Because Abiogenesis is impossible to prove. As a matter of fact - science is continually disproving it. Yet it is the cornerstone of Evolution. Kind of odd when your scientific experiments disprove your cornerstone. Wouldn't you say?

But evolution can't even explain the nature we see all around us. Ever examine the evolutionary account of how birds got their wings? Rediculoius, and the observable evidence contradicts the theory.
There are numerous developments of animals that are not explained by evolution. "We're working on that" they say.

My requirements for plausability are a bit higher than "We're working on that".

And the evidence for ancient China writing being from 6000 BC comes from what? What is the origin of this date as factual? Now since thee are over 200 accounts of a flood in ancient writings and fables... because it is assumed one group didn't have one (impossible to prove by the way - it might just not have been discovered yet) that means there was no flood? Isn't that like saying there are no accounts of Kangaroo's in the legends of the American Indian - therefore they don't exist, and never have?

There are numerous examples of hieroglyphics and cave paintings of dinausaurs from all over the world. These are documented in secular writings and in magazines from the New York Times to Scientific America. However - that isn't really a proof of anything, for we've only but a few Rosetta stones to glean any type of interpretation from, and no means of corroborating the interpretation of the Rosetta stones in the first place - let alone the key to the Hiero's they supposedly give meaning to. Nothing definitive any way.

"Dinosaurs" are referenced in the bible, and other ancient writings.
Naturally - since the word dinausaur did not come about since the mid 1800's, you won't find the specific word "Dinausaur" in any of these writings. Dragon, Behomouth, and Leviathon are the terms used in ancient writings. Non-the-less, they're dinosaurs according to our understanding of the term.

Christianity says nothing about stoning anyone. In 3,000 BC Judism this might have been the case - but you won't find it anywhere in Christianity. So, as I Christain - I might suggest to you that you learn about that in which you don't believe if you are going to commet on it, and at least get it right.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the scientific process, and much like everyone else on these threads, believe that there is a deeper understanding of scientific theory, and a higher degree of accuracy now than there's ever been before. However, I think there is a necessity for a line to be drawn when it comes to conclusions of the past based on the observations of today. And - also, there as been, and will continue to be a great amount of deception and mis-information diseminated from the world of evolution - as much has there has been in the word of religion. Just as there are hundreds - if not thousands of "false prophets" in religion - using it as a means to their own ends, so too are there hundreds, if not thousands of scientists who's very livelyhood requires that evolution be "accepted" - despite whether it's true or not. This is where the subtlety of "conjecture" turns into "universal truth". Some prime examples of this are Haeckels Law, long proven to be a hoax, yet still included in every science book taught in schools, Lucy and the "imagined" models created from a torso of which only 40 % of it's parts were found, Piltdown man, Nebraska man (in reality, a tooth of a pig) - and the list goes on.

I just don't see any emperical evidence for Evolution, and I don't find the premises for dating an old earth to be acceptable. Too many unanswered questions to believe that dating anything older than 5 or 6 thousand years is even possible. It's just "wishful thinking" that "given the premises to be true" of materials "believed" to be ancient were in fact what they are claimed to be when they were in their "original" (or parent) state, given the observation of the daughter status.

My position on Creationism is from the mere perspective of observation (seeing the world outside my front door) and the complexity of life. Though I have never, and will never claim there is "evidence" for a creation - I see no reason to think it is disprovable. I do, however, think that many claims of evolution are disprovable. Due simply to the fact that the continued experiments to transform one species (or kind if you will) into another has a zero percent success rating. Also - despite the fact that we can observe mutation _within_ a species, it has yet to be shown, under any circumstance, that any DNA information has been ADDED within these mutations. It's only been demonstrated that information is lost.

I don't think that any of the alternative theories (UFO's for example, or alien hosts) are any more plausable than either Evolution or Creationism, and need a great deal more "faith" to believe in them than either of the main two that are discussed. I think the option lies with Abiogenisis or Creationism, and either one is only true on a faith based level. Three's just no means to take it beyond that using either science - or empirical evidence.
It centers largely on one's world view, and how they determine to interpret the facts. some see fossils and precieve them to be within the tree of evolution, and millions of years old, others see a fossil and believe it was created, and no more than 6,000 years old. Science can do nothing to prove either of them correct, as too much information is missing which can never be recreated, or accumulated to insure the accuracy of interpretation.

And I don't think that belief in one - negates the other. Just because one erson has belief in one world view does nothing to discredit belief in the other.

Neither Washington or Adams were Deists.

Oddly enough - though not disprovable by any theory - it is not provable as a scientific teory itself. There's no empirical evidence for it. It is just another world religion.

My post was about evolution. I don't see any more plausible evidence to Evolution than I do Creatioism. The "belief" in either as an explination of origins is totally based on faith. Any observation of mutational change or natural selection is as easily explained by Creationism as it is by evolutional theory. The beief of either one depends solely o one's world view and what they chose to put their faith in. Since neither evolution nor Creationism can be scientifically proven - neither is science.

Unverifyable - conjecture at best. Faith based to accept this as "fact".



Though it might be "predicted" as such - that is not "evidence" of fact, as the premise is constructed to support the conclusion. There is no means of verifying this through empirical science. It is a faith based hypothesis.



Since it is impossible to determine the amount of daughter material inclusive in the parent material at the tme of the presumed formation of the test subject - any date derived from radiometric dating is as accurate as a phychic's prediction. Totally and absolutely faithed based, and absurd at best due to the requirement of universality of the earth's atmosphere throughout the life o the test object. Something which can easily be determined to be impossible through the scientific method of random expermentation within our lifetime. Impossible to presume for the planet 400 years ago, let alone 4 billion years ago.



Plate tectronics - another undemonstratable premise, while even possible - do nothing to support the idea of evolution. a world wide flood is just as plausable an explination, and no less rovable than plate tectronics. Faith based concluisons.



While natural selection is demonstratable, and even observable - this is not an idea originated from evolution. This is clearly seen in the biblical account as well as the Darwinian account. The difference being that Evolution creates the false presumption that imformation has been aded to DNA to account for the "tree of species" rather than the "forest of species" imlied by Creationism. It has never been demonstrated that any mutation has involved an addition of information - but rather a loss of information. It would be more appropriate to call it De-evolution, rather than "evolution", as what is occuring through mutation is a loss of information - not an adding of information. Something quite mysteriously left out of all text books and scientific accounts of evolution. Ever wonder why that is?



Amaizing. The same holds true of Creationism.



This is indeed an observable fact - however this does nothing to demonstrate that man evolved from a fish. It demonstrates that there is change within the sparrow population to adapt to the ever changing evironmental influences. (As opposed to Universalism, a necessary for evolutionary theory)



Here again - all Dr. Endler has done is demonstrate that there is change amoungst guppies. Period. To assume anything further from this, or to extrapolate it to the far distant past, is conjectre, and faith based.



This is also true of Creationism. Is there a point here?



The mere fact that there is a similarity between Human and Chimp DNA is not "evidence" of evolution - unless it can be demonstrated that even one chimp shows evidence of a chromisome fusing. What do you think the chances are that there going to prove through the "scientific method" of observation that this is verifyasble fact!!! Oh sure.. one day they will. Until then, we'll take their word for it that "this is what happened".

Bottom line. Unverifyable. Conjecture. Presumption. Faith based.

Now. Would you like to attempt to simply use your own idea of what it is exactly that is "scientific" about evolution?

Explain to me what is "scientific" about man and the chimp sharing a common ancestor? How it is possible through emperical evidence to demonstrate the world is 4.5 billion years old. Which, by the way, you would have to demonstrate how a world flood did NOT occur. Another unverifyalbe concluison which MUST be accepted on faith in order to beliueve evolution.

Of course I know what the scientific method is.

Now - answer the question.

What is scientific about evoluiton?

The discussion is not about Creationism being scientific - why bring it up?

So answer the question.

What is "scientific" about evolution?

Evil is the absence of Good. Just like cold is the absence of heat.
If god created something "evil" - where and what is it?

White is the presence of all colors. Black is the absence of color.
It actually is not a color by definition.

One does not have to give an example of a place with darkness - it has a definition. It's an absolute. Doesn't matter if we can name where it occurs - we understand what is meant by the term through it's definition.

That's exactly what my point is. Why are you blsaming God for the choices of man? You claim moral superiority to God because you feel he should be intervening - when you aren't even sure what God's participation even is. What are you basing your moral superiority on? You've created this idea of a God who is not even up to your moral standards. Are you sure this is God? Or have you just created a God in your mind that doean't exist? Because I don't see your idea of God as representative of the one from scripture. It is no wonder you don't believe in God - if you haven't got the right idea about who and what God is - what is there to believe in. That God only exists for you.



I'm not changing any of my arguments - I'm trying to make sense out of yours. I've not represented any arguments on my understanding of God - I'm using yours.

So what you are saying i that your expectations of God is to be a loving God - jet not a just one, and on top of that, that he fullfill your requirements of what "love" is. Next - you expect god to take responsibilitiy for the actions of men, and allow some behaviors, but not others. So what you are saying - is that you are God's judge. How did that come to be? How is it that God is not allowed to judge man for his actions - but is held responsibile for allowing them? Perhaps the idea of this "loving God" that you are presuming is but a mere figment of your imagination. Since you are not God - you cannot presume to assume that you know how God has influenced anyone who participates in genocides - or abates in the starvation of those in countries where the military and dictators control all of the weath and power despite the wealfare of their "subjects". A closer examination reveals the selfishness of man - not the lack of compassion of God. Do you not think that there is enough food thrown away in this country alone on a daily basis to feed all of the starving people in Africa? So where does the blame belong? Man is rebellios - and they will do what they want - despite the consequences to themselves, or how it makes others feel. You yourself are a prime example. Obviously you could care less about your parents - you're going to satisfy your own desires despite what it might do to others. If you developed blood poisoning on your next tatoo, are you going to blame your parents for it? Are you going to care one iota about their having to watch helplessly as you play russian roulette with a loaded gun?

You're a walking contradiction Inkracer, and I can't follow your logic on the conclusions you've come to about the nature of God.

Beg to differ with what?

Darkness is the absence of light. With any amount of light - darkness disappears. They are mutually exclusive events. Like the sides of a coin. If you flip a coin - you will either get a heads - or a tails, never both. If the coin stands on edge - you get neither.

I think that the idea of "Light" and "Dark" battling is metaphoric at best - since they cannot exist concurrantly by definition.

The question does not make sense. God is not a material being - so wondering if He is incapable of doing a material task is illogical.