-à-vis the empirical evidence—may proceed unhindered.

The word “theory” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the present context) something like this:


theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

Likewise, “science” in most common English dictionaries is defined (for the context of this topic) like this:


sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

It should be noted up front that neither of these definitions either requires or excludes any particular frame of reference to which either “science” or a “theory” must (or must not) be attached. This is important, because evolutionists usually redefine both of these terms to suit their purposes by insisting that a“ scientific theory” must conform to their particular religious/philosophical frame of reference (philosophical naturalism) in order to be valid:


nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

Again, it is important to note that this is not the definition of “science”—even though many evolutionist arguments seem to be based on the arbitrary assumption that it is. The naturalism embraced by most evolutionists is strictly an anti-supernatural belief system, a form of practical atheism. It is not, by definition, any more or less “scientific” than any other belief system, including one that allows for a Creator-God. While perhaps only a minority of evolutionists would count themselves as atheists, most tend to argue to exclude or severely limit the idea of a Creator-God. “Since God cannot be subjected to the process of scientific discovery,” they reason, “the possibility of any direct action on His part must be excluded from the realm of science.” Whether or not they are averse to the notion of moral accountability to a Creator, their sense of intellectual autonomy is apparently threatened by the idea that science could be limited in scope and (therefore) less than the ultimate, all-encompassing arena of human activity.

It should be noted here that dictionary definitions do state (correctly) that natural science deals with the natural world. This must not be misunderstood to imply a mandatory subjection to a naturalistic philosophy, which is how evolutionists often misrepresent it. There is a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic philosophy: The former is the study of the natural world, while the latter is a belief that the natural world is all that exists. [It is furthermore worth noting at this point that the very basis of operational science and “natural law” emerged from a creationist framework, in which the immutable nature of the Creator was the basis for assuming the existence of immutable laws in His creation.]

Evolutionists will often argue that allowing for the supernatural in general—or God in particular—opens “science” up to all kinds of potential crackpot notions. But it is not actually genuine science that is threatened by the prospect of God—the only threat is to a “science” strictly dominated by philosophical naturalism. The evolutionist is invoking an arbitrarily modified definition of “science” to imply that naturalistic philosophy is entitled to exclusive domination of the“ scientific community.” [It’s no surprise that these same evolutionists keep their reasoning in a tight circle by defining the “scientific community” exclusively as those persons involved in science who also subscribe to philosophical naturalism—the only religious framework they’re willing to tolerate!]

The most vocal proponents of evolutionism say things like “There is no such thing as creation science!” or “If creationists would just come up with a theory, we would have something to talk about!” What they mean is that (in their opinions) any legitimate alternative to evolution must be based on the same philosophical naturalism as evolution. In their view, a viable alternative to evolution must satisfy the evolutionists’ criterion (i.e., philosophical naturalism) in order to avoid rejection—by philosophical naturalists! A better example of religious intolerance would be hard to find.

So the demand, made by many evolutionists, that a “scientific theory” must conform to one religious/philosophical belief system (e.g., humanistic naturalism) to the exclusion of another (e.g., biblical Christianity), is an arbitrarily contrived requirement—and a double standard:


The Evolutionary Double Standard
Characteristic Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Primary approach to scientific methodology
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.
Accumulation and analysis of empirical data through observation, repetition & measurement.

Predominant religious/philosophical
belief system
Biblical Christianity
Humanistic Naturalism

Primary means of demonstrating system’s
positive empirical support
Citation of empirical data
Citation of empirical data

Primary means of criticizing
counterpart system
Citation of empirical data
A priori rejection on basis of religious/ philosophical differences

Table 1. Close examination reveals that evolutionists’ out-of-hand dismissal of the creation paradigm is due more to their own tightly held religious predispositions—which range from humanistic naturalism to outright atheism—than to matters of empirical science.


The Talk.Origins Archive “Welcome FAQ” also ascribes the following set of (reasonable) requirements to a genuinely scientific theory:

“A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory.”

These traits do loosely constitute a popular norm in defining scientific theories. As shall be seen below, an analysis of both the creation and evolution models reveals that the two theories conform with comparable integrity to such demands, when adequate information and analysis are allowed into the picture. But in typically dismissive style, the FAQ declares that:

“such statements as ‘God created the heavens and the earth...’ are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable.”
What the Talk.Origins authors have failed to tell their readers is that there is much more to the creation science model than simply declaring “God created the heavens and the earth,” including much that is both as falsifiable and predictive (if not more so) as the evolutionary model.
What then is the Theory of Creation?
Table 2 (below) highlights a series of fundamental components of biblical young-earth creationism, providing a basic rendering of the creationary paradigm. To help illustrate its key points vis-à-vis the evolutionary model, they are presented side by side for comparison. This list is by no means exhaustive, and is likely to grow over time.
Comparison of the Evolutionary & Creationary Origins Theories
Phenomenon/Condition Creation
Hypothesis
Evolution
Hypothesis

Predominant a priori Assumptions (i.e., Philosophical Basis) concerning the Nature, Source, and Limits of Knowledge[4]
As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past
Man’s scientific endeavors will inevitably affirm man’s autonomy and independence in determining what is true and what is false

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Predominant approach
to the Bible[5]
The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data
The biblical record is rejected as a reliable historical basis, and replaced with strict philosophical naturalism as a basis of interpreting empirical data

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Ultimate Primal Cause of Time, Space, and Matter/Energy[6]
God Created...
Time, space, and matter are either eternal or self-created.

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems[7]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information[8]
Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation
Increased over time from zero via DNA copying errors (i.e., mutations), natural selection, and millions of years

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Similarities, ranging from Genetic to Morphological, between various Organisms[9]
Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms
Residual evidence that multiple different organisms descended from common ancestors

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Billions of Organisms quickly Buried in sedimentary Rock Layers laid down by Water all over the Earth[10]
Global Flood & aftermath
Millions of years of gradual or intermittent burial

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

The Ice Age[11]
Post-Flood climate compensation
Unknown

Empirically Falsifiable?
No
No

Empirically Falsified?
No
No

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics[12]
Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation
Contradicts, postulating mechanism-free constant increase in order, complexity, and genetic information

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Apparent Order or Sequence in Fossil Record[13]
General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected
Strict pattern of million-year depositions from “simple” to “complex” variations (i.e., anomalies) problematic

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Erratic “Ages” given by Radiometric and various other Uniformitarian Processes[14]
Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood
Selective and dogmatic use of supportive “ages” & dismissal or disparagement of any conflicting indicators

Empirically Falsifiable?
Yes
Yes

Empirically Falsified?
No
Yes

Table 2. The so-called “non-existent” creation theory, when examined with a measure of objectivity, manages to explain most empirical data with at least as much credibility as the evolutionary counterpart.



Where is the Theory of Creation documented?
Some of the most vocal opponents of creationary thought, ostensibly repulsed by the work involved in objectively studying the technical details of an unfamiliar matter, persist in demanding something like a one- or two-sentence “theory of creation” [preferrably subservient to their naturalistic presuppositions]. Their insistence on such a simplistic approach to both evolution and creation has its reasons: Evolution appears more credible when essential technical details remain beyond scrutiny, whereas creation finds its most compelling substantiation in technical, detailed analyses of actual empirical data and scientifically sound principles vis-a-vis both perspectives.

While a simplistic “sound bite” approach to the origins issue may be fashionable by contemporary popular media standards, genuine science remains a matter of technical details, empirical data, and thorough analysis of the same. So what awaits those who sincerely seek an authentic theory of creation is not another sugar-coated pill, but a body of literature comprising a technical “second opinion” bringing into question the superficial diagnosis popularly embraced by a world reluctant to face the implications of a sovereign Creator who has spoken.

Whereas the landscape of popular media and selected “science” texts are peppered with simplistic allusions to evolutionary theory as fact, literature describing and explaining the creationary alternative, while not as plentiful as its dominant counterpart, is readily available to those who seriously want to study it. This is where the details of empirical science are brought to bear against both competing paradigms. [Sadly, the same cannot be said for the vast majority of evolutionary literature, which largely persists in treating the assumption of evolution as an immutable fact (and, on that basis, an inevitable conclusion), while heaping derision on heavily caricatured renderings of the creationary perspective.]

Books
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists. The list begins with general and/or early overviews and moves toward somewhat more specialized and/or recent offerings.

Morris, Henry M., ed., Scientific Creationism [0-89052-003-2]
(Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985)

Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker, What is Creation Science? [0-89051-081-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1987)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Man’s Origin, Man’s Destiny [0-87123-356-8]
(Wheaton, IL: Harold Shaw Co., 1968)

Wilder-Smith, A. E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory [9992139676]
(Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers, 1987)

Whitcomb, John C. and Henry Morris, The Genesis Flood [0-87552-338-2]
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964)

Roth, Ariel A., Origins—Linking Science and Scripture [0-8280-1328-4]
(Hagarstown , MD: Review and Herals Publishing Association, 1998)

Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology [0-932766-54-4]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1993)

Woodmorappe, John, Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study [0-932766-41-2]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1996)

Woodmorappe, John, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods [0-932766-57-9]
(El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1999)

Batten, Don, Editor The Answers Book [0-949906-23-9]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

Sarfati, Jonathan, Refuting Evolution [089051258-2]
(Brisbane, Australia: Answers in Genesis, 1999)

A slightly more descriptive list appears at - Selected Creation Books -- TrueOrigin Archive, while two much more extensive bibliographies are - Master Creation/Anti-Evolution Bibliography - and - A Young-Earth Creationist Bibliography -.
Many of these books can be purchased in the U.S. through the Creation Research Society, the Institute for Creation Research, and Creation Ministries International—the last of which also trades on a nearly worldwide basis.

Journals
The following are the two primary peer-reviewed journals of the creation science community. Each is published on a quarterly basis and managed by an editorial staff comprised almost entirely of experienced Ph.D. scientists. Very few of evolution’s most vocal proponents seem to have personally laid eyes on a copy of either of these publications. The ignorance inherent in their criticism of a caricatured “creationism” therefore comes as no surprise.

The Creation Research Society Quarterly (CRSQ)
CRS Quarterly

Journal of Creation
http://creation.com/periodicals#journal_of_creation

A Theory of Biblical Creation

 

[Koios]

Creationism has a scientific theory.

A Theory of Creation
A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.

popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism&#8212;including the &#8220;regulars&#8221; at the Talk.Origins newsgroup&#8212;is to claim that &#8220;no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,&#8221;[1] without which they find it &#8220;impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.&#8221; They then hasten to confirm this by &#8220;evaluating&#8221; the idea of creation&#8212;without objectivity! Such an approach to the topic of origins shall be shown below to be unreasonable, prejudiced, less-than-honest, and (therefore) not particularly scientific.


Feigned(?) Ignorance
A classic example of evolutionist pretending may be found at the &#8220;Talk.Origins Archive,&#8221; an evolutionist website professing to &#8220;explore&#8221; origins, yet advocating only evolutionary perspectives. There, a &#8220;welcome&#8221; document suggests to prospective participants in the evolution/creation debate, that to &#8220;really impress the regulars&#8221; they should &#8220;come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation,&#8221; which is then described as &#8220;the Holy Grail of the origins debate&#8221;&#8212;since (it is claimed) &#8220;no one&#8217;s ever seen it.&#8221;[2] Considering the volume of literature that has been published by the creation science community[3] the only two possible bases upon which one could claim to have never seen a theory of creation are: 1) willful ignorance or 2) outright dishonesty.

Many arguments advanced in support of evolutionary beliefs do indeed suggest that willful ignorance is indeed widespread among adherents of evolutionism. Their criticisms are often focused on simplistic caricatures instead of authentic creation science concepts. Such &#8220;straw man&#8221; caricatures are easily felled by little more than sophomoric derision, giving evolutionists (and many an unwitting observer) the deceptive impression that the creation model has been effectively undone. These same caricatures (and their Quixotic &#8220;challengers&#8221 persist in peppering the landscape of debate, despite an abundance of informative explanations and clarifications, patiently and repeatedly proffered by a growing number of individual creationists and several creationary organizations.

Many of evolution&#8217;s proponents have thus been exposed to accurate and empirically relevant descriptions of the creation paradigm, yet they continue to limit their response to dismantling a caricature. They either pretend not be unaware of anything better than the arsenal of &#8220;straw men&#8221; they parade before the public eye, or they willfully ignore what the other side is saying. Neither tactic is representative of sound scholarship, reasonable scientific debate, or ethical standards worthy of admiration. Ironically (perhaps as a diversionary tactic?), some of them publish or cite web pages supposedly documenting &#8220;dishonesty&#8221; among leading creationists.


Conclusion

By having the terms defined with more clarity (and less bias), and with a measure of information provided, one should have little difficulty seeing that the &#8220;theory of creation&#8221; not only exists, but also stands up rather well to a rigorous side-by-side comparison with its evolutionary counterpart. It has predictive value, is internally consistent, is no less falsifiable than evolution, and consistently explains at least as many phenomena allegedly &#8220;explained&#8221; by evolution.

The vocal proponents of evolution have demonstrated time and again that they are not interested in this kind of straightforward clarity or information. They object to its presentation, excuse themselves from paying much (if any) careful attention to it, then return to hacking up their favorite &#8220;straw-man&#8221; caricatures and congratulating each other on a job well done. (Don&#8217;t let this happen to you!)

Vocal proponents of evolutionism such as are found at Talk.Origins have employed willful ignorance and arbitrary double-standards to question the scientific legitimacy of the creation science model. They then go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for using such unscientific&#8212;if not outright deceptive&#8212;tactics to disparage their worst nightmare: the truth.

Timothy Wall

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Visit site for more details.

Pseudo-scientific theory, to be exact. It endeavors to prove a postulate, formed entirely on faith in an imagined entity, and rejects all evidence not in support of the objective.

That's the polar opposite of scientific method. Sorry. Just the truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.

You truly don't know what you're talking about. by the way tell us your exp in college science ?

Not in colllege, per se. But it helped in learning the methodology which I applied in my business career, as a marketing executive, where accepting cooked up data in support of what we wanted to believe the market to be, would be death to the enterprise. So in my marketing research, the null hypothesis came into play big time. Before developing new products or taking our existing product line in a new direction, be damn sure the data is thorough and accurate. In short, don't just prove it's right; prove it's not wrong.

Creationism only endeavors to prove it's right, which any moron can "prove" about damn near anything.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pseudo-scientific theory, to be exact. It endeavors to prove a postulate, formed entirely on faith in an imagined entity, and rejects all evidence not in support of the objective.

That's the polar opposite of scientific method. Sorry. Just the truth, pursuant to the 9th Commandment.

You truly don't know what you're talking about. by the way tell us your exp in college science ?

Not in colllege, per se. But it helped in learning the methodology which I applied in my business career, as a marketing executive, where accepting cooked up data in support of what we wanted to believe the market to be, would be death to the enterprise. So in my marketing research, the null hypothesis came into play big time. Before developing new products or taking our existing product line in a new direction, be damn sure the data is thorough and accurate. In short, don't just prove it's right; prove it's not wrong.

Creationism only endeavors to prove it's right, which any moron can "prove" about damn near anything.

Marketing enough said. You have never stepped foot in a genetics class room and you wish to debate mutations with me lol. So you're are one of those who only believes what he reads on the internet

 

[Koios]

You truly don't know what you're talking about. by the way tell us your exp in college science ?

Not in colllege, per se. But it helped in learning the methodology which I applied in my business career, as a marketing executive, where accepting cooked up data in support of what we wanted to believe the market to be, would be death to the enterprise. So in my marketing research, the null hypothesis came into play big time. Before developing new products or taking our existing product line in a new direction, be damn sure the data is thorough and accurate. In short, don't just prove it's right; prove it's not wrong.

Creationism only endeavors to prove it's right, which any moron can "prove" about damn near anything.

Marketing enough said. You have never stepped foot in a genetics class room and you wish to debate mutations with me lol. So you're are one of those who only believes what he reads on the internet

Had biology classes, too. But again, that kinda helps with how to learn more so than actual teaching. And after some decades of trying to learn, objectively, the college-learned skills do help on the path ... merely to a destination you never really reach.

And while indeed I use Google to refresh my memory or to fact-check certain things, most of my Internet reading is via Kindle or Google Play Books on my phone, with a personal discipline of 1 learning book for every 2 brain candy books (Legal Thrillers, mostly).

Meanwhile, another thing I learned in psychology and in further studies in market psychology is our tendency to assume others think and do as we do, which the Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black cliche speaks to. So when someone accuses me of some mental laziness, etc, my first thought is they're unknowingly speaking of themselves.

Ergo your numberous copy-pastes of stuff easily found online.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not in colllege, per se. But it helped in learning the methodology which I applied in my business career, as a marketing executive, where accepting cooked up data in support of what we wanted to believe the market to be, would be death to the enterprise. So in my marketing research, the null hypothesis came into play big time. Before developing new products or taking our existing product line in a new direction, be damn sure the data is thorough and accurate. In short, don't just prove it's right; prove it's not wrong.

Creationism only endeavors to prove it's right, which any moron can "prove" about damn near anything.

Marketing enough said. You have never stepped foot in a genetics class room and you wish to debate mutations with me lol. So you're are one of those who only believes what he reads on the internet

Had biology classes, too. But again, that kinda helps with how to learn more so than actual teaching. And after some decades of trying to learn, objectively, the college-learned skills do help on the path ... merely to a destination you never really reach.

And while indeed I use Google to refresh my memory or to fact-check certain things, most of my Internet reading is via Kindle or Google Play Books on my phone, with a personal discipline of 1 learning book for every 2 brain candy books (Legal Thrillers, mostly).

Meanwhile, another thing I learned in psychology and in further studies in market psychology is our tendency to assume others think and do as we do, which the Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black cliche speaks to. So when someone accuses me of some mental laziness, etc, my first thought is they're unknowingly speaking of themselves.

Ergo your numberous copy-pastes of stuff easily found online.

If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.

Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.

I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.

I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?

 

[Koios]

Marketing enough said. You have never stepped foot in a genetics class room and you wish to debate mutations with me lol. So you're are one of those who only believes what he reads on the internet

Had biology classes, too. But again, that kinda helps with how to learn more so than actual teaching. And after some decades of trying to learn, objectively, the college-learned skills do help on the path ... merely to a destination you never really reach.

And while indeed I use Google to refresh my memory or to fact-check certain things, most of my Internet reading is via Kindle or Google Play Books on my phone, with a personal discipline of 1 learning book for every 2 brain candy books (Legal Thrillers, mostly).

Meanwhile, another thing I learned in psychology and in further studies in market psychology is our tendency to assume others think and do as we do, which the Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black cliche speaks to. So when someone accuses me of some mental laziness, etc, my first thought is they're unknowingly speaking of themselves.

Ergo your numberous copy-pastes of stuff easily found online.

If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.

Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.

I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.

I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution is not acceptable science. Those that believe in it are looking for a way out of their dilemma. If there is no God how could all this have happened? The fact that you insist on mocking God in your posts should demonstrate to even the most simple minded that you have a agenda. What seems silly to a person who cannot accept that God is the reality, makes logical sense to those that know God, trust in Him and His power.

Evolution is not acceptable science? Not acceptable to who?

I can understand your dilemma in that the many fields of science supporting evolution presents an obvious contradiction to biblical tales and fables but you appear to be among those fundie Christians who believe that evolutionary science is a worldwide conspiracy.

I see the contradiction that anyone (no matter how many years of scientific study or how much research has been done) are labeled unscientific and not a scientist, when they reject evolution or pursue to understand the Bible as truth. I do not reject evolutionists their titles just because I happen to disagree with their opinions based on limited findings. So why should the opposite be true unless there is indeed a conspiracy to silence opposition and hold control.

You make a mistake common among creationists of disregarding the practice of peer review which separates Christian creationism from real science. You apparently missed that the work prepared by Glatzmaier and Roberts 1995, (in an earlier link), was published in the journal Nature.

Such peer review allows for others to review and either confirm or falsify such work. As you probably know, Christian creationist ministries such as AIG, the ICR and others do no research and do not publish in scientific journals where their works are subject to review and scrutiny.

I think the terms "gawds, intuition, spirituality", adequately convey metaphysical concepts that are within the realm of supernaturalism. In the realm of the natural world, we would replace those terms with such expressions as peer reviewed data, falsify, test and verify.

What I don't do is make presumptions that supernaturalism is the cause of purely natural events. You are making every effort to support supernaturalism while offering nothing to make any case to support it.

What I do find interesting is your continued relating of scientific advances in an attempt to further your belief in supernaturalism. It's as though your argument for both the supernatural and sectarian gawds relies on scientific discovery so you can claim that "see, science only recently discovered this which is proof that the supernatural and my sectarian gawds truly exist".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Had biology classes, too. But again, that kinda helps with how to learn more so than actual teaching. And after some decades of trying to learn, objectively, the college-learned skills do help on the path ... merely to a destination you never really reach.

And while indeed I use Google to refresh my memory or to fact-check certain things, most of my Internet reading is via Kindle or Google Play Books on my phone, with a personal discipline of 1 learning book for every 2 brain candy books (Legal Thrillers, mostly).

Meanwhile, another thing I learned in psychology and in further studies in market psychology is our tendency to assume others think and do as we do, which the Pot-Calling-Kettle-Black cliche speaks to. So when someone accuses me of some mental laziness, etc, my first thought is they're unknowingly speaking of themselves.

Ergo your numberous copy-pastes of stuff easily found online.

If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.

Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.

I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.

I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie?
You're joking too?

It is funny how many ways people will find excuses for their own beliefs --- even to disregard those on their side... Do you hate God?

Not joking.

Why don't you identify for us the credentials of Do-while Jones?

In the meantime...

Creation Science and Magnetic Fields

Why not seek the credentials of the atheistic authors? Jones might be a Christian only presenting what seems an interesting view that seems to be coming from some atheists. There is nothing wrong in that unless the atheists are not atheists.

I would encourage you to seek the credentials of the "atheistic" authors . Bear in mind, that might cause you to confront authors who hold a religious/spiritual belief other than christianity who have no issue at all with biological evolution, an ancient earth and an appreciation of a purely natural world. You may have to come to terms with and understand that reason and rationality operate in a realm separated from supernaturalism.
As for establishing whether or not you believe the complexity in nature is the result of supernatural creation depends on whether you believe in meatphysics, creationism or some form of "intelligent design", typically modeled on a benevolent creator. It is possible that all living species and all of life as we know it --even all of the universe--could have been created by a cosmic, supernatural designer/creator who deceived us by giving all of our physical world the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and immense time spans. And of course, that deception could have been performed by any of the gods because as we know, your gawds are only one conception of gawds.

I've found that creationists recoil at this argument because if true, it means their preference for "intelligent designer" would be quite obviously lying about creation and that would not do for their arguments. So, creationists persist in using metaphysics as the core of their argument or they hope to show that the appearance of natural processes, adaptation over time and the immense time spans we see in nature reveals supernatural design if only the evidence is correctly interpreted by the methods they propose, (i.e., pseudoscience).

 

[Hollie]

If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.

Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.

I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.

I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

You're really using the last, dying gasp of the creationist ministries with the "it's too complex to have occurred naturally" argument.

Meyer stole that from Behe who has been thoroughly refuted for that nonsense argument.

 

[daws101]

Where Did the Devil Come From?

Satan is first mentioned by "name" in Job 1:6-7:



One day the angels came to present themselves before Yahweh, and Satan also came with them. Yahweh said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered Yahweh, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

Here God asks where it is that Satan comes from; however, it is not a question of ultimate origins, but of "what have you been doing lately?" From the story of Job, we learn that Satan is responsible for bringing misery and suffering to people. In 1 Chronicles 21:1 we see him active in tempting a person to sin. The only other place that Satan is mentioned in the Old Testament is Zechariah 3:1-2, where he is seen accusing the saints; and of course that is exactly what his name "Satan" means: "the accuser". In fact, in the Old Testament "Satan" is always preceded by a definite article, from which we gather "Satan" is more a designation of his character than an actual personal name. His actual first appearance in the Bible is generally assumed to be at the very beginning, in the form of a serpent, when he convinces Eve to doubt God's goodness. If this serpent is indeed Satan (there is no explicit biblical indication that it is), then Satan is responsible for creating all the misery that exists in our world today.


If this serpent is indeed Satan (there is no explicit biblical indication that it is), then Satan is responsible for creating all the misery that exists in our world today.


http://www.theology.edu/theology/angel.htm btw ywc I was wrong ! maybe one of these day you will be man enough to admit the same.

 

[Koios]

If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.

Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.

I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.

I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

The planet is billons of years old and humans evolved from a common ancestor of apes or chimps some 4 to 6 million years ago. Or so we think based on what we know, now. Maybe it's wrong on some of the minor details, i.e. time estimates. If so, that does not -- by default -- mean God did it. It only means we do not know, and we thus can, at best, today, guess a range of time.

 

[daws101]

If you wish we can discuss mutation rates seen in nature and do the math that shows evolutionist didn't assign enough time for mutations producing the diversity seen.

Also take a look at DNA base pairs to show how far apart man is from any living primate. Anyone who does the math on mutation rates know the impossibility of the theory.

I don't need to copy and paste to discuss this issue with you. I do it because sometimes I just don't like wasting my time with someone who is not open to learning.

I think I already did my mutation rate argument earlier in the thread but am willing to do it again but the moment you copy and paste the debate is over got it ?

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

[ame=http://youtu.be/tgC3hkCGJMU]Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/EyjufVuQZ48]Evolution for ID-iots - YouTube[/ame]


yes this is

 

[Youwerecreated]

Thanks, but I'll pass. That Creationist nonsense is pretty fucking tedious for me, insofar as I'm an Athiest, and not on a mission to prove or disprove anything of a spirit nature. I just like reading about stuff, especially the newer and more theoretical; thus I have no problem when mistakes are made since they'll be corrected when we know more. It's only a matter of time, proven time and time again throughout human history. The longer we're at it, the more we'll understand.

And that hasn't the least bearing whatsoever on creation beliefs, which are based purely on myriad assumptions, going back many millenia.

Oh but the scientific mutation rate numbers are far to high for man to evolve from anything let alone exist on this planet for 2.2 million years and scientist know this and had to try and create other theories to explain this problem away but in doing so created bigger problems from the mutation rate.

This is good stuff and it might change your mind about this rediculous theory.

You're really using the last, dying gasp of the creationist ministries with the "it's too complex to have occurred naturally" argument.

Meyer stole that from Behe who has been thoroughly refuted for that nonsense argument.

what we were discussing went right over your head, I will explain in the morning.