If we are going to start some hot topics, how bout this...

I want to know how anyone with an open mind can even consider creationism to be true... I mean there is so much undeniable evidence that evolution has occcured and is continuing to occur.... the is NO evidence supporting creation at all. I am not denying the existence of a God but I do not believe in any of the creation stories or Adam and Eve. Every religion has its OWN creation story so how can you assume yours is the right one?

Also, some Baptists and other demoninations believe that the world is THOUSANDS of years old. That has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I mean HUMAN civilization goes back that far... where to the dinosaurs and all the other FOSSIL life go if humans existed the whole time?

Just throwing out some opinions...

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">

> so how can you assume yours is the right one?

Go tell that to a 70 year old Catholic woman!

what is the role of the god you beleive in, if he did not create the universe?

and how did he appear, and when did he appear? what purpose does he serve for you?

why do you believe in this god? isn't it entirely possible that god created the universe, millions of years ago, and things evolved since then, just the bible, ect. are mistaken in their time line? <br> ......................................................

Bryce: almost.... I believe that God exists for man only. We are the only creatures that could comprehend the existence of a god and the only ones that could have a "use" for one. He is the moral example for humankind and gives us guidelines of how to live our lives. All religions are different and they all have different guidelines for the believers

I agree with you that God may have created the bit of matter that exploded into the Big Bang. That means that he maybe really did create all the matter in the universe.... but I believe that after that point all those BILLIONS of years ago, God left everything alone. After that planets, including the Earth formed from nebulas and accretion disks. Animal life evolved from the simplest organic molecules to human beings without the direct influence of God. God just overseed it all.

Jack: mine is more right than yours... where's the evidence for creation, huh? Do you believe we lived with the dinosaurs? Yabba-dabba doo!

Lemme break this up... Creation as in universe, creation as in life, and creation as in man. Maybe one is more debateable than others...

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">

I doubt I could drill any of this new science into a 70 year old devout Catholic.... but maybe a 20 something Catholic...

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">

"I mean there is so much undeniable evidence that evolution has occcured and is continuing to occur.... the is NO evidence supporting creation at all."

Pardon my french, but WTF!?!?!? WHAT!? Sorry, but to me that seems outrageous, because after reading 2 books on the subject I'm convinced that there's no evidence for evolution at all. Spitfire, please tell about your evidence for evolution. Thanks in advance. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

OK, being a marine science major I'll give one/

<img src="http://www.fishbase.org/thumbnails/jpg/tn_Antae_u1.jpg">
<img src="http://www.fishbase.org/thumbnails/jpg/tn_Anvir_u0.jpg">


These are two species of grunt from each side of Central America. Obviously, they look very similar. In the past, the isthmus of Panama was not connected to South America. A single species of grunt existed in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean looking like this. In the geologic past the isthmus closed, isolating populations of this species and MANY others. Over time the ancestral species evolved to adapt to the very different habitats in the two oceans (Pacific-rocky and sandy areas Atlantic-coral reefs). The East Pac. has FAR fewer coral reefs. Now, presently, we have two distinct species in both oceans that are obviously descended fro ma common ancestor. Other examples, the spadefishes(Ephippus), Damselfish (Stegastes) and Snappers(Lutjanus) show this same sister species pairings.

Give me some examples refuting or supporting your view if you want to debate...

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">

Ok here's where I'm coming from. The idea of adaption is correct, the idea of evolution is not. They adapt to their environments using their existing genes through natural selection. Information is lost, but no new information is "evolved". This is how species are formed, variations of a common ancestor, specialized variations. These fish are now less able to adapt to future changes due to the loss of genetic information, maybe not significantly but in some way. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

Evolution and adaption are a ways of life in nature so get used to it. I also believe in mind over body. <br>
<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spikej/personal_pic.jpg">
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Spikeg79/Carpictures.html">my homepage<a/>Gephardt for PRES. in 2004

adaption is evolution, just over extreme amount of time.
but i do believe there is/was some supreme being that created everything. he might of put that dot there that created the big bang... but he put it there <br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/niceguy4186/sig4.jpg">
Suicide Hotline...Please Hold


Promise that forever we will never get better at growing up and learning to lie

Niceguy: thats correct, that's all I believe God did.

Lancer: Adaption occurs much faster then evolution. You could put an Indo-Pacific fish into Caribbean reefs and it would ahve to adapt to live there. There are completely different species in both areas and adaption is a change in behavior to survive in an environment. A creature cannot change its physical appearance over a couple generations and become a new species. It takes thousands of years for even a subtle change in physical appearance to occur, like in those Anisotremus grunts. You can't call this "adaption" because the genetic makeup of the species has changed over time. The change is gradual, you cannot even comprehend a million years time, a single mutation that MAKES a species ABLE to adapt better will be selected over an inferior one. Selection and evolution go hand in hand.

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">

Well, small-scale evolution is proven--large-scale is a bit more fuzzy.

<to lancer> what you think is, is really the exact opposite. we can even see adaptive advantages in humans that could have grown into separate species except we're too damned parasitic as a specie--why do you think people who are indigenous to more sunny regions have darker skin and people indigenous to less sunny regions? Adaptive advantage.

Genes mutate, and the mutations that give an advantage are bred through, and the ones that give a disadvantage are bred off.

More prove of evolution on a small scale? Antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Crationism, i can't prove or disprove, but even drawin believed SOMETHING created all this--i don't. I think that one of the few absolutes is existance, and time moves in a circle...int that yesterday was once tomorrow, and tomorrow was once yesterday.

I can write a good novel to prove my thought process on this...if you'd like. <br> <br><font color="blue" face="times new roman" size="1"><b><i><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jbodynorthwest/"><img src="http://keep-of-the-light.freewebspace.com/images/signature.jpg">
The infamous Keeper of the Light</a><b><br>
<i>I'll get out of <u>YOUR</u> country the minute you get off of <u>MY</u> planet!</i></font>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

You guys keep crossing adaption with evolution, which is a mistake. Keep in mind that the idea of nature selection is NOT exclusive to the evolution theory. The idea of natural selection existed before the idea of evolution. Yes adaptions have occured, a great deal of them, but that still has nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. Adaptions don't take that long. Long haired dog-kinds survive in cold climate while short haired dog-kinds die off. That's a very basic example but surely it doesn't take thousands or millions of years for that to happen. Changes in the appearance in creatures? You bet! Creatures have many variations among each other, and the most practical traits for the environment in which they live are the ones that survive.

As far as believing that nothing created something, I typed this up earlier and wanted to post it here, just to generate some positive thinking.

Random chance? Not a chance. Let's look at the big picture a little. This universe has a high specified complexity. There are massive amounts of ordered information everywhere you look, that's what's required for our existance and the existance of the earth, sun, stars and everything else, right? We can tell the difference between messages written in sand and the results of wave and wind action. We immediately identify that the message was intelligently designed by someone. The characters arn't randomly formed or randomly placed. They are designed to make the message work.

Here are some random latters:
WDLMNLTDTJBKWIRZREZLMQCOP

<i>"A single human cell contains the information capacity to store the Encyclopedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over"</i> - Evolutionist R. Dawkins 1986.

There are millions of cells in a single human body filled with specific ordered information needed to make our bodies work. If it's unreasonable to believe that just one volume set of an encyclopedia could have originated without intelligence, then it's just as unreasonable to believe that life could have originated without intelligence.

Then there's the major problem of how the universe was created. Evolutionists claim the universe started as a tiny dot that eventually exploded into a huge universe of ordered galaxies, stars, solar systems etc. They still don't have anyway to explain how that happened, but since they insist there's no God it must have happened this way some how, or so they think.

That's the whole thinking behind evolution and why evolutionist scientists try so hard to make it work, even if it goes against science and the facts. There are so many fundamental problems with popular evolutionist ideas including the big bang, the formation of our solar system, where life came from, how it evolved, the transitional stages of creatures and many others. The actual evidence of the universe points towards the Bible, and to the knowledge of creation scientists almost everything works perfectly. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists.

I've heard this in a few places and I agree with it. Whether or not you agree with it or not is totally up to you. I'm not trying to force anything upon anyone. Evolution is very dogmatic and evolutionists talk like they know it's fact, despite all the problems. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

lancer: why is the burden of proof on the evolutionists? shouldnt the burden of proof be on BOTH the evolutionists and the creationists?

what does the bible say about the dinosaurs?

what "actual evidence of the universe points towards the Bible"? you cant just say stuff like that and not give any evidence.

i think the burden of proof is on you. <br> ......................................................

How old do you thing our universe is? Can you provide any tangible proof of creation? All science is based on evidence and even though creation is a matter of faith, it is kinda of unbelievable to say things just appeared on Earth, poof!, and have never changed.

What about all of the extinct forms millions of years ago...the Permian and Cretaceous extinctions killed off a great majority of the dominant life forms on the planet but the survivors radiated to recolonize the world. Dinosaurs or reptiles were rare in the Permian but following that extinction Reptiles evolved to rule the world. Do you think God comes around and just places new species around the world as they die out. Species are much too related and their lineages too obvious to say that each species has no ancestors. What about the horse, Galapagos finch, and even man? Clear lineages....but creationists always bring up the missing link... they just havent found it yet, the majority of bones are not fossilized. Out of the millions of dinosaurs only a few complete skeletons have been found preserved so far. We only have a incomplete puzzle of these lineages.

The formation of the solar system makes sense, I dont know what theory you've read but it makes sense. A nebula of gas and dust orbits a center of mass. The matter gathers at the center of the accretion disk and eventually collapses on itself due to gravity and reaches a central temperature in which nuclear fusion occurs. The star is born and blows the remaining gas outward. In orbits around this new star, new balls of gas and dust accumumlate into planets. The planets closer to the Sun have more dust available to them so they are rocky. The outer planets have little dust, just gas, so they became the gas giants. Pluto was a captured asteroid. All of this matter comes from nebula, which was originally part of older dead stars. All of this can be confirmed by physics and chemistry and is explained better in books. This makes sense to me, what does not?

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">

True bryce, that is unfortunately the case. Based on the ideas of creation as stated in the Bible, it explains how things are the way they are better than evolution does. Obviously it's easier to say that somebody created all this then to say that it created itself. But yeah you are right that the burden of proof is on both sides. I believe in the Bible because of it's legitimacy, including it's accuracy, lack of contradictions, and it's prophesy about various things. If you're willing to accept this book, it suddenly becomes easier to give proof based on that. It seems to be more consistent with all the physical data we have compaired to evolution, that's the way I see it.

As far as dinosaurs in the Bible, there are stories of dragons. The word "dinosaur" didn't exist until around 1850, so obviously it wouldn't be in a 2,000 year old book. It displays ideas of dinosaurs and people living together which I will discuss in a little bit.

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

"Every religion has its OWN creation story so how can you assume yours is the right one?"

Well given the Bible is the most legitimate holy book in the world, that I believe proves itself to be God's word, that's where I get my assumption from. I don't want to bring the Bible too far into this, I'm just stating what my basis is for my way of thinking.

"Also, some Baptists and other demoninations believe that the world is THOUSANDS of years old. That has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. I mean HUMAN civilization goes back that far... where to the dinosaurs and all the other FOSSIL life go if humans existed the whole time?"

<i>"Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think the last dinosaur lived"</i> - Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.

I believe dinosaurs and humans existed together at one time. Based on what you may have been taught this may be far fetched, but this is something to consider. The average dinosaur was the size of a small horse. Obviously there were very large creatures. Would humans want these creatures around? Probably not. Dinosaurs may have been killed off by people long ago. There are many ancient cave drawings of dinosaurs and people fighting them. I don't see how this is such a dumb concept.

I'm just responding to some of the statements made. I don't mean to flood you all with information as a way to douse your ideas. I have nothing better to do right now. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

Over 1600 years ago, a man named (now St.) Athanaseus (sp) solved this debate, but nobody listens.

God is the "prime mover" in a system of created evolution. Yes evolution exists, but it has been guided and designed by a higher power. Simply the only way to explain social insects, like ants and bees. It does not contradict either side's argument, and it can be offered as an explaination for all those things that don't make sence in a Darwinian universe. Even Darwin conceted that evolution as he defined it, could not explain all life, only some. He died a devote Christian after his research was done. The problem with random mutation is the in-between stages... How can a half evoved creature have any advantage over the indigenous species. If it is random, there would be only one small mutation at a time, offering no advantage therefore not passing it's traits on as favourable over the existing (and much more numerous) form. How about that duck billed Platapus? Why the poison claws on the rear legs and the duck bill? OK, the bill (however it came to be) could offer some advantage in foraging at the river bottom, like a duck, but also webbed feet? Not in the same mutation, but not much good without each other. Needs the feet to get to the food the bill was designed for, and the bill is no good without the feet. Then there's the poison, and it lays eggs?!?!? Is it an interspecies freak? Can a warm blooded animal cross breed with an entirly different species? Wierd.

Bees... The queen is dead without the workers, the workers are inviable without the queen, they are interdependant on a grand scale. How? Did an independant insect find a disabled insect and deside to care for it rather than devore it? How does that offer any advantage to the individual? It doesn't, those traits could not evolve (in my mind).

I'm with Athanaseus on this one. Both. Created Evolution. Or "Design" as many modern scholars like to call it.

it is interesting that the amount of salt in seawater is far from the level that would be expected after millions of years of errotion from rain and shoreline action. Acording to many sources (i will have to find them) there is nowhere near the expected level, more like 30 000 years worth... Hmmmm.. We have been qwrong about these things before, and we will be wrong again. Keep in mind, we have no good way of knowing the age of anything beyond about 30 000 years... anything from before that is guessed at based on what layer of rock it was found in. Radio carbon dating has its limits.

Doesn't really matter how long it took anyway. God doesn't care about time, time has no meaning to something that can manipulate anything.

SPITfire talks about the formation a a solar system, and for the most part it makes sense. That doesn't matter, how did the nebula get there. We need to talk about the beginning of the universe. Not one simple system, but all systems, together.

Answer this, since noone else can... How is it that Earth's moon is where iot is. Couldn't spin off the Earth mass, would have kept going. Couldn't be captured, too big. Might have come out of that hole we call the Pacific ocean, but why is it the perfect size, at the perfect distance to perfectly cover the Sun in a solar eclipse?

I believe the 6,000 year idea, and will continue to unless striken with a major obstical of which I haven't seen yet. It's hard to prove creation or evolution, because both are only a basis of interpreting the data. It's always going to be a matter of faith one way or another. I feel that the ideas of creation stand up better than the ideas of evolution, and make more sense. 90 percent of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth point to an age far less than the billions of years that evolutionists claim. Salt is pouring into the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to be happening for billions of years. "The earth's magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it couldn't be more than about 10,000 years old." - Sarfati. I look at this stuff and think "Ok that makes sense".

I believe that all the original land animals (around 8,000) and all other creatures were created all at once, with all the DNA information to split up into the thousands (millions?) of species we see today due to natural selection. Based on stuff I stated above, I don't believe the stories about whatever happened "millions of years ago". They may be misinterpretations of the data.

When looking at the Law of Angular Momentum, that center mass should be spinning very quickly as the gases came together to form it but instead the sun spins very slowly. The sun has 99% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of the angular momentum. According to the nebular hypothesis, the young sun would have passed through the T-Tauri phase I think it is, in which the sun would have given off an intense solar wind. This would have driven away excess gas and dust and there wouldn't be enough left to form any gas planets. Those are a couple that I can remember off hand. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

This debate has existed since the beginning of time. Just to throw a cog into the machine. It’s an interesting article on human origins. To summerize it, pretty much everything we were taught, (Darwin, religion), is wrong.

http://www.lloydpye.com/A-Darwinism.htm

There is lots of other interesting articles on the site.
<br>

In the beginning there was nothing....Then God said "Let there be light!". There was still nothing you just could see it.

"In the beginning there was nothing....Then God said "Let there be light!". There was still nothing you just could see it."

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Genesis 1:2
Now the earth was formless and empty, darness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Genesis 1:3
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

Lancer,

Yeah I know, it was something a ripped off a comedy show call SCTV, there was a drunk preist tell stories from the bible or something to that effect.

<br>

In the beginning there was nothing....Then God said "Let there be light!". There was still nothing you just could see it.

lol! That must have been good <br>

<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/lancer/sunsetsig.jpg">

<to lancer>

when i mean absolute, i mean absolute...think of it this way. it always was, always will be, and just cycles...my theory goes a little something like this:

Take a line. A line is 1 dimension. curve it within the 2nd dimension. you have a circle (which is 2*pi*Radius...in which pi is an infinitly non-repeating decimal number that can be approximated as 3.14159...in which your bible claims is 3--thus recducing it's credibility, but i digress...i'll get back to this). Now, assume that you can only effectivly percive things in 1 dimension. and you're on that circle--it appears to be a line extending to infinity in either direction, and no matter where you go along that line, there's no end and no beginning.

Now, picture a plane--a 2-dimensional figure. now, curve it within the 3rd dimension--space. you have a spehere. Same thing, if you could only perceive 2 dimensions, andf you're on that sphere, it appears to be a plane that extends to infinity--hence the age-old belief that the world is flat.

Now, take a space., curve it in the 4th dimension--time. now, while it's hard for anywone by Stephen Hawking to visualize this, you will essentially have a space in which no matter which direction you travel, you will end up in the same spot--curved space theory.

Now, 4th dimension--time. some theorize it';s a line--i theorize that it's a plane--a sphere. regardless of your view, curve it in the 5th dimension--and you have something that repeats to infinity.

it's been theorized that what started the big bang was another universe collapsing into the point of infinitesimality and then boom! new universe. and they also theorize that this universe someday will collapse and the cycle will start over again....

okay, now, you're thinking SOMETHING must have started this...what if nothing did? what if this cycle is all there is, all there ever was and all that will be? thus, if there is a god, it's infinity and forever cycling, not some spooky invisible sky-dweller--as geroge carlin would say. moreso, if we go back to the curving in the next dimension--again, that leads us to infinity--same place we land.

Now, on the bible's credibility--it's no more credible than any other holy book from any <i>biblioreligion</i>. Note, yes i invented that word, it means, "religion in which the dogmatic belifs are based upon some written text". This is opposed to <i>Terrareligions</i> in which the religion's dogmatic belifs are based upon the world as the practiotioner perceives it. Any biblioreligion is based upon the truths held at the time it was written, and is always subject to interpretation an re-writing. it may hold facts, truths, and falsehoods--mainly a combo of all three. but it's still a subjective point of view--subjective to someone else as opposed to your subjective point of view. personally, i'd rather interpret a master rather than a recording of the master--so to speak.

anyhow, that out of the way...when it comes to adaptability vs. evolution...i look at it like this:

being a heliophobe, i always wear a trenchcoat--especially in the summer sun. thus, i can tolerate a normally hot teperature weaking a lot of clothing. thus i tend to drink more water and stay in the shade more, but i adapt to the surroundings i'm in--it doesn't physically change me on the genetic level in any way.

when something changes on the genetic level, it's evolving in the simplest sense. if the mutatuion is bad, the mutation dies off, and no harm, no foul. if the mutation benefits the specie, then it thrives and survives--like antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and moths that mutated from a speckled coloration to black--making it easier for them to hide on soot-staned tree trunks and smokestacks. Evolution doesn't necessarily mean a new specie.

more so, i'm one of the few people that has never, nor will ever have wisdom teeth come in--saving a lot of time, pain, and trouble. could it be said that genetically i evolved a bit from status-quo humans, for better or worse? yep, since it's a genetic thing. Call me a mutant if you want <br> <br><font color="blue" face="times new roman" size="1"><b><i><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/jbodynorthwest/"><img src="http://keep-of-the-light.freewebspace.com/images/signature.jpg">
The infamous Keeper of the Light</a><b><br>
<i>I'll get out of <u>YOUR</u> country the minute you get off of <u>MY</u> planet!</i></font>

Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

You can't say that Creationism is right by saying " cuz the Bible says so" How do you know the Bible is all true? There are many parables in the Bible that the Lord used to tell a story. It was not meant to be taken literally, but had a much deeper meaning for society. How do you know the writers of Genesis didnt make it all up? I'm not saying they did, but how do you know? You don't seriously believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, do you? The person would have died (digestion), plus baleen whales cannot eat large prey. A sperm whale would have killed a person before swallowing him. Even Noah's Ark is suspicious. It is true that a part of the world may have flooded, but onll a small part. That area of the MidEast was the "world" to a 1st century person. There is evidence that the Black Sea formed at that time from a massive collapse of land next to the Mediterranean( current Bosporus region) This event may have been looked at as the Biblical flood that killed all. Plus, if two animals or every species were put on the ark, there would not be enough genetic diversity to keep the species alive afterward. You need a large population to keep a healthy population without inbreeding. Plus, there are millions of species in the world, and how could one ark fit them all and find them all? It is impossible, the ark was most likely an isolated catastrophe, not a global thing. So this proves many of the Biblical stories were just that.

The idea that human existed with dinosaurs is so stupid. You have to wake up and smell the obvious and think about it. Man and Tyranosaurs? LOL That Fred Flintstone mentality doesnt sound really intelligent. If humans killed the big dinosaurs, what about the little ones. I wouldnt think that they would wipe out EVERY species of dinosaur on the planet. Plus, you can't honestly think they put the dinosaurs on the ark too LOL. Also, dinosaurs like Velociraptors and others would have outhunted and competed early man. You saw Jurassic Park? They let the dinos go and they took over in no time, even with 21st century technology. You think Stone Age people would have a chance? You've seen Walking with Dinosaurs or the like? Doesnt that scenario sound more plausible than Fred Flintstone? What about the Trilobites and other extinct creatures BEFORE the dinosaurs? Did we live with them too? Did we have big fishing boats to make the sea life extinct too? LOL What about the ice age creatures, they didnt live with dinos, where did they fit in? Religion isnt ALL true. Most religions are slowly opening up to the new ideas being put forth by science. If you continue to believe such dumb, unsupported idealogy, then you will be seen as sad and nieve.

<br> <img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/spitfire/Sig1.JPG">