It is amazing to me that the modern establishments in science, education and the news media continually portray creationism as religious and evolutionism as scientific. It is important that we recognize that evolutionism is much more religious in essence than creationism. Not only does the Creation Model explain the scientific data better than the Evolution Model, but evolution serves as the basic philosophy for many more religions of the world, past and present, than does special creation.

The following is a partial listing of those religions that are structured around an evolutionary-like philosophy:

Buddhism Hinduism Confucianism Taoism Shintoism Jainism Animism Spiritism Occultism Satanism Theosophy Bahaism Mysticism Liberal Judaism Liberal Islam Liberal Christianity Unitarianism Religious Science Unity Humanism

Many of the above, of course, could be broken down into various religious sub-groups, all believing in evolution.

I am not claiming that all these are based on *modern Darwinism,* for some of them antedate Charles Darwin. Never-the-less, those are all anti-creationist evolutionary religions, and have generally adapted easily to modern "evolution science."

The basic criterion of evolutionism is the rejection of the need for a personal transcendent Creator who *supernaturally* called the space-time universe into existence out of nothing but His own Omnipotence.

Most of the above religions regard the universe itself as eternal, constituting the only ultimate reality.

Processes innate to the eternal space-time cosmos have supposedly developed the universe and its inhabitants into their present forms. These natural processes may, in many cases, be personified as various gods and goddesses, but they are really just the natural processes innate to the universe itself. Theistic evolutionists are walking a slippery slope when they match themselves this closely to such atheistic philosophy where the need for God or a Creator is just one step away from being necessary.

In some cases, the cosmos itself may be regarded as living and intelligent, giving rise not only to animals and people but also to *spirits* who inhabit it. All of these concepts are evolutionary concepts, since none of the components or inhabitants of the universe are accepted as the products of fiat creation by an eternal Creator. The very existence of such a Creator is either denied or incorporated into the Cosmos itself.

The religions listed above are all extant religions, but the same discussion could apply to all the ancient pagan religions as well, all of which were essentially various forms of pantheism, and none of which were based on creation. Many of them (Epicurianism, Atomism, Stoicism, Gnosticism, Pre-Confucian Chinese religions and many others)had cosmogonies quite similar to modern scientific evolutionary cosmogonies. Most of them incorporated astrology, spiritism, and idolatry into their systems as well.

Thus, evolution is surely a religion, in every sense of the word. It is a world-view, a philosophy of life and meaning, an attempt to explain thre origin and developement of everything, from elements to galaxies to people, without the necessity of an omnipotent, personal, transcendent Creator. It is the basicphilosophy of almost all religions (except for the few momotheistic religions), both ancient and modern. It is absurd for evolutionists to insist, as they often do, that evolution is a science and creation is religious.

What they really mean is that evolution is naturalistic and they arbitrarily define science as *naturalism,* instead of retaining the original meaning which is *knowledge* or truth. However, to insist arbitrarily that the origin and developement of everything must be explained naturalistically begs the whole question and amountsd to nothing but atheism. Not all evolutionists are atheists--of course--but evolution itself is atheism, essentially be definition, since it purports to explain everything in the universe without God.

Atheism is also religious in essence because it must be accepted solely on faith--for it is completely impossible to prove that God does not exist.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004

Answers

Compare the amount of religions associated with evolution to the three religions--orthodox Judaism, orthodox Islam and orthodox Christianity--associated with creation.

Parker/Morris

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

Evolution is a valid way, faith (think Tank) of showing where we come from.

I have believed in evolution since 4th grade. And as yu know, I am not an Atheist.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

It is amazing to me that the modern establishments in science, education and the news media continually portray creationism as religious and evolutionism as scientific.

{Why? I mean, we have acutal sicnece backing up evoluiton, and mainly only Creation Minitries bakcign creaitomism...is it relaly shokcign to have the majority see Creaitonism as religiosu when its held by religious ministries? when religiosu ministires are its main proponants?}-Zarove

It is important that we recognize that evolutionism is much more religious in essence than creationism. Not only does the Creation Model explain the scientific data better than the Evolution Model, but evolution serves as the basic philosophy for many more religions of the world, past and present, than does special creation.

{Twwo things.

1: Show how creation is supported mor so by the eivdene than evolution. Show, dont assert, show.

2: Evolution is not the basis of more rleigious beleifs than creationism... I mean, relaly its only a theory that dateds back tot he 19th century... Show your assertion to be true, or lese recant it.}-Zarove

The following is a partial listing of those religions that are structured around an evolutionary-like philosophy:

Buddhism {Uhm... this dates back to 500 years before christ... Its based on self knoeldge and enlightenment, NOT evolutionary theory, though it is compatable with evolutionary theory...}-Zarove

Hinduism

{Uhm. No. hinduism i based on a belif that Brahamn, the sypreme god, created everyhtign oigt of thoguth and variosu other gods contributed to the ay the world is now, and the idea genrlaly is that thre are ages of the Earth, and we r ein the final and most corrupt...Not realy evolution...}-Zarove

Confucianism

{Based on the teahcigns of confusious, but no real evolution exists in confusiism, nor is it even relatable to it since confusianism i based on wisdom and polite behaviour...}-Zarove

Taoism

{No, Tao is based on the allcation of energies known as Chi...thou compatabel with evlution, evolution si not its basis.}-Zarove

Shintoism

{Shinto is bsed on the ida that variosu gods created eveyhtign and is heavil based on ancestor worship, this is evolution to you?}-Zarove

Jainism {this is an offhsoot of Hinduism, so see Hinduism for this.}-Zarove

Animism

{Animism is base don evolution? The beelicf that a sirit indwells everytign and the affairs of this world are contorled by said spirits? How?}-Zarove

Spiritism

{This is basiclaly a 19th century rvival of Animism. How is this base don evolution pray tell!/?}-Zarove

Occultism

{Beleif in the use of Magic to get what you ant is base don evolution? I thogut you said evolutionw as purely naturalistic...}- Zarove

Satanism {Satanism has two branches, Luciferian and Levayan. Lucefarian Satanists worship Satan. This is not base don eplution but rebellion.

Levayan Satanism is base don canraliry an hedonism , and rejects Satan as a real entity. It is abed on Hedonism, not evolution.}-Zarove

Theosophy

{This isnt even a religion! Its a study! a Branch of theology!}-Zarove

Bahaism

{Bah'i is base don islam, but teahces more prophets will come and all rleigiosn are an atemto to knwo and undertnad God...its based on unity principle, not Evolution.}-Zarove

Mysticism

{Like animisnm and Occultism, Mystisism is incompatable with a naturalistic ( atheistic) worldcveiw as you lcaim evolutikn to be.}- Zarove

Liberal Judaism

{Liberal judaism dosnt use evlutikn as its base. it may accept evlutoon, but it is still based on God' revelation first to Abraham and then to Moses. Its basis is, well...Judaism...}-Zarove

Liberal Islam

{Nope, basis is Gods revelation to Abraham, and later Mohammad, the "Seal fo the Prophets". Islam is the basis of Liberal islam, obviously...}-Zarove

Liberal Christianity

{Based on the revelation orm od to Abraham and Moses, and finally relaised in Jesus christ. Liberal christainity is bse don Christainity proper.As wiht Liberal Islam and liberal judaism, it may accept Evolutionary theory, but itsn absed on evolutionary theory, and woudnt be efected if evolution where to be eliminated as a theory.}-Zarove

Unitarianism

{No, this is based on the iea of Universal slvation and a very loose interpretation of christainity, not eovlution. In fact, Unitarianism predates evolutiojnary theory and was foidned in the 1700's.}-Zarove

Religious Science Unity

{I never even heard of this as a religion...}-Zarove

Humanism

{Humanism predated Darwin as wlel, and though oen of the central beelifs has becoem evolution, so as to have a mean of naturlaistically explaining the world, secular Humanism is not in and of itsself base don anyhtign but the rejection of Christain rleigiosu beleifs and the advocacy of leadign secular lives.

Also, there are rleigious Humanismsts, such as Christain Humanism and Islamis Humanism...

Humanism, in its oldest and most basic form, is the beelif that we shoudl treat ll Humans with dignity and wirth, though the term is now coopted and usually refers to secular Humanism.

Noentheless, this si the closest to rgh you have gotten as most secular humanists are evolutopnists and rley on it as a mean to provide for them a world Minus the supernatural.}-Zarove

Many of the above, of course, could be broken down into various religious sub-groups, all believing in evolution.

{No, they cant. many Hindus dont even accept he Earht is Not the Centre of the Universe... Only Humanism even coems close ot beign base don eovlution.}-Zarove

I am not claiming that all these are based on *modern Darwinism,* for some of them antedate Charles Darwin. Never-the-less, those are all anti-creationist evolutionary religions, and have generally adapted easily to modern "evolution science."

{hinduism is anti-Creationist? Im sorry but no, its not...}-Zarove

The basic criterion of evolutionism is the rejection of the need for a personal transcendent Creator who *supernaturally* called the space- time universe into existence out of nothing but His own Omnipotence.

{Which precludes Shinto, Hinduism, and many others you listed...}- Zarove

Most of the above religions regard the universe itself as eternal, constituting the only ultimate reality.

{ Buddhism says nothign is eternal... and Hinduism says only braham is...}-Zarove

Processes innate to the eternal space-time cosmos have supposedly developed the universe and its inhabitants into their present forms. These natural processes may, in many cases, be personified as various gods and goddesses, but they are really just the natural processes innate to the universe itself. Theistic evolutionists are walking a slippery slope when they match themselves this closely to such atheistic philosophy where the need for God or a Creator is just one step away from being necessary.

{Nope. Many of the adherants of the faiths youmentioend are eithe rtheostic evolutionsists or not at all evolutionists... you clealry dont knwo hat the religikns themselves teach.}-Zarove

In some cases, the cosmos itself may be regarded as living and intelligent, giving rise not only to animals and people but also to *spirits* who inhabit it. All of these concepts are evolutionary concepts, since none of the components or inhabitants of the universe are accepted as the products of fiat creation by an eternal Creator.

{Yes they can. In Pantheism God is te universe, he makes thigns of himself...}-Zarove

The very existence of such a Creator is either denied or incorporated into the Cosmos itself.

{The latter, never the former...and only by some...}-Zarove

The religions listed above are all extant religions, but the same discussion could apply to all the ancient pagan religions as well, all of which were essentially various forms of pantheism, and none of which were based on creation.

{No, the ansinct Pagasn wherent pantheisgic... they whre polyhteistic and beeived the gods came abotu through natural proccesseds, this is ture, but tis not a form of Pantheism.}-Zarove

Many of them (Epicurianism, Atomism, Stoicism, Gnosticism, Pre- Confucian Chinese religions and many others)had cosmogonies quite similar to modern scientific evolutionary cosmogonies. Most of them incorporated astrology, spiritism, and idolatry into their systems as well.

{Last lien wa siunnessisary, and other than assertign this , care to elaborate?}-Zarove

Thus, evolution is surely a religion, in every sense of the word.

{weven if we beelive yu fo a moent that all these rleigiosn are based on evolution, this dosn tmake th ocncept opf evolution tisself rleigious. Any more than the concept of helping oen another is reliigous jts because it is a centrla aim of Christyainity. One can be irreligiosu and help other people.

Just being the basis of a religion doesnt make a concept innately rleigious, saying this is a logical fallacy.}-Zarove

It is a world-view, a philosophy of life and meaning, an attempt to explain thre origin and developement of everything, from elements to galaxies to people, without the necessity of an omnipotent, personal, transcendent Creator.

{Wxcept most of those on the list don even attmeot to eliminate a personal creator!}-Zarove

It is the basicphilosophy of almost all religions (except for the few momotheistic religions), both ancient and modern. It is absurd for evolutionists to insist, as they often do, that evolution is a science and creation is religious.

{ Again, even assumign you are right and all these religiosn are base don evlution it doesnt mean evolution is a religion becuase religions are base don it. All rlgiosn are based on relationship tot he real world and others too, but relationhsip tot he real world and with each other arent religious concepts per sey...}-Zarove

What they really mean is that evolution is naturalistic and they arbitrarily define science as *naturalism,* instead of retaining the original meaning which is *knowledge* or truth.

{No, what they mean is acutal icnetisist do actual work in the field of actual sicnece , this is what makes it a sicnece. Its nto just blidnly beleived...Granted soem do just blidnly beelive it, but many dont.The evidence of evolutionary theory is what leads to it, NOT religious conviction...}-Zarove

However, to insist arbitrarily that the origin and developement of everything must be explained naturalistically begs the whole question and amountsd to nothing but atheism.

{Your right. And only ahtists insist upon it. Not all evlutionsusts are atists though...}-Zarove

Not all evolutionists are atheists--of course--but evolution itself is atheism, essentially be definition, since it purports to explain everything in the universe without God.

{No, evolution attemts to expolain hanges in Gods creaiton over time, it does not try to eliminate God , and is not in and of isself atheistic...}-Zarove

Atheism is also religious in essence because it must be accepted solely on faith--for it is completely impossible to prove that God does not exist.

{Yes, Atheistm is considered a religion...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

Fourth grade..Hmm?

What other choice did you have?

You were indoctrinated early on., Elpidio. I wasn't worked on until at least 7th grade.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

Seems like they did quite a number on you, Faith/TT. There is still time to have a look at Evolution. (...and a re-look at those faith systems you've just butchered.)

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

Neither evolution or creation can be proven scientifically as admitted in a forward of the very book Darwin wrote. In a 1971 edition of Darwin's Original SpeciesMatthews writes:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory--is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to the belief in special creation-- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

In Science, not faith, we look at the constructs. Those contructs are based on evidence, not faith. But, even faith has its measure of evidence. One may choose to remain blindly faithful, but to do so in Science would be ignorant, not faithful.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

Before we can possibly even debate such a subject--we must all come to terms with just what is Creation Science?

To make the claim that evolution is based in science while creation is based in faith is a self-serving evolutionary pretense!

Both evolution and creation are properly called scientific models, since they can both be used to explain and predict scientific facts. The one that does the best job of doing this is probably the better scientific model--though that does not prove it to be true.

The *facts* may be true facts, and thus real science, but the explanation of those facts is what we are debating.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

"Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to the belief in special creation-- both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. "--Faith/TT.

Oxymoron? If it cannot be proven, why would a believer consider it to be the truth?

This is when FAITH(I'm not talking about our wonderful poster, Faith) makes things possible for us mortals to understand what is earthly impossible to prove. I tried to tell Max this.

Atheists stopped their belief in God because they could not find evidence in Him by studying His creation. (Another Catch-22). They could not find "proof" of His existence in Creation, proof of His existence.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

Does Creation-Science use biology as one of their constructs? I'd be willing to wager that they do. Why? It is all around us and difficult to ignore.

Much like evolution, I'd say.

Remember, I subcribe to both schools of thought--Creationism and Evolution. They can both harmonize quite well.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

Evolution is not a "view of life" any more than DNA synthesis is. It is simply a natural process which can be studied by anyone who is interested in it, regardless of that person's religious beliefs or lack thereof. The absurdity of the statement which comprises the title of this thread is immediately obvious when you consider that - (1) virtually all real scientists accept biological evolution as a reality; and (2) the majority of those scientists, like the majority of the general population, believe in God! Therefore any proposed connection between biological evolution and atheism is ridiculous on the face of it.

Sure, the scientist who first laid out the basic principles of this branch of biological science was an atheist. So what? An atheistic heart surgeon can do heart surgery just as well as a theistic heart surgeon. An atheistic musical composer can compose as well as a theistic one. And an atheistic scientist can collect and analyse scientific data just as well as a theistic one. Is psychology "atheistic" because Sigmund Freud was? Is biochemistry "atheistic" because Linus Pauling was? Is astrophysics "atheistic" because Carl Sagan was?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 17, 2004.

Yes, because we all know Carl sagan is the ofunder and director of Astorphysics, threfore one must be an ahteist to stidy it and thereofre it is wrong! ( Yes bad joke...)

AS FOR FAITH!

Please, if you want to discuss how Creation sicnece is real sicnec,e then show sicntific ecvidence!NOT assertions that evlution is religion...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

The problem with faith and many christian fundamentalists is that they believe somehow Yahweh wrote Genesis. There is no other explanation.

Once they realize the books from our Bible were written by humans like us, they she will understand.

Ancient people had to expain the origin of the universe and humanity. Clay does not become flesh right away, faith. No scientist has yet converted clay into flesh. Humans are the product of several chemical elements.

So Adam wasn't created from clay neither was Eve developed from a rib. What the rib represents is the closeness between men and women (in sexual intercourse,...).

How can you expain faith that dinosaurs existed,...and so many other forms in the last 7,000 years? You can't.

Radiocarbon tests are reliable as far as 30,000 years. This means, Earth is older than 7000 years!!!

It took 1 day according to Genesis for God to make all animals. Yet it took him 1 day to make the universe? Be serious!!!

Genesis first 10 chapters are not scientific!!!

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

PS: Paul M. is right about on case: most scientific work has been done by believers, not Atheists, faith!!! The only Atheist was Karl Marx, but his theories were for economics!!!!

-- The Christian Yahwist (egonval@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

Paul,

Why can't you recognize that the theory of evolution is not the science itself--but is one explanation of the existing scientific evidence?

Creation explains the same evidence even better and can therefore be the better scientific explanation of the very same evidence.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

And evolution is not merely an explanation void of philosophy-- therefore your analogy about it not being an atheistic view just because the founder was atheistic--is moot.

Before any real debate about the issues of the evolution/creation battle which is going on in the world--one needs to come to an understanding of just What is Creation Science? There is clearly (just based on the responses I see here) a huge lack of understanding.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

Why can't you recognize that the theory of evolution is not the science itself--but is one explanation of the existing scientific evidence?

{This is recognised and accepted.The torible is there are no real alternatives proposed by seriosu sicentists... you havent even proposed nay serious alternatives, just said Creationism is vlaid and evouiton not...no sicnece about that...}-Zarove

Creation explains the same evidence even better and can therefore be the better scientific explanation of the very same evidence.

{You keep sayign this faith, but you lack credibility sine you don bakc the statement up. HOW does it explain the set of evidence better?}-Zarove

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

{Maybe vbecause its not been demonstrated ot be true? Repeatign the charge is not proving it...}-Zarove

And evolution is not merely an explanation void of philosophy-- therefore your analogy about it not being an atheistic view just because the founder was atheistic--is moot.

{Wrong. evolution is void of Philosophy. its a theoretical biological proccess, that is independant of any spaficfic philosophy, and if true works regardless of the world veiw one incorporates into ones mind.}-Zarove

Before any real debate about the issues of the evolution/creation battle which is going on in the world--one needs to come to an understanding of just What is Creation Science? There is clearly (just based on the responses I see here) a huge lack of understanding.

{Then illustrate what it is without repeatign the charges that evolution is a religiosu faith and creaitonism is a better explanatiof ro the Data. Show the data and eplain why creationism is a bette roption.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

Well Zarove,

How about if I repost the point I posted on the other thread, that you ignored?

For example Zarove,

All communities, metallurgy, ceramics, construction, written language, and so on--appeared at essentially the same time, only several thousand years ago, probably in the Middle East. There is an abundance of archaeological evidence to this effect. It is annomalous that evolutionists believe man's physical body evolved more than a million years ago, and yet also believe--due to the evidence--that man began to *evolve culturally* only several thousand years ago.

Furthermore, human populations also conform to a recent origin. If the world's initial population was only one man and one woman, and the population then began to increase geometrically (which was Darwin's approach to population studies) at a rate of only 2% per year (which is the present world-wide rate), it would take about 1,100 years to attain the present world population.

If man has been on the earth a million years as evolutionists claim-- or even for only 30,000 years as Paul M. claims--then untold trillions of men and women must have lived and died on the earth. Where is the evidence of that? Where are their bones???

Simply calculating the population make old age theory look rather silly.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

Well Zarove, How about if I repost the point I posted on the other thread, that you ignored?

{iIGNORE LITTLE...}-Zarove

For example Zarove,

All communities, metallurgy, ceramics, construction, written language, and so on--appeared at essentially the same time, only several thousand years ago, probably in the Middle East.

{No, tis is not quiet true. we see basic Human development of tools asearly as the Ice Age, where evidence of skins used for clothing and spears are found... and generlaly in europe, not hte middle east...}- Zarove

There is an abundance of archaeological evidence to this effect. It is annomalous that evolutionists believe man's physical body evolved more than a million years ago, and yet also believe--due to the evidence--that man began to *evolve culturally* only several thousand years ago.

{It is beelived that agecutlrue played a part in this, and the cltural evolutoon only begins atagrecultural development. before this mankind was a wonderign nomad... but we doi have tools and such before hten. However, advancement of said tools woidl be expected as slow until stable comunities formed, because how can you mine metal to mke metalwork if you are lways moving baout?}-Zarove

Furthermore, human populations also conform to a recent origin. If the world's initial population was only one man and one woman, and the population then began to increase geometrically (which was Darwin's approach to population studies) at a rate of only 2% per year (which is the present world-wide rate), it would take about 1,100 years to attain the present world population.

{Yet creationists make th owrld olcer by claimign 7000 years, even with Noahs flood we shodiuo be at leat three times this in population. Alo, darwin wasnt always right, what about Modern statistical ratios?}-Zarove

If man has been on the earth a million years as evolutionists claim-- or even for only 30,000 years as Paul M. claims--then untold trillions of men and women must have lived and died on the earth. Where is the evidence of that? Where are their bones???

{Many skeletons are found. but bee,ive it or not, not all those trillions woidl nessisarily be foudn even if they where born. see, bine can also decay, ab even soem skeletons les than 3 centuries old decay and ar eno more.

also, the populaton doesnt increase steaduly, whole communal populatiosn coudl also be wiped outg, by plauge or natural disaster or war, and low birthrates due to lack of prodctive sex betsween fertile males and females, can also stay the results...}-Zarove

Simply calculating the population make old age theory look rather silly.

{Not relaly. not if one uses real icece anyway, and not pseudosience...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

It is a chore to understand your posts Zarove--but if I understand you correctly, all you have done is said, "Not so"...and then parroted all those tired old evolutionary claims. But where is your proof? I am pretty sure that my sources are reliable when it comes to the statistics and unrefuted universal evidence that does exist. As far as we can tell., civilization didn't start recording anything or making anything until within the last several thousand years ago or so.

All communities, metallurgy, ceramics, construction, written language, and so on--appeared at essentially the same time, only several thousand years ago, probably in the Middle East. There is an abundance of archaeological evidence to this effect.

To claim that things date back to the iceage--when the very timing of this iceage is even an unprovable *question* sort of just puts us back at the begining.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

And this Zarove:

{This is recognised and accepted.The torible is there are no real alternatives proposed by seriosu sicentists... you havent even proposed nay serious alternatives, just said Creationism is vlaid and evouiton not...no sicnece about that...}-Zarove

There are plenty of serious scientists who have proposed serious alternatives. That is what the creation vs. evolution debate is all about. Just because you are unaware of these scientific explanations- for creation--doesn't mean anything more than that maybe you should read about it.

I am not about to retype the entire book that I have recommended-- especially not where it becomes to scientific and complicated for me to get into--but it's out there. Fortunately, people are starting to sit up and take notice. Many states are begining to see the light : )

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

yOU WANT MY EVIDENCE? yOU HAVNT EVEN SHOWN YOURS. aLL YOU DO IS PARROT CREATIONISTS!

Mine isnt so much parrotign as refuting. If you check any ebsite form anu Univeristy, it will tell you the same thign. we have carved spears, skins, and other tools datign back to 30'000 to 75'000 years...

So the tehcnological advance was there, btu slow. what helped it increase momentum was the advent of Agraculture, which was discovered soem 30'000 years ago.

Before you say this is alughable, consider that mist fo the tehcnological progreess in Human hisotry started inmt he 19th century and skyrocketed in the 20th... there can be cslow times fllowed by times o rapid increase you know...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

SUDDEN Means...

Exodus 20:9-11 was not just inspired by God but inscribed by Him. If you want something carved in stone —this is it! God wrote these words Himself, (the 10 commandments) with His finger on stone tablets. They were carried in the ark of the covenant, kept in the holy of holies and enforced with the death penalty. These, God's words, were not trivial for Israelites nor should they be for us. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh is a Sabbath; [...] in it you shall not do any work [...] For, in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

If, as the plain meaning of these words requires, "six" means 6, and "days" mean days, and "all" means all, then God, who cannot lie, is saying He made everything in 6 earth-rotations. God Himself had defined His term "day" when He separated night from day by His rotating earth.

And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Gen 1:5).

If God created anything outside those six days then He was moonlighting. If an Israelite did this, he was put to death.

(Ex.31:12-18) What kind of god could enforce a model that He himself had violated? Every parent knows the dishonesty and disaster in setting a bad example.

If creation days were long periods, then how long were Israelites supposed to work... for 6000 years, then rest for 1000? Ridiculous!

If God's days were not literal days, then we and the Israelites could interpret His days as weeks, months, eons or anything we like. But it was the plain meaning of this text that was enforced with the death penalty. FINISHED Means...

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Gen 1:31 -2:2) This text underscores with repetition the completion of God's special creation work. His evaluation: "everything was very good," after He stopped His special work, meant that His perfect achievement revealed a perfect God. Nothing evil, like the "enemy" death, was present.

RECENT Means...

The genealogies of Genesis 5, 10 and 11 are just as inspired and inerrant as the rest of Scripture and occupy more pages in Genesis than the creation account. Although these precise Biblical calendars are ridiculed by skeptics, no other ancient records have earned as much trust from archaeologists.

They record only a few thousand years from Adam to Abraham.

Arguments over "difficulties" in genealogies cannot stretch thousands of years into millions, but serve only to undermine the authority and integrity of these vital Scriptures.

PERFECT Means...

Aside from the fact that a perfect Creator couldn't create anything less than a perfect cosmos without denying Himself, those who trust their Bible for the truth of their destiny can also trust it for the truth of their origin.

To receive the salvation of the Bible they must accept that man fell from original perfection. That fall now causes us to be born in sin and in the helpless state where we need a Savior. Original sin in Eden was the cause of death, decay, disease and destruction. That intruder is what we are saved from. Salvation will return us to our original created state not to some new alien form.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

T^his is laughable Zarove:

Before you say this is alughable, consider that mist fo the tehcnological progreess in Human hisotry started inmt he 19th century and skyrocketed in the 20th... there can be cslow times fllowed by times o rapid increase you know...

So you believe that for thirty thousand years--man had no cultural advancement--and than all of a sudden, just recently, we advanced and tripled and quadrupled that advancement faster than we can even keep up with ourselves?

So for twenty-five thousand years--we sat around scratching our hairy asses and eating bananas? No advancement, no culture, no records, nothing???

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

SUDDEN Means... Exodus 20:9-11 was not just inspired by God but inscribed by Him. If you want something carved in stone —this is it! God wrote these words Himself, (the 10 commandments) with His finger on stone tablets. They were carried in the ark of the covenant, kept in the holy of holies and enforced with the death penalty. These, God's words, were not trivial for Israelites nor should they be for us. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh is a Sabbath; [...] in it you shall not do any work [...] For, in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.

If, as the plain meaning of these words requires, "six" means 6, and "days" mean days, and "all" means all, then God, who cannot lie, is saying He made everything in 6 earth-rotations. God Himself had defined His term "day" when He separated night from day by His rotating earth.

{ROTATIGN as opposed to ehat? thee was ni sun at the time...relaly this doesnt PRIVE anythign,e xcept God protioned a week for us to work in an a day or rest, in commemoraiton of this event, which can still extend to a more symbolic and practical vlaue, rathr than tryign to stress it as a literal 24 hour day in Genesis...}-Zarove

And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Gen 1:5).

{Or. "evening was, so was Mroning.Yom. " this is a more correct but harder to undertsnd hebrew trsnslation. Tom can mean day, or portion fo time, or age... its not relaly specified...}-Zarove

If God created anything outside those six days then He was moonlighting. If an Israelite did this, he was put to death.

{ No, siunce Israel ddnt exist at the time of creaiton, only if he worked ont he sabbath...}-Zarove

(Ex.31:12-18) What kind of god could enforce a model that He himself had violated? Every parent knows the dishonesty and disaster in setting a bad example.

If creation days were long periods, then how long were Israelites supposed to work... for 6000 years, then rest for 1000? Ridiculous!

{Yes, thats why the protiosn of time where reduced to human level of ability... the 6 days in the comandmens wher eliteral, real days, in the Genesis accoint they where much longer.}-Zarove

If God's days were not literal days, then we and the Israelites could interpret His days as weeks, months, eons or anything we like. But it was the plain meaning of this text that was enforced with the death penalty.

{There is a difference between the 10 commandments and the Genesis acoutn though... and relalythi sint sicneed any more is it... why dot you show the scientiic evidence hat supports creation?}-Zarove

FINISHED Means...

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Gen 1:31 -2:2) This text underscores with repetition the completion of God's special creation work. His evaluation: "everything was very good," after He stopped His special work, meant that His perfect achievement revealed a perfect God. Nothing evil, like the "enemy" death, was present.

{The reason for he poetry in geensis is to link it to the Hebrew work week, however, this doesnt mean the days in Genesis where the same as the dyas o the week...}-Zarove

RECENT Means...

The genealogies of Genesis 5, 10 and 11 are just as inspired and inerrant as the rest of Scripture and occupy more pages in Genesis than the creation account. Although these precise Biblical calendars are ridiculed by skeptics, no other ancient records have earned as much trust from archaeologists.

{Didnt zI tell you that its just the creaiton acocint we are dealign with? why is ig you assume that we are tryign to disprive the other hcapters, such as 4-11, when no mention is even made of them except by you?}-Zarove

They record only a few thousand years from Adam to Abraham.

{But so? Adam himself may have been livin more recently, that still proves nohting.}-Zarove

Arguments over "difficulties" in genealogies cannot stretch thousands of years into millions, but serve only to undermine the authority and integrity of these vital Scriptures.

{No one challened the geneologies.}-Zarove

PERFECT Means...

Aside from the fact that a perfect Creator couldn't create anything less than a perfect cosmos without denying Himself, those who trust their Bible for the truth of their destiny can also trust it for the truth of their origin.

{But this doesntmean your interpreaton fo the text is accurate, nor does it proiviude scientific proof of creationism, which I spacificlaly asked for.}-Zarove

To receive the salvation of the Bible they must accept that man fell from original perfection. That fall now causes us to be born in sin and in the helpless state where we need a Savior.

{Mist here accept this, but we just think evolution also may have happeend befe this...}-Zarove

Original sin in Eden was the cause of death, decay, disease and destruction. That intruder is what we are saved from. Salvation will return us to our original created state not to some new alien form.

{Wrong. No wher ein scirpture does it sta=y Adam and eve wher eimmortal befoe the fall. Not one place. and I have aked this before. i also ask ou to prove that Creaitonism is more sicnific than eovlution, you cant.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

T^his is laughable Zarove: Before you say this is alughable, consider that mist fo the tehcnological progreess in Human hisotry started inmt he 19th century and skyrocketed in the 20th... there can be cslow times fllowed by times o rapid increase you know...

So you believe that for thirty thousand years--man had no cultural advancement--and than all of a sudden, just recently, we advanced and tripled and quadrupled that advancement faster than we can even keep up with ourselves?

{No, I beelive we trippled and wuafrupled our advancedment i the last 200 years, and some periods of Human development is was much, much slower, so slow that advanement either didnt happen for generations, or else happeend at a crawl pace. I dont think the ancient hisotry os static, but come on! After the fall fo the roman empire we had a stagnation of technologiucal development! almist none for hundreds of years! Before that many periods of egyptian hisory are of static cultrual and tehcnological development. what Im saying is that soem periods of History had deelopment faster than other periods...and this much is proven in records datign back at leat 3000 years.}-Zarove

So for twenty-five thousand years--we sat around scratching our hairy asses and eating bananas? No advancement, no culture, no records, nothing???

{Nt exaclty, slow advancement, soemtimes none, and soemtiems some, until agragulture was invented which made progress eaiser to attain and keep...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

Oh please Zarove--think about it! 25,000 of no cultural acheivement what-so-ever?? No evidence has been found to date man back more than a few thousand years...That 25,000 years and trillions of people could have lived and left nothing requires far too much faith for even this girl to believe : (

And you keep asking for examples of Creation Science when I have given you some already and all you do is dismis it with your theories that are every bit as unprovable as mine.

What about the fossil eveidence? If evolution were true-our fossil records should be replete with examples of transitional forms. But there are none. That is consistent with what the creation model would predict. The creation model predicts that fossils of every living creature should appear suddenly and fully formed--and that is exactly what we do find in the fossil record. The fossil record also supports a world-wide flood. It supports the idea that these fossils were made by one major catastrophic event--and that the fossils did not occur over long periods of time.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 17, 2004.

Oh please Zarove--think about it! 25,000 of no cultural acheivement what-so-ever??

{Since I idnt say none whatsoever occured, this is fallaceous. However, for culture to relaly take root, a stable society must be established, which is why agrecultural societies preserved these trends better than nomadic ones. Heck, there are even nomadic herers todya in mongolia, who live essentially the same ay thatthe ancient pre-agreculturals lived, and havde for centuries...}-Zarove

No evidence has been found to date man back more than a few thousand years...

{Im sorry, btu this si false. we have boht fossil remains and artifacts from several thousand yers ago...}-Zarove

That 25,000 years and trillions of people could have lived and left nothing requires far too much faith for even this girl to believe : (

{except you overlook several facts. One of hwihc is tos tirllions hsoil be fewer in number, your stats are way off. The reality is that only several hundred million woidl ahve liced and died before agreultural society developed. not trillions. the geometric system you are using is corrupt. Likewise they did leave traces... as the fossil record clealry indocates.}-Zarove

And you keep asking for examples of Creation Science when I have given you some already and all you do is dismis it with your theories that are every bit as unprovable as mine.

{Mine arent theories, and yors is laighable, thats why its dismissed. I mean, hwo do you knwo trilliosn woudl live? what ARE the measurements you af using? where do these stats come form? Can I rechart them and come to similar or identical results? The aneer is no. only a few hundred million woidl have been alive at any fgiven time, not trillions. Likewise, we find fossil remains of Humans datign back to befoe 7000 years ago, and fossil tools, and yes, even advancement in said tools...How can I dismiss this based on yuor aseertions?}-Zarove

What about the fossil eveidence?

{Thats what I have been speakign of and you ignroe...}-Zarove

If evolution were true-our fossil records should be replete with examples of transitional forms.

{Not nessisarily. In addition tot he oncompelte natue of the fossil record and the limited number of specimens ever relaly fossilised, and the countles speicies never fossilised, this si false. Likewise, consider for a moment that you assume evolutioj is a constant and slow proccess, and you relis the limits of this discussion. Punctuated Equilibrium i another theory, which precludes many transitional forms...}-Zarove

But there are none.

{Archeoptyrix. Australopythicus. Sinoornis. Eoraptor. Euthesilia. srry, there are several, these to name a few...}-Zarove

That is consistent with what the creation model would predict.

{If you ignore the transitional forms, and all known theories of evolution except darwinian, and pretend the contradictory Data dosnt exist, then yes... sadly, we have found transitionma forms, and the lack of others isnt relaly disheartenign to evolutionary theiry...}- Zarove

The creation model predicts that fossils of every living creature should appear suddenly and fully formed--and that is exactly what we do find in the fossil record.

{No, its not. we DO find transitional forms. And the other odd thing is we find evidence that tranitions happened at diffedrnt times, and evolution was not nessisrily a slow and ongoign proccess. We also find hat evlution fts the transitional foms we do find. Likewise, since certasin types of animals ae found in certain levels of sedement with no remais of others, we conclude the others wherent aroudn when they died. IE, we neve find sauropods with Horses. We never find dogs with Allosaurs. And we never find Humans with Velociraptors. See where im headed?}-Zarove

The fossil record also supports a world-wide flood.

{No, it doesnt. Since the flood woidl not leave a fossil trail... it was too short an event... only thigns emideatley killed would... but thi is evidence at the end of the last Ice Age of a flood that covered large parts of europe, the Middle east submerged compleley, and parts of Africa, thsu lendign credence otthe flood.}-Zarove

It supports the idea that these fossils were made by one major catastrophic event--and that the fossils did not occur over long periods of time.

{No, it doesnt. I mean relaly, the flood didnt create hte fossil rcord unles sit uniformly laid down soem creatures while layign another type wuth essentiallyt he same mass aove it several thousand feet, which is absurd.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

Oh and I may open a thread for the sicnece aspects...maybe...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 17, 2004.

"All-praise to the unity of God, and all-honor to Him, the sovereign Lord, the incomparable and all-glorious Ruler of the universe, Who, out of utter nothingness, hath created the reality of all things, Who, from naught, hath brought into being the most refined and subtle elements of His creation, and Who, rescuing His creatures from the abasement of remoteness and the perils of ultimate extinction, hath received them into His kingdom of incorruptible glory. Nothing short of His all-encompassing grace, His all-pervading mercy, could have possibly achieved it."

Ummm... that's hardly an atheistic stance by the Baha'i Faith. If you can mess up that simple bit of information (the fact that Baha'i are Creationists) what else have you overlooked in your studies?

-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), November 18, 2004.

The Flood was global as the evidence reveals when you look at it with the right mind-set!

What evidence would one expect from a global watery cataclysm that drowned the animals, birds and people not on the Ark? All around the world, in rock layer after rock layer, we find billions of dead things that have been buried in water-carried mud and sand. Their state of preservation frequently tells of rapid burial and fossilization, just like one would expect in such a flood.

Fossil ‘graveyards’ around the world, where the bones of many animals were washed together, buried, and fossilized, are evidence for a watery cataclysm like Noah's flood.

There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, one after the other, without significant time breaks between them. Preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation. Polystrate fossils (ones which traverse many strata) speak of very quick deposition of the strata. The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession.

The radical deformation of thick layers of sediment without evidence of cracking or melting also shows how all the layers must have been still soft when they were bent. Dykes (walls) and pipes (cylinders) of sandstone which connect with the same material many layers beneath show that the layers beneath must have been still soft, and contained much water. That the sandstone could be squeezed up through cracks above to form the ‘clastic’ dykes and pipes, again shows rapid deposition of many strata.

The worldwide distribution of many geological features and rock types is also consistent with a global Flood. The Morrison Formation is a layer of sedimentary rock that extends from Texas to Canada, clearly showing the fallacy of the still popular belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’—there are no processes occurring on Earth today that are laying down such large areas of sedimentary layers. In reality, God’s revelation about the past is the key to understanding the present.

The limited geographic extent of unconformities (clear breaks in the sequence of deposition with different tilting of layers, etc.) is also consistent with the reality of the global Flood. And there are many other evidences for the Flood.

A universal worldwide, globe-covering Flood is clearly taught by the Bible. The only reasons for thinking the Flood was otherwise come from outside the Bible. When we use the framework provided by the Bible we find that the physical evidence from the rocks and fossils beautifully fits what the Bible says.

Furthermore, the realization of the reality of God’s judgment by the Flood in the past should warn us of the reality of the judgment to come—judgment by fire—and stimulate us to be ready for that judgment (2 Peter 3:3–13). Those who are not ‘in Christ’ will suffer the wrath of God (John 3:36).

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 18, 2004.

The Flood was global as the evidence reveals when you look at it with the right mind-set!

{Al I said was that the evidence for a flood was valid, because we have seen eidence...in the Middle East, Africa, and europe.}-Zarove

What evidence would one expect from a global watery cataclysm that drowned the animals, birds and people not on the Ark? All around the world, in rock layer after rock layer, we find billions of dead things that have been buried in water-carried mud and sand. Their state of preservation frequently tells of rapid burial and fossilization, just like one would expect in such a flood.

{But at diferent levels. Again wenever find Horses with Sauropods... if they all got drown in the global flood as you assert, why woidl the bodies be randomly burried with at leats soem speciments of Horse with sauropods? Or allosaurs with grizzley bears? why do they only occure in different strata but of the ame location? shoudltn they have been burried togather???}-Zarove

Fossil ‘graveyards’ around the world, where the bones of many animals were washed together, buried, and fossilized, are evidence for a watery cataclysm like Noah's flood.

{No, because you have to exlain why soem types where burried deeper than others...and never cross-pollenated...}-Zarove

There is abundant evidence that many of the rock strata were laid down quickly, one after the other, without significant time breaks between them.

{what evidence?}-Zarove

Preservation of animal tracks, ripple marks and even raindrop marks, testifies to rapid covering of these features to enable their preservation.

{Yes, but each oen coidl have been preseerved in isolation. even creationists know this and dont claim all fossils are form the flood...}-Zarove

Polystrate fossils (ones which traverse many strata) speak of very quick deposition of the strata.

{Or of longevity of a speicies... ahgain, why no Horses with Sauropods, and no grizzley bers with allosaurs? Not een in the same strata? why did the flood burry Compsognathus deeper than ait woidl have a chicken, even though they shared rouhgly the same mass and lived in roughly the same area?}-Zarove

The scarcity of erosion, soil formation, animal burrows and roots between layers also shows they must have been deposited in quick succession.

{No hry dont... I mean you are tryign to convey a gelogical constant on a global scale that doesnt ecist.}-Zarove

The radical deformation of thick layers of sediment without evidence of cracking or melting also shows how all the layers must have been still soft when they were bent.

{Not nessisarily, but it woidl depend on hwich spacific formation you afre speakign of, since htye don all share cercumsances.}-Zarove

Dykes (walls) and pipes (cylinders) of sandstone which connect with the same material many layers beneath show that the layers beneath must have been still soft, and contained much water.

{where thouhg, WHERE? we cannot address this "evidence" unless we know exaclty what your on about.}-Zarove

That the sandstone could be squeezed up through cracks above to form the ‘clastic’ dykes and pipes, again shows rapid deposition of many strata.

{See above, I nee a spacific example. Not a vaue claim based on some strata soemwhere...}-Zarove

The worldwide distribution of many geological features and rock types is also consistent with a global Flood. The Morrison Formation is a layer of sedimentary rock that extends from Texas to Canada, clearly showing the fallacy of the still popular belief that ‘the present is the key to the past’—there are no processes occurring on Earth today that are laying down such large areas of sedimentary layers.

{Yes there is...it happens all the ime, especally atthe earths ocean floors, and if you check tou will see that most beleive that this region was submerged at the time... not durign hr flood, but durign the wole Jurrassic period, several million years...}-Zarove

In reality, God’s revelation about the past is the key to understanding the present.

{At lats this we agree on.After a fashion.}-Zarove

The limited geographic extent of unconformities (clear breaks in the sequence of deposition with different tilting of layers, etc.) is also consistent with the reality of the global Flood. And there are many other evidences for the Flood.

{Youve been too vauge to even consider any of this evidence...}-Zarove

A universal worldwide, globe-covering Flood is clearly taught by the Bible. The only reasons for thinking the Flood was otherwise come from outside the Bible.

{Why not relaly get back to the evolution discusion which we where actually tlakign about???}-Zarove

When we use the framework provided by the Bible we find that the physical evidence from the rocks and fossils beautifully fits what the Bible says.

{No, they dont, or rather, they don fit your vauge interpretaiton fowhat the Bibel says.}-Zarove

Furthermore, the realization of the reality of God’s judgment by the Flood in the past should warn us of the reality of the judgment to come—judgment by fire—and stimulate us to be ready for that judgment (2 Peter 3:3–13). Those who are not ‘in Christ’ will suffer the wrath of God (John 3:36).

{Very well and good but what does this relaly say tot he discussion of evolution?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

I was showing you how Creation Science works--and how we study the same earth and can come to very different conclusions. I was not talking specificalloy about evolution at al.., but Creation Science. It is a legitamate study of the evidence we have in the world. It is just as valid a hypothesis as is evolutionism, which tries to explain everything apart from God.

I can't prove these observations to mean what the Creation Scientist says they mean--any more than an evolutionist can prove their theory. But that is the whole point. This is why Creation Science has every bit as much a valid claim to the evidence as does the evolutionary study. Two different views about the origin of life and the continuinjg processes of life. Same earth and same evidence.

If you really want to know more detail about the things I have posted- -you'll have to get the book I recommended for starters, though there is so much study out there, you could find your answers in any number of well written books.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 18, 2004.

I was showing you how Creation Science works--and how we study the same earth and can come to very different conclusions. I was not talking specificalloy about evolution at al.., but Creation Science.

{But without spacific exampls, its useless.

Let me giv a ictioal example, and sho you the different..

"The sedement in the Yanan valley seems to hv setled rapidnly, as if delivered by a lo fo water, suddenrly, rathn than laid uniformly over time."

all you did was make vauge assertiosn that cant be checked since no facts are preasent.WHERE is any of this stuff?}-Zarove

It is a legitamate study of the evidence we have in the world.

{Not if you ar eany indication. im sorrty faiht but you have to show spacific examples, not vauge assertions. i cant speak about places I don even knwo about.}-Zarove

It is just as valid a hypothesis as is evolutionism, which tries to explain everything apart from God.

{Evolution doesnt try to expain everythign apart frm God. Hdeck, peopel here beleive in evolutionary theory that are Christain! Evolution is a Biological thery that explains decent wiht modification, NOT geological strata, and is NOT intrensiclaly athristic.}-Zarove

I can't prove these observations to mean what the Creation Scientist says they mean--any more than an evolutionist can prove their theory.

{Generally Geologists ( Not evolutioany Bilogists) interpret the data of geology, thats why its a seeprate sicnece. As for your evidnece, tis too vauge o be evidence, we woidl need to knwow hat your talkign abotu before it becomes anyhting more than vage assertion. You cant even prove what you said is true of the Geology that your theort isbased on, sicne you didnt provide any spaific geological regions for discussion.}-Zarove

But that is the whole point. This is why Creation Science has every bit as much a valid claim to the evidence as does the evolutionary study.

{Not if you are goign to leav eout the locations of what your talkign about when dealign with geology... I can claim several rivers seem to ahev shown up instantly rather than being etched over time, but withotu tellign you what rivers its not rely proof of anything.}- Zarove

Two different views about the origin of life and the continuinjg processes of life. Same earth and same evidence.

{But not the same approach, One is obkective, the other is base don beelif and rpconcieved notons... Creatonism is the latter.}-Zarove

If you really want to know more detail about the things I have posted- -you'll have to get the book I recommended for starters, though there is so much study out there, you could find your answers in any number of well written books.

{All I asked was spacific example of a geological region... you know, suhc as syaing "The andies" or "The alps" or soemthing...That way i can independantly cooberate things...}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

I'll open a new thread to discuss evolutionary biology, and only this...soon...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

"It is a legitamate study of the evidence we have in the world. It is just as valid a hypothesis as is evolutionism, which tries to explain everything apart from God"

A: Yes, evolutionary biology does indeed explain the development of species apart from God. And physiology explains digestion apart from God. And astronomy explains comets apart from God. And chemistry explains polymerization apart from God. And geology explains sedimentation apart from God. And oncology explains cancer apart from God. Because these are all categories of SCIENCE, and science explains only natural phenomena, and only in natural terms. God is supernatural, and as such is valid subject matter for theology and philosophy, but not for science. Which is precisely why creationism cannot be considered science in any sense of the term. The moment a scientist mentions God, regardless of how devout a believer he may personally be, he has left the realm of science and entered the realm of theology or the personal realm of his own religious beliefs. Studying a natural phenomenon in purely natural terms is not atheism. It doesn't make the subject matter "atheistic", and it doesn't make the investigator an atheist. It is simply good science.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2004.

Who ever defined science as "naturalism?" The word science, comes from the latin scientia, meaning "knowledge." To assume that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of naturalism is to beg the question altogether! Scientists are suppose to "search for the truth," wherever that search leads. It is at least possible that creation is the true explanation of origins (as the Bible describes) and it is thus both premature and bigoted for certain scientists to exclude Creation Science from the domain odf science by mere definition or because something supernatural may be the cause. I am surprised that you would object to opening the eyes of our students to the other possibilities out there that just as well explain the physical evidence we have to study.

Science is based on obsevation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order.. is there?

Furthermore, evolution cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory anymore than creation. Therefore if creation is excluded from science because it cannot be observed--then so should evolution be excluded for the same reason.

I think your biggest misunderstanding comes in the idea that you think creation science is a study of the Bible or of the Creator. But that is simply a common mistake.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 18, 2004.

But all I asked was that you show evidence for creaiton, which you have not... or at elats show, or stop claiming, that evolution is inherently Atheistic.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

"Who ever defined science as "naturalism?"

A: I don't know. Who did? Certainly not me. Naturalism is the philosophical position that all realities can be explained in natural terms. I am saying exactly the opposite - that many realities cannot be explained in natural terms, and that science is restricted to those realities that can be explained in natural terms.

> "The word science, comes from the latin scientia, meaning "knowledge." To assume that knowledge can be acquired solely on the basis of naturalism is to beg the question altogether!"

A: Yes, that is the root of the word. However, historians seek knowledge, but they are not scientists. Philosophers seek knowledge but they are not scientists. Artists and poets and judges and counselors and literature teachers and theologians all seek knowledge and truth, but they are not scientists. The kinds of knowledge sought through such professions cannot be discovered by scientific methodology, because it transcends the natural. And scientific realities cannot be discovered through the methods of these professions.

> "Scientists are suppose to "search for the truth," wherever that search leads."

A: Yes, provided they stay within the confines of the natural world. A scientist who attempts to apply the scientific method to angels or souls or salvation or sin or patriotism or charity or fidelity or faith or God is out of his realm of expertise, and wasting his time. Just like someone who tries to explain photosynthesis or digestion or magnetism or speciation from a theological perspective.

> "It is at least possible that creation is the true explanation of origins"

A: It is not just possible, it is a logical necessity! Creation IS initial origins by definition, and since science deals only with the natural, in time and space, the concept of a reality outside of time and space is not valid subject matter for science. Therefore the initial appearance of matter, energy, space and time where none of them previously existed lies outside the realm of the natural, and therefore outside the realm of science. Since intial origins could not have been natural, they were necessarily extra-natural, or as we prefer to describe it, supernatural.

> "it is thus both premature and bigoted for certain scientists to exclude Creation Science from the domain of science by mere definition or because something supernatural may be the cause."

A: Not so. That is exactly the reason that creationism is excluded from any serious scientific consideration. Not because scientists as people deny that creation occurred, but because scientists as scientists recognize that initian creation cannot be a natural event, and therefore is not a scientific consideration.

> "I am surprised that you would object to opening the eyes of our students to the other possibilities out there that just as well explain the physical evidence we have to study."

A: The explanation of scientific evidence lies with science, not thinly disguised theologies. If creationism is to be somehow inserted into science courses, then I assume you would also have no problem with your kid's biology teacher explaining the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ in strictly biological terms? Explaining in natural terms how Christ worked His miracles? Any science teacher who dared to speak of such supernatural realities under the guise of science should be fired.

> "Science is based on obsevation of facts and is directed at finding patterns of order in the observed data. There is nothing about true science that excludes the study of created objects and order.. is there?"

A: I have said from the start that science can investigate ONLY created objects and order, and then ONLY those created objects which are part of the natural realm!

> "Furthermore, evolution cannot be observed or tested in a scientific laboratory anymore than creation. Therefore if creation is excluded from science because it cannot be observed--then so should evolution be excluded for the same reason."

A: The actual process cannot be observed directly because of the time frame; but the preserved evidence of the process can be observed directly both in the field and in the laboratory, and can allow reasonable reconstruction of the events which produced the evidence. Just like forensic science which reconstructs crimes after the fact from preserved evidence. Creationism is not excluded from science courses because it cannot be observed. Atoms and radioactivity cannot be directly observed, but they are included. Creationism is excluded because it is not science!

> "I think your biggest misunderstanding comes in the idea that you think creation science is a study of the Bible or of the Creator. But that is simply a common mistake."

A: In fact, it is not a "study" of anything. It is a conclusion desperately seeking confirmation in all the wrong places.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2004.

Just because you don't agree with what I have said, doesn't mean I haven't shown what is meant by Creation Science. Asking me to prove it is somewhat funny--since we cannot prove either Creation or Evolution(in the macro-sense) to be the way in which life began or continues.

I have shown you how these two groups of scientists can evaluate the very same evidence in different ways.

The Evolutionist looks at the fossil record and concludes that these records occured over long periods of time--which fits their hypothetical about life. The Creationist looks at the same fossil evidence and sees a catastrophic event and instant fossilization, which fits in nicely with what the Bible has revealed about creation.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 18, 2004.

Paul,

It is clear to me that you have no idea just what Creation Science is.

And you fail to recognize that the Evolutionist has begun his study with a set of preconceived ideas as well., that he then tries to force the evidence to fit in with.

Neither theory can be considered a science. The science happens when we then study the evidence. Creation Scientists study the evidence in the same way that evolutionists do. They simply view the evidence differently.

Creation Scientists are not studying angels---Lol!!

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 18, 2004.

Just because you don't agree with what I have said, doesn't mean I haven't shown what is meant by Creation Science.

{The thread opens wiht the claim that evolutionary theory is intrinsiclaly atheistic, which was nto demonstrated, nor was any evidnec ein support of creation sicnece dedmonstrated.everyone alreayd knows what Creation sicnece is, we just dotn see any eviden htat its a real scnece.}-Zarove

Asking me to prove it is somewhat funny--since we cannot prove either Creation or Evolution(in the macro-sense) to be the way in which life began or continues.

{I asked you to site spacific exampels so I coidl independantly verify the claism you made. I mean,you claimed "Sedement looks like it bend while still flexable, thuss showign a yougn earth" r semthign liek this. well, what sedeent? Where?}-Zarove

I have shown you how these two groups of scientists can evaluate the very same evidence in different ways.

{No, you havent, sicne we dn knwo pacificlaly what you wher tlakign about!}-Zarove

The Evolutionist looks at the fossil record and concludes that these records occured over long periods of time--which fits their hypothetical about life. The Creationist looks at the same fossil evidence and sees a catastrophic event and instant fossilization, which fits in nicely with what the Bible has revealed about creation.

{But you claim th creatioist veiw fits the evidence BETTER than the evolutionsist veiw, which has NOT been demonstrated!}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@MJUNO.COM), November 18, 2004.

As I said let me open a new thread...

-- Zar (Z@Z.Z), November 18, 2004.

"And you fail to recognize that the Evolutionist has begun his study with a set of preconceived ideas as well., that he then tries to force the evidence to fit in with."

A: No, he hasn't. The idea of evolution would never even have materialized if there had not FIRST been observable evidence which led to it. Observations came first. Then interpretation of ALL observed evidence. Then formation of a theory which best explains ALL the observed evidence. That's science. The very opposite is reading and self-interpreting something in a non-scientific work like the Bible, then desperately searching for any tidbit of information, and ONLY those tidbits, which can be reinterpreted to support your already formed belief.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 18, 2004.

Your assertion sounds confused:

"Creation Scientists study the evidence in the same way that evolutionists do. "--Faith/TT.

You say that evolutionists have a preconceived agenda, which you claim is wrong making their theory false. Then, you equate Creation Scientists with Evolution Scientists; therefore, making Creation Scientists equally wrong. What exactly are you trying to say?

Is it your view that all theories are unprovable and false?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Wrong Paul,

No one has ever observed macro-evolution, which is the change of one *kind* of creature into another.

We all agree that macro-evolution is a fact...a varying within its own *kind* that is. And even that is not actually observable because it takes entirely too long when you compare it to one life-time. No one human being has ever observed evolution--he can just study the evidence of it.

So in actuallity, neither theory of evolution or creation is a true science. They are theories of how life may have begun..but they can not really qualify as a true science in the sense of the real meaning.

They are each more a philosophy. We study the earth to see which philosophy better fits the evidence. I believe creation is the better explanation of the evidence we have to work with.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

Oops.., make that *micro*--we all agree that micro-evolution is a fact.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

What are you trying to say, Faith?

"No one has ever observed macro-evolution, which is the change of one *kind* of creature into another. " Have you tried to find evidence that it has? Science is not in the business of proving something is not there. That something could have moved out of sight, so we can never say it doesn't exist.

" We all agree that [micro]-evolution is a fact...a varying within its own *kind* that is."

I thought evolution of something meant a "change" from the original, not a "varying" from the original.

" And even that is not actually observable because it takes entirely too long when you compare it to one life-time."

I read that some evolution does occur within our life-span of observability. I need to dig up that article.

" No one human being has ever observed evolution--he can just study the evidence of it."

Your statement leads me to believe that evolution is true if we can "just study the evidence of it". I see tire marks on my drive way, even when I've never parked my truch on it. I can reasonably and logically conclude that a vehicle was once parked on my driveway. The tire markings are very different and the dimensions are also different, yet I know that it was some sort of vehicle. That's evidence enough to formulate a hypothesis, later to become a theory. When I see the actual vehicle on my driveway, it will then be a proof.

" So in actuallity, neither theory of evolution or creation is a true science. "

Do you even believe that there is a Science?

"They are theories of how life may have begun..but they can not really qualify as a true science in the sense of the real meaning."

So, Genesis is also not a Science Textbook, yet you believe that it is TRUTH. You are, then, basing your truth on faith, not science. For you, there is no Science to be had.

" They are each more a philosophy. We study the earth to see which philosophy better fits the evidence. I believe creation is the better explanation of the evidence we have to work with."

Way back there, I made the same accusations about "philosophy". You now say what I say....hmmm. Interesting. So, how am I to assimilate any truth from your view if it is all based on "philosophy"--an open ended belief in temporary interpretations of arbitrary ideas based on distortions of rock formations found in some obscure cave or the wishful thoughts regarding unchanging creatures found in Scriptures?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Like I have said many times already, until everyone gets on the same page about just what is Creation Science?., it's just like I'm banging my head on a cement wall!!

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

It has more to do with evidence, then people will be on the same page.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

But, I don't think it is a "cement wall". I think it's a cave wall

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Faith cna no more show evidence for Creationism than she can uderstand why what she has shown isnt evidence... Because she lets the conclusion lead the research...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 19, 2004.

What you need to understand--somehow......some way--I'll eventually make it clear,

Is that the Creation Scientist has the same evidence that the evolutionist does. We have the earth. We have the fossils. We have the universe before us. We have the same bacteria...etc.

What separates us is in how we *view* the evidence we have. You don't have evidence of evolution. You have physical evidence that you theorize about. That is no different than what the Creationist does!

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

Creationists don't have to "theorize", in fact they cannot do so, because they have already formed their final conclusions before looking at the evidence. Any theory which doesn't support that conclusion is automatically wrong, and any evidence that doesn't support it is simply ignored. It takes an open mind to theorize.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 19, 2004.

Here's an example of how Creation Scientists view the same thing differently...from the book I keep recommending--*What is Creation Science? By Morris/Parker

Natural Selection

An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” In this sense, nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment— and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead,

a previously lost capability was reestablished, making it appear something evolved, a mutation reduced the binding ability, regulatory function, or transport capacity of certain proteins, a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more, or a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated. While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved and, in fact, some biological diversity was lost.

The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.