Creationism

[canalon]

Darwin made modifications of his theory of evolutionafter it was first published, but most of them in the new editions of the origin of species. But he NEVER retracted. Anywaythe theory of evolutionas know understood is based on Darwin's idea, but with plenty of modifications to take into account what we have learned since he worked. So even if he had retracted (and he didn't), what's the point? Evolution through natural selection need no further approval...
I am curious to know a little more about those 90% of hoaxes, because even if there were some, the main evidences for evolution are still very good. And they usually do not rely on archaelogical evidences but on the molecular design of life.
And coming to micro and macro evolution, I know what they are supposed to mean and... if you discuss with real evolutionnist, they do not make such differences. Why? Because it doesn't really make sense, considering that "macro-evolution" is only the by-product of "micro-evolution". PLenty of time and microscopic changes makes enormous changes in the end.

Patrick

[b_d_41501]

Exactly Canalon, we agree on something in this thread. lol. Debates are fun, but they are also annoying when people say things with no factual proof like the poster we are addressing.

[Jelanen]

Canalon said:

Evolution is backed by facts and is submitted to permanent scientific evaluation, the other escapes this

I would invite everyone to peruse http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=res ... chp_papers

There IS research to support creationism. You just have to know where to look cause it sure isn't gonna be accepted in Nature or Science.

-Jelanen

[b_d_41501]

Seems like a cool site. I'll check it out in more detail later on.

[ushishir]

I would invite everyone to peruse http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=res ... chp_papers

There IS research to support creationism. You just have to know where to look cause it sure isn't gonna be accepted in Nature or Science.

-Jelanen

This 'research' is not published because it falls well below the scientific standards required by any scientific journal. In addition much of the data is dishonestly misrepresented.

for more information about this 'research' see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snelling.htm

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snel ... eology.htm

[b_d_41501]

I knew this thread would eventually get way off topic and would just lead to this sort of thing. By the way, read the first post, this was posted making fun of another site for "arguing" over this issue instead of debating it logically.

[canalon]

Even though I agree with Ushishir, I don't really think we should try to discuss evolution vs cretion in this board... This is endless discussion that would lead nowhere. I enjoyed discussing, why I do not think that both should not be taught on the samelevel, but I will definitely Not try to convince any creationnist that he is wrong, even if I think so. But I would prefer that their arguments should be discussed in philosophy/religion rather than in science class, since they do not abide to the accepted poperian definition of science.

Patrick

[Jelanen]

for more information about this 'research' see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snelling.htm

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/realsnelling.htm

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/snel ... eology.htm

Read some of those sites. Reads alot like some other sites I read on an irregular basis for their personal attacks, overreaching statements, and general bad attitudes:
http://www.moveon.org/
http://www.dailykos.com/

If they were sites (the talkorigins one excluded) that actually were more than trying-to-beat-someone-over-the-head-with-a-bat-sites they might be worthwhile. I'll say this as I leave the forum again (since nothing ever gets accomplished here except argueing) that you are never gonna convince anyone one way or another who is already ideologically grounded in their particular worldview. I've had the conversation with some of my fellow mods and some of the senior posters in private messages that this discussion is irreconcileable due to repercussions reaching down to the very soul of every person. Since changing ones mind in this aspect represents a foundational upheavel, its not gonna happen on an internet message board. I've said my peace, I will accept PMs on this if people want more information.

-Jelanen

[b_d_41501]

That is definitely true. As long as everyone stays logical in their debating, personally I'd say it's a healthy (and fun IMO) topic for the forum. However, when posters start rambling off nonfactual information it's not a healthy topic, it's just tiresome to constantly correct their misuse of facts.

[deadfish]

greetings fellow humans check out :
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php

watch them..take notes.........then come back and debate

[mith]

Why don't you post some specifics you want to know about? We already have this subject beaten to death(figuratively).

[Speadskater]

I myself am an evolutionist. I believe in a god but he just created the universe and set it into motion... nothing else. I think that is deism. I was looking at this topic and I stumbled apon this. http://www.venganza.org/ it is about and "alternative theory of Intelligent Design" called FSM. I'll let you find out what it is really about... I accually think these people believe in this. it shows how we really need to educate some people.