creationism or evolution

Jesus and Satan were having an on-going argument about who was better on
the computer.

They had been going at it for days, and frankly God was tired
of hearing all the bickering.

Finally fed up, God said, "THAT'S IT! I have had enough. I am going to set
up a test that will run for two hours, and from those results, I will
judge  who does the better job."

So Satan and Jesus sat down at the keyboards and typed away.

They moused.
They faxed.
They e-mailed.
They e-mailed with attachments.
They downloaded.
They did spreadsheets!
They wrote reports.
They created labels and cards.
They created charts and graphs.
They did some genealogy reports
They did every job known to man.
Jesus worked with heavenly efficiency and Satan was faster than hell.

Then, ten minutes before their time was up, lightning suddenly flashed
across the sky, thunder rolled, rain poured, and, of course, the power
went off..

Satan stared at his blank screen and screamed every curse word known in
the underworld.

Jesus just sighed.

Finally the electricity came back on, and each of them restarted their
computers. Satan started searching frantically, screaming:    " It's gone!
It's all GONE! "I lost everything when the power went out!"

Meanwhile, Jesus quietly started printing out all of his files from the
past two hours of work.

Satan observed this and became irate."Wait!" he screamed. "That's not
fair! He cheated! How come he has all
his work and I don't have any?"

God just shrugged and said,

JESUS SAVES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the devil comes
knocking at your door, simply say...  "Jesus, could you get that for me
please?"

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

> SOMEBODY'S RAISING THEIR KID RIGHT!
> One Nation, "Under God" .
>
> One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a classroom. The teacher was going
> to explain evolution to the children. The teacher asked a little boy: Tommy
> do you see the tree outside?
> TOMMY: Yes.
>
> TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
>
> TOMMY: Yes.
>
> TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
>
> TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later). Yes, I saw the sky.
>
> TEACHER: Did you see God up there?
>
> TOMMY: No.
>
> TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly
> he just doesn't exist.
>
> A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.
>
> The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy:
>
> LITTLE GIRL: TOMMY, do you see the tree outside?
>
> TOMMY: Yes.
>
> LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
>
> TOMMY: Yessssss!
>
> LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
>
> TOMMY: Yessssss!
>
> LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
>
> TOMMY: Yes
>
> LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?
>
> TOMMY: No
>
> LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she
> possibly may not even have one!
> > FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT" II CORINTHIANS 5:7

GODS HANDS...

Edited by God_is_Great - 14-Jun-2008 at 19:58

Hi deadkenny, the evidence for the theory of Intelligent Design is much the same as for the theory of Evolution. What I mean is scientists whether they be Intelligent Design scientists or Evolution scientists, both are looking at the same data, much of the time, but the interpretation is different. This will be apparent in the fossil record, though many Evolutionists admit there are problems in the FOSSIL RECORD as far as supporting the theory of Evolution. I will however offer points that the theory of Evolution is unable to simply address. That being a fact, the theory of Intelligent Design is a better model then the theory of Evolution.

Originally posted by deadkenny It seems to me that 99.9% of the argument in 'favour' of 'Creationism' is in fact only a 'refutation' of the Theory of Evolution.

This is not the case as far as the support for the theory of Intelligent Design is concerned. It may be you have that impression from discussions in our forum, but that is not the case. I have been making the points that I will bring to your attention, not only in this thread, but also in a thread I begun in AE Tavern to Modern Culture on the movie, Expelled, No Intelligent Allowed. I would urge you to read those posts, if you have the opportunity, as other important points to this topic that we are discussing are brought up as well, that may have not been brought up in this thread. I don't know if you had an opportunity to read my posts in this thread, as I began to participate on page 9 in this thread, but if you have, you will note I have made many of these points earlier. I am glad to be able to put them altogether for anyone's examination, I will be as concise as I can. With this said, let me First begin with the complexity of natural processes in "dead inanimate matter" that we observe in the universe. For example, the earth is at the necessary distance from the sun with the exact tilt to produce seasons and not burn up. Could the exact necessary distances be accounted by chance? Such exactness necessitates an Intelligent Designer. Second, lets note the complex processes that we see in nature in the natural processes of living organisms. For example, the complexity of the prompts in DNA are much more complex then the prompts in a programmed computer. No one would say that the computers we are using were programmed by "chance." Nor would someone say that a computer programmed its prompts itself. Thus the "complexity in nature points to a programmer" that is Intelligent. Next I will offer points that support the theory of Intelligent Design that are in agreement with scientific laws. Third, the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with the Law of Casuality. That law states every effect has a cause. Intelligent Design can supply the First Cause. This law has been empirically established, to the extent that this is taught in elementary schools. What better "first cause" then an Intelligent Designer? Something is postulated to be Eternal. Is Matter eternal or is an Intelligent Designer Eternal? As you can see the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this established law. Fourth, another law is the basic Law of Biology and that is Life comes from Life. This law also has been established by empirical investigation resulting from observation and experimentation. Thus again we can see that Intelligent Design can account for the necessary Pre-Existing Life that must account for the origin of subsequent Life. We are here! Thus the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with this scientific law. Fifth, the theory of Intelligent Design agrees with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As are observed, all changes in the universe are in the direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing randomness, or running down. For example, as we know the sun will one day, burn itself out! The energy will dissipate. That means the sun had a "beginning." Sixth, irreducible complexity exists. There are a number of Biochemical systems that are Irreducibly Complex. For example cilia that are used by organisms for movement is irreducibly complex, remove any part and the cilia cannot function. That means the cilia could not have "evolved" as it has to be complete to have any functional purpose. Seventh, the fossil record supports the theory of Intelligent Design as what we find is a lack of Transitional Forms in this Fossil Record. This admission is made by numerous Paleontologists. Here is a quotation to establish that fact, made earlier in this thread,

In 1972 paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this idea. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.

The theory of Intelligent Design would expect a lack of Transitional Fossils with little change in the Fossil Record. As we see the quotes of the above paleontologists, admit that transitional fossils are "virtually nonexistent in the fossil record." An Intelligent Design scientist would expect this in the FOSSIL RECORD. An Intelligent Design scientist would also expect to find "micro- evolutionary changes" in the Fossil Record as well. These of course are exactly the kind of changes that has been produced by humanity empirically, in selective breeding of dogs, cats, cows, horses, pigeons or guppies ect. Thus the condition of "stasis" in the Fossil Record supports the theory of Intelligent Design. As you can see, it is not necessary to establish support for the theory of Intelligent Design by using the the word Evolution. I can only think that it appears that way due to the direction that such discussions take. In addition deadkenny, let me conclude by pointing out that the theory of Intelligent Design is a better model then the theory of Evolution as it is in agreement with scientific laws and is therefore pro-science.


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 14-Jun-2008 at 21:17

King John need I point out your numerous contradictions, first go back several pages to answer what you have ignored, I am going to address other posts. Here is just one more you have not dealt with,

Originally posted by King John Yes it is true evolutionists debate on certain issues, just look at the four schools of thought outlined above. All evolutionists, however, agree on one major point, EVOLUTION HAPPENED. The issues of contention come in when we discuss how evolution happens, is it gradual, abrupt, uniform over time, etc.?

Here was my response to you at the time which of course you ignored.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc King John, I highlighted your above contradictory statement. Is not gradual or uniform the opposite of abrupt!??

All can read that this is another of your contradictions. All know the definitions of these words are contradictory. You cannot clean up the contradictions in the 4 theories of Evolution, King John. Your desperation, is the kind of desperation we see in religious people who BLINDLY follow their religion. You just ignored this point instead of dealing with it. I was too gracious to you and did not press you. Your problems arose when unlike what I have done, I answered your questions. I have asked you before why don't you answer my questions. Now it seems you are desperate.


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 14-Jun-2008 at 21:59

You post the same things in all your posts, they have been answered maybe not in the way that you would like but they have been answered. Just because I don't put a quote of what you said and then repond, doesn't mean that I have not responded. You go through your Intelligent Design talking points, that have nothing to do with the evidence, in every post. What you feel hasn't been answered ask again and I shall answer again. You have ignored a number of my posts, when will you answer them? In some of my posts that you have ignored I have answered what you claim I have not answered.

How is it a contradiction to say that the fossil evidence has produced a copious amount of evidence in support of evolution and is imperfect/not complete? Darwin said that the fossil record was incomplete. Completion has nothing to do with the fossil record's ability to produce evidence. Saying that the record is incomplete does not contradict the support of the fossil record, I cannot stress this enough. I have provided numerous example of evidence from the fossil record of transitional forms. Now you just are ignoring evidence. The fact of the matter is, Cuauhtemoc, that the incomplete fossil record supports the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is not just what has been proposed by Darwin, but all the other schools of evolutionary thought. Let's also not forget that the theory of evolution is not only represented by fossil evidence, it is also seen in DNA studies as well as empirical observations of living relative species. This is not a contradiction. If you want to talk about contradictions let's discuss Intelligent Design an the biological law that Life comes from Life. A metaphysical being gives life to all living things, well that being needs to possess life in order to give it, but since it is metaphysical it is supernatural and does not possess life. Ergo the supernatural, metaphysical being cannot imbue living things with life, since it is not alive. IT IS A CONTRADICTION TO SAY THAT LIFE COMES FROM LIFE BUT A METAPHYSICAL BEING GAVE THAT LIFE.

King John, again you exhibit the kind of desperation that we general apply to a religious person, who blindly believes their faith. If you answered this before, why are you discussing it again. All can go back and see you never answered me when I pointed this out to you. QUOTE were you have answered me? This a contradiction any way you want look at it, you simply cannot be explained away.

Originally posted by King John Yes it is true evolutionists debate on certain issues, just look at the four schools of thought outlined above. All evolutionists, however, agree on one major point, EVOLUTION HAPPENED. The issues of contention come in when we discuss how evolution happens, is it gradual, abrupt, uniform over time, etc.?

  I pointed out these words are contradictory, how or when did you answer me? Again here is my answer to you at the time.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc King John, I highlighted your above contradictory statement. Is not gradual or uniform the opposite of abrupt!??

When did u answer that? Post it. Whether you realize it or not your defense of the 4 theories of Evolution are contradictory. Maybe you do not understand what you were doing. In using those words, you were agreeing with me, as that is what I have been saying all along, and that is why I pointed out those words are contradictory. You cannot clean up the problems between the 4 theories of Evolution. By using those words, those words are the kind of words I would have used. Thus you were agreeing with me! I guess you do not realize that. Yes those words agreed with the kinds of things I would have used to describe the contradictions between the 4 theories of Evolution. But you did not deal with it when I of course dealt with it and you simply ignored it. Now it appears your scrambling and desperate.


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 14-Jun-2008 at 22:21

Originally posted by King John Why do you not highlight the sentences before when I say "Yes it is true evolutionists debate on certain issues, just look at the foud school of thought outlined above. All evolutionists, however agree on one major point, EVOLUTION HAPPENED"?

I highlight so you won't miss the point, as you missed the point by using contradictory words, I used it  to show, as you missed it anyway, though inadvertently that the 4 theories of Evolution are contradictory. You did my job for me. King John, again you exhibit the kind of desperation that we general apply to a religious person, who blindly believes their faith. If you answered this before, why are you discussing it again. All can go back and see you never answered me when I pointed this out to you. QUOTE were you have answered me? This is a contradiction any way you want look at it, you simply cannot explain it away.

Originally posted by King John Yes it is true evolutionists debate on certain issues, just look at the four schools of thought outlined above. All evolutionists, however, agree on one major point, EVOLUTION HAPPENED. The issues of contention come in when we discuss how evolution happens, is it gradual, abrupt, uniform over time, etc.?

I pointed out these words are contradictory, how or when did you answer me? Again here is my answer to you at the time.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc I pointed out these words are contradictory, how or when did you answer me? Again here is my answer to you at the time.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc King John, I highlighted your above contradictory statement. Is not gradual or uniform the opposite of abrupt!??

When did you answer that? Post it. Whether you realize it or not your defense of the 4 theories of Evolution are contradictory. Maybe you do not understand what you were doing. In using those words, you were agreeing with me, as that is what I have been saying all along, and that is why I pointed out those words are contradictory. You cannot clean up the problems between the 4 theories of Evolution. By using those words, those words are the kind of words I would have used. Thus you were agreeing with me! I guess you do not realize that. Yes those words agreed with the kinds of things I would have used to describe the contradictions between the 4 theories of Evolution. But you did not deal with it when I of course dealt with it and you simply ignored it. Now it appears your scrambling and desperate.



Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 14-Jun-2008 at 22:39

Originally posted by King John Asking me the same question three times in a post does absolutely nothing. Let me just say this I am talking about it now because I don't feel like going back and skimming over what I have already written. I have better things to do than that. WHy is that you haven't addressed when pointed out the difference between saying there is virtually no evidence and there is no evidence. You often substitute the virtually statement with the no evidence statement. Please address this.

King John, why not ask you? You never dealt with it. Not only that, you cannot clean it up now. In reality if you could clean it up, you would be contradicting what you meant earlier with those words. Are you rejecting your usage of those words to describe the 4 theories of Evolution? That would be the way to clean it up. You can not clean up the contradictions between those words. As I stated, you did my job for me as those are the words I would have used to show the 4 theories of Evolution are contradictory. You cannot clean up your use of the contradictory words you accurately used to describe the problems or the contradictions in the 4 theories of Evolution. Now you want to want to act that those words mean the same thing that your saying now or have you changed position NOW? Again King John, you cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by King John Yes it is true evolutionists debate on certain issues, just look at the four schools of thought outlined above. All evolutionists, however, agree on one major point, EVOLUTION HAPPENED. The issues of contention come in when we discuss how evolution happens, is it gradual, abrupt, uniform over time, etc.?

These words are contradictory, are you now disagreeing with yourself? Remember I dealt with this and you did not. The reason for making this point, is because I am wondering, are you now changing your position? Are you rejecting these words you chose to describe the 4 theories of Evolution.

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc King John, I highlighted your above contradictory statement. Are not gradual or uniform the opposite of abrupt!??

King John, what sense does this make? Again you seem confused. Did I ever say those theories are not theories of Evolution. I only pointed out that those 4 theories are contradictory theories of Evolution! You agreed with me when you used those words to describe the 4 theories of Evolution. Again are not the words you used, gradual, uniform and abrupt, contradictory? You must have changed your position or these words do not apply anymore?


Edited by Cuauhtemoc - 14-Jun-2008 at 23:46

I didn't say don't ask me, I asking me the same question three times accomplishes nothing. If you go back and read my response to you regarding the gradual/uniform vs abrupt issue you will see the answers to your questions. I'm not going to post it a second time, you responded to the first sentence so I know you have read it. If you have any questions about anything that I said in that post please ask.   I'm not the one wanting it both way. I have appealed to sources that have a greater expertise in these (Evolutionary) areas and they have shown, if you have read them, that they all support the Theory of Evolution.

Cuauhtemoc, again I ask you how does this apparent contradiction disprove Evolution, since that seems to be your point?

Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc Originally posted by Cuauhtemoc King John, I highlighted your above contradictory statement. Are not gradual or uniform the opposite of abrupt!?? King John, what sense does this make? Again you seem confused. Did I ever say those theories are not theories of Evolution. I only pointed out that those 4 theories are contradictory theories of Evolution! You agreed with me when you used those words to describe the 4 theories of Evolution. Again are not the words you used, gradual, uniform and abrupt, contradictory? You must have changed your position or these words do not apply anymore?

I don't know what this is in response to, as you have not provided anything I have said in this part of the post

Micro-evolution is Evolution. Microevolution is also not just produced by human interference it often happens on its own. Look at viruses that jump from animals to humans. These viruses have evolved into a totally separate subspecies that did not exist before. Although one can identify them as a version of the parent virus they are an entirely new virus that did not exist before the mutation/adaptation.

I think you missed the point about the original post of the four theories of evolutionary thought. The point is that all support evolution and use the fossil record among other things to support evolution. The theory of evolution is supported by the fossil evidence I have provided numerous examples to show you this. The fact of the matter is that all four use the fossil evidence to support their claims, this logically leads one to believe that the fossil record supports the theory of evolution and any inconsistencies are merely matters of interpretation. These interpretations still understand that evolution happened, you seem to ignore this.

Maybe you missed my post about the abruptness vs gradual issue so I will repost it.

Originally posted by King John Why do you not highlight the sentences before when I say "Yes it is true evolutionists debate on certain issues, just look at the foud school of thought outlined above. All evolutionists, however agree on one major point, EVOLUTION HAPPENED"? Is it because I show that all schools of evolutionary theory support the idea that evolution occurs? Saying that matters of contention arise when we discuss how evolution happens - is it gradual, abrupt, uniform over time - is not entirely contradictory. All these ideas about how evolution happens accept as their basis that evolution occurs. Just because one says it happens gradually and one abruptly does not mean that it does not happen, which is the major part of the theory. How it happens is just a matter of interpretation. Yes gradual/uniform are the opposites of abrupt, however had you read the article by E & G that I linked in a previous post you would see that although the evidence seems to appear abruptly in the geological evidence in reality the abruptness is less than it seems because the geological layers are in thousands of years not single years. So as you can see this "abruptness" is in fact gradual. Now you are going to dismiss this as double talk but you should know that what I just said is a paraphrase from Gould (I believe I have post a quote to this extent if not linked that article as well in a previous post).

Cuauhtemoc, I posted on page 12 about Adam and Eve and your claim that science says they were a couple. I refuted that and was hoping you would respond to that, I wondering if you had heard something I have not.