Evolution/Creation - shifted from T/Bred forum

[On Point 0]

Blind faith has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

But if those mere mortals who wrote of such promises of faith could validate like scientists, we would see a world of believers - even alongside evolution, because evolution is still a fact as inconvenient as it may be.

Hi Don.

Just a question as to how the belief in the theory of evolution by some is an inconvenience to those who don't accept the non-existance of God as truth?. We are free to choose what we believe and if anything intelligent design is a much more upsetting inconvenience to those who are bent on attempting to dispel the reality of God as they are confronted with a stark realisation that maybe they could be wrong and that could have a greater consequence than those who accept God as real and live their lives in light of that truth.

[Don Frampton 1]

Hi Don.

Just a question as to how the belief in the theory of evolution by some is an inconvenience to those who don't accept the non-existance of God as truth?. We are free to choose what we believe and if anything intelligent design is a much more upsetting inconvenience to those who are bent on attempting to dispel the reality of God as they are confronted with a stark realisation that maybe they could be wrong and that could have a greater consequence than those who accept God as real and live their lives in light of that truth.

On point I think you are a little off point.

The PROCESS of evolution is no longer just a theory, it is a fact.

The theory reference is now more confined to how the exact chronology of the process could have unfolded - given not every component part of the 1000s of linked common ancestral trees have been identified going back many 100s of MILLIONS of years (which is understandable).

Geeze, some religions have trouble getting the stories exactly right only going back a trifling few 1000 years or more, so don't be too critical.

But no one is stopping you believe in intelligent design if you want to and if it fits in with your belief structure.

It is just that the evidence is there for all to see that evolution is a fact and that things don't need to be intelligently designed (as remarkable as things seem) when nature can do it all by itself.

Intelligent design can never be inconvenient to evolution because beliefs don't provide proof. You are comparing emotionally based beliefs against a non-emotional scientific discoveries.

But answer this if you will. If you seriously believe creation, then you must have some notion of when that took place. So when do you believe that happened?

And, when do you think all the various forms of ape intermediates leading right up to the skeleton of man today were created?

And, if not all created together (carbon dating says they weren't) is it your belief every time we see a later version of something, you say new models are being created all the time, even today?

Remember, this debate is about evolution vs creation I remind. And, the fact religion has even crept into this debate is proof enough that evolution is inconvenient to some religions and not the other way around.

Besides, evolution, is a stand alone science of discovery which would survive whether religions existed or not.

Similarly the scientific discovery of our world and universe is stand alone - even though in earlier times such discovery of the truth was similarly inconvenient to Sun gods, Moon gods, Thunder gods, Tempest gods, Lightening gods, Rain gods, Famine gods and the like.

Sadly, new gods needed to be found to continue providing comfort and meaning.

But, none of those "gods of the times" have even been inconvenient to the science of discovery (other than being obstructive in the sense it was usually mandatory to be seen as outwardly believing in them as the social norm).

The reality was and still is, that the sciences of discovery will just keep marching on at an ever-accelerating rate and one after another, myths will continue to be exposed.

And the discovery of evolution has already exposed intelligent design as a myth of convenience, hard to let go of for some, but a myth nonetheless.

Now, does a god of some sort exist? Well none of us know. But he is unlikely to be operating in the way creationists would have us believe.

And if I have that wrong, well my brain will have been created by him to think the wrong way, so it won't be my fault.

[globederby 8]

Blind faith has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

But if those mere mortals who wrote of such promises of faith could validate like scientists, we would see a world of believers - even alongside evolution, because evolution is still a fact as inconvenient as it may be.

Without Gods intervention in your life we can debate this subject add infinitem Only when the last rays of light receed from your grasp and eternity beckons will you see the truth.

Your evolution starts at a point after Creation. Theoretical Astrophysics has been stoned walled at a point at which they can go no further back. To a point at which all laws of Physics break down, and we enter the realm of the Philisophical. On that basis we are one and the same.Do you have a Philisophical answer based on your observational theories.?

[Lloyd Vivian 742]

Hello again, I thought you had taken a sabbatical :-)

I have split your response into four points and numbered them and respond as below:

Hi Don

Well, I will attempt to give you my thoughts on the questions you have posed here Don. I am not a scientist or a theologian [although I'm perhaps closer to the latter than the former] and I certainly don't claim to be able to speak for Almighty God - apart from what He has chosen to reveal in the Bible. However, you have asked some good genuine questions here, so I will humbly answer as follows, while admitting that there are some difficult things in life to understand and truly fathom - and for which I don't have a ready answer.

DF. So let me ask you these simple questions:

a) Roughly how long ago did intelligent design take place by the hand of an omnipotent being to create (say) all the living animals and humans?

LV: I've already suggested to you the figure of less than 10,000 years Don. This is based [largely] on the genealogical accounts in the Bible, tracing back to Adam. These are not fictitious accounts: they are actual records of real people. There is much evidence to point to a young Earth [ if one is open to the idea in the first place. Most scientists are not and interpret any data according to their pre-conceived ideas of an old Earth.] As I have said before, the easiest way to check out some of this is to visit the creationministries website and see/read it for yourself from trained scientists who are experts in their field.

DF Why would a "human-caring" god (ie one relevant enough to pray to) allow church roofs to collapse on people praying beneath?

c) Why does a "human caring" god allow people to get crushed to death in pilgrimage stampedes? And because he does what is his relevance at our level?

d) Why if he is so omnipotent and human caring, does he allow Acts of God to cause such misery at our human level? Again, how is he relevant at our level?

e) Why do you think any creator is particularly caring at our level if his creations (us) feel we need to war as often as we do (ironically often in the name of religious differences and the almighty)?

LV May I put all these three in the one basket Don?

They all fall into the one category really, namely]. Sadly, despite living in a perfect world that provided for his every need, Man decided to break the one restriction placed upon him by God and the relationship was broken. The Bible called it 'Sin' - and as God had promised, the penalty was death: physical and spiritual. Man could no longer commune freely with his Maker - he feared Him in fact, knowing his guilt - spiritual 'death' - and sure enough, he died, physically too. The world was 'cursed' by God as a punishment and Man was promised that by the 'sweat of his brow' would he eat bread etc. It was no longer an ideal world. However, the Bible goes on to record that God still loved His creature Man dearly and ultimately sent His own Son Jesus, to bear the penalty of God's righteous punishment of our sin. He suffered and died in our place. John 3:16 puts it best Don: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, should not perish, but have everlasting life." v17 is also important: "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through HIM, might be saved."

Death and suffering have been an integral part of our world since the time of Adam's sin. The Book of Hebrews says, "It is appointed unto Man, once to die - and after that the judgement." Death comes to us all at some point - we can count on it - and the means of it is really irrelevant. Christians are never promised exclusion from the natural events of life and certainly not disease, accident, suffering and death. But He has promised that He "will never leave us nor forsake us" and many of us who have been through the normal hardships of life can attest to the truth of that. In fact, it is at those times that He is often more real. C.S. Lewis in his book 'The Problem of Pain' put it well when He said, "God whispers in our joys - but He shouts in our pain!"

There is an interesting story recorded in Luke 13, where Jesus was told about the atrocities committed by Pilate where the blood of some Galileans had been mixed with the sacrifices [of animals] offered to the Roman gods. Jesus asked if the people thought that those Galileans were worse than everyone else? Or the eighteen people on whom a tower had recently fallen [in an earthquake?] in Siloam? Were they really bad or something? NO, He said, "But unless you repent, you too will also perish." Jesus knew that death was just the doorway from this mortal life,to eternity, where each of us must stand before our Maker. It doesn't really matter if it's a tragedy or we die peacefully in our sleep at 105 years old. What matters is, where will you spend eternity? What will each of us say when we give an account of our lives? When we have to tell God what we thought of His Son, Jesus - and whether we ever accepted what He did for us - or simply ignored Him? Or worse..

God's offer of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice on our behalf, is our only hope. We can never save ourselves by our own efforts as the standard is perfection. The fact that God sent Jesus into the world to be our Saviour is wonderful proof that He cares about us.

LV

g): Why have a Hell if the God-like values are to forgive sins?.

LV Hell was never meant for us Don, but 'for Satan and his angels' the Bible says. Man's fall into sin puts Him under the same judgement and hence the need for a Saviour. Jesus spent more time warning about Hell than speaking about heaven and warned that is better to enter Heaven maimed than go to hell healthy. It is a place of eternal separation from God and definitely to be avoided, by the grace of God.

DF

h) Why have a Heaven?

Love to read your answers Lloyd.

LV Heaven is the dwelling-place of God and the ultimate eternal destination He intended when He created us. We don't know a lot about it really, except the glimpses we are given in Scripture. We know that it is pure, a holy place with no sin of any kind; a magnificent place full of God's glorious presence where there is only goodness and light. The main thing about it is the fact that we will be united forever with our loving God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

DF

2. There is no evidence for creation, thats my point.

LV Don, you seem to be under the common misconception that creationists are talking about one 'set' of evidence for creation and scientists have their own different 'evidence' for evolution. This is simply not the case. We are all looking at the SAME evidence. Creationists and scientists alike both look at the same world, the same universe, the same plants, animals and fish; They study the same fossils. The same humanity. But many scientists, as I pointed out earlier with some verbatim quotes, are not willing to look at this evidence and even consider the possibility that a Creator is responsible. Creationists believe that the account recorded in Genesis best matches the evidence we see as we look around at the evidence. That's largely because wherever we look in our world it screams design! And random chance, and chaos simply don't produce design in any shape or form.

DF

3. You are still confusing yourself with evolution vs how did the building blocks of matter arise to begin with. They are two entirely different subjects. Few would argue (on the science we know) that there could not be a "god" to have created matter (or even the circumstances leading to the big bang as a possible starting point before matter decompressed and condensed and formed suns, planets etc).

LV Well That's a big concession Don. And it is entirely logical. Nothing simply can't produce something! That defies all logic. Which is really a fundamental starting point when weighing up the relevant merits of a belief system such as evolution.

DFWhat we are arguing when we speak of evolution is how that matter got organised into the remarkably forms we see as life and whether life is intelligently designed or whether it is a product of evolution.

LV Having conceded that 'God' is necessary in order for there to be firstly matter of any kind and arguably life also - you might say this is what we are arguing about indeed! However, scientists generally make no such concession; blindly clinging instead to a forlorn hope that one day the evidence for their ideas/claims will appear - when it is already right under their noses! It's just that it doesn't fit their theory - nor their desire to not be accountable to a Maker.

Yes, it is good debating with you because whether you are religious or not, you don't feel the need to get all personal just because someone holds a different opinion to you. Wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone adopted your approach. Then again, maybe that is one benefit of being religious?

I'll have to come back tomorrow Don for the last couple - I trust there is something there for you to mull over. I don't claim it to be the definitive answer; however, I do believe it's what the Bible teaches on the subject.

[Don Frampton 1]

Without Gods intervention in your life we can debate this subject add infinitem Only when the last rays of light receed from your grasp and eternity beckons will you see the truth.

Your evolution starts at a point after Creation. Theoretical Astrophysics has been stoned walled at a point at which they can go no further back. To a point at which all laws of Physics break down, and we enter the realm of the Philisophical. On that basis we are one and the same.Do you have a Philisophical answer based on your observational theories.?

You are missing the point. The process of evolution is a proven scientific fact.

Thus any argument for intelligent design (to the extent you have a stand alone argument - other than poking holes at evolution simply because the full family tree resulting through the process has not yet been fully laid out) has vanished.

And yes of course evolution starts after the creation of matter. No one is arguing that creation did not start before life evolved, nor that at a "god" may not exist for such primordal and pre-human puposes.

But that is not the debate of evolution vs intelligent design.

[Don Frampton 1]

DF: Hello again

LV: Hi Don

Well, I will attempt to give you my thoughts on the questions you have posed here Don. I am not a scientist or a theologian [although I'm perhaps closer to the latter than the former] and I certainly don't claim to be able to speak for Almighty God - apart from what He has chosen to reveal in the Bible. However, you have asked some good genuine questions here, so I will humbly answer as follows, while admitting that there are some difficult things in life to understand and truly fathom - and for which I don't have a ready answer.

DF: Your are honest about your scientific knowledge. But with respect, that is part of the problem with creationists.

DF: a) Roughly how long ago did intelligent design take place by the hand of an omnipotent being to create (say) all the living animals and humans?

LV: I've already suggested to you the figure of less than 10,000 years Don. This is based [largely] on the genealogical accounts in the Bible, tracing back to Adam.....

DF: The bible is not a scientific paper it is a collection of anecdotal writings (collected together for religious effect - often years after the events I add). If you want to understand the true age of the earth and early life forms from which we have evolved, start thinking over a billion years (maybe 2 billion) to give you some idea of the vast the time scale in which the process of evolution has time to work. Have a read of some scientific articles written not through the eyes of someone with a religious background or agenda (or anti-religious agenda if you think there is a conspiracy to lengthen the time of life on earth from 10,000 years to 2 billion.) As I said, a good mate is a Ph D in geology and it is facinating to hear the age of life found in various core sediment samples they take when surveying likely oil drilling spots around the world. His experiences have no anti-religion agenda I can assure you - religion never even comes into our discussions which are as facinating as they are scientifically interesting).

DF Why would a "human-caring" god (ie one relevant enough to pray to) allow church roofs to collapse on people praying beneath?

c) Why does a "human caring" god allow people to get crushed to death in pilgrimage stampedes? And because he does what is his relevance at our level?

d) Why if he is so omnipotent and human caring, does he allow Acts of God to cause such misery at our human level? Again, how is he relevant at our level?

e) Why do you think any creator is particularly caring at our level if his creations (us) feel we need to war as often as we do (ironically often in the name of religious differences and the almighty)?

LV May I put all these three in the one basket Don? They all fall into the one category really, namely; Why is there death and suffering in the world?

The BIble is clear that God created this universe and our world in it, culminating in the creation of Mankind "in His own image." Man was a superb being with incredible capabilities but most of importantly of all, enjoyed a relationship with God, his Maker [THAT was actually a key purpose of God making man]. Sadly, despite living in a perfect world that provided for his every need, Man decided to break the one restriction placed upon him by God and the relationship was broken. The Bible called it 'Sin' - and as God had promised, the penalty was death: physical and spiritual. Man could no longer commune freely with his Maker - he feared Him in fact, knowing his guilt - spiritual 'death' - and sure enough, he died, physically too. The world was 'cursed' by God as a punishment and Man was promised that by the 'sweat of his brow' would he eat bread etc. It was no longer an ideal world...... It doesn't really matter if it's a tragedy or we die peacefully in our sleep at 105 years old. What matters is, where will you spend eternity?

DF: Sorry LV but there is no logic in that at all - so much so you couldn't answer the question to show youR god is human caring or forgiving in practical sense. In fact your account is only an interpretation of what was written by men with an agenda to create a religion in the name of a martyr. But lets not get too heavily into religion because as I say your religion is only one of thousands. Anyway who is to say religous people don't enjoy the company of some people who are non-believers. They are not going to enjoy an eternity without their company if they are forced to go though another door. That will simply punish everyone. In fact this whole question was about punishment and it remains unanswered to any human-caring level of relevance.

DF:

g): Why have a Hell if the God-like values are to forgive sins?.

LV Hell was never meant for us Don, but 'for Satan and his angels' the Bible says. Man's fall into sin puts Him under the same judgement and hence the need for a Saviour. Jesus spent more time warning about Hell than speaking about heaven and warned that is better to enter Heaven maimed than go to hell healthy. It is a place of eternal separation from God and definitely to be avoided, by the grace of God.

DF: Yes but your god probably has the power to make the call who goes where. And if he is the most potent of all, he would have the power to close down hell knowing it stands for the opposite of forgiving sins. And who made the force that made Hell anyway - especially if there is only one all-powerful god?

DF

h) Why have a Heaven?

LV Heaven is the dwelling-place of God and the ultimate eternal destination He intended when He created us. We don't know a lot about it really, except the glimpses we are given in Scripture. We know that it is pure, a holy place with no sin of any kind; a magnificent place full of God's glorious presence where there is only goodness and light. The main thing about it is the fact that we will be united forever with our loving God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

DF: Man wrote the bible and man is only guessing on that one (as I said even the local vicar admitted it was a mythological story and who are we to say we know better). Anyway what is beyond heaven?

DF

2. There is no evidence for creation, thats my point.

LV Don, you seem to be under the common misconception that creationists are talking about one 'set' of evidence for creation and scientists have their own different 'evidence' for evolution. This is simply not the case. We are all looking at the SAME evidence. Creationists and scientists alike both look at the same world, the same universe, the same plants, animals and fish; They study the same fossils. The same humanity. But many scientists, as I pointed out earlier with some verbatim quotes, are not willing to look at this evidence and even consider the possibility that a Creator is responsible. Creationists believe that the account recorded in Genesis best matches the evidence we see as we look around at the evidence. That's largely because wherever we look in our world it screams design! And random chance, and chaos simply don't produce design in any shape or form.

DF: Simply untrue. Creationists close their mind to even the simplest of science which quite reliably carbon dates thinks to show that life in some cases is over a 1,000 million years old. And, common sense looking at how long it takes to lay sedimentry samples, will tell you that is zillions more likely the case than a mere 10,000 years which is but a flashshot of time when put into proper perspective. So saying they are looking at the same evidence is impossible from the word go.

DF

3. You are still confusing yourself with evolution vs how did the building blocks of matter arise to begin with. They are two entirely different subjects. Few would argue (on the science we know) that there could not be a "god" to have created matter (or even the circumstances leading to the big bang as a possible starting point before matter decompressed and condensed and formed suns, planets etc).

LV Well That's a big concession Don. And it is entirely logical. Nothing simply can't produce something! That defies all logic. Which is really a fundamental starting point when weighing up the relevant merits of a belief system such as evolution.

DF: Well actually it can in a relative sense but I won't go there. I was just being kind to you by suggesting it MIGHT not.

DFWhat we are arguing when we speak of evolution is how that matter got organised into the remarkably forms we see as life and whether life is intelligently designed or whether it is a product of evolution.

LV Having conceded that 'God' is necessary in order for there to be firstly matter of any kind and arguably life also - you might say this is what we are arguing about indeed! However, scientists generally make no such concession; blindly clinging instead to a forlorn hope that one day the evidence for their ideas/claims will appear - when it is already right under their noses! It's just that it doesn't fit their theory - nor their desire to not be accountable to a Maker.

DF: Not all scientists do. Anyway, that is not the debate evolution vs intelligent design and I support evolution unwaveringly.

Look forward to your further comment as you mention.

[Don Frampton 1]

Hello again,

I forgot to mention that you shouldn't be forming your answers in support of intelligent design by referencing the Bible.

I say that for many reason including:

1. It brings your religion/faith into the debate (which is not the intention, even though I say it is inconvenient that scientific discovery has side effects)

2. Your approach, in that intelligent design is in your opinion biblically based, leaves most of the world's population (many of who have alternative religions) supposedly unable to debate creation from the only perspective you see as valid.

3. Bibically based quotations (written by men with an agenda) are non-objective and unverifiable.

4. That document you are relying on also includes myths meaning a lot of picking and choosing is nowdays required before it could ever be taken literally (and as time moves on, this will become more and more obvious). That is unless you are a fundamentalist and believe everything written. For example, do you really believe woman should still be competely subserviant to men (as set out in Timothy earlier referred)? Even in your lifetime changes are happening by those whose religion has previously been ridgidly tied to the bible, including..... opening up the criteria for clergy, allowing contraception, knowing about the stars and planets, realising that there needs to be a pre-emptive shift in dealing with the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe (to now embrace that), embracing evolution (I have heard religious people on the radio talk of needing to live alongside this concept which is too hard to argue against), giving women an equal status to men, providing animal rights, and in time I am certain deleting any referrence or inference that the date of creation was a mere 10,000 years back when science can easily prove it was over a billion years ago if not two that life first took a foothold on earth, acceptance that here never was a single time of creation because the indisputable scientific evidence shows that as a hard cold verifiable fact.

What I would love to hear from you Lloyd, is common sense (or scientifically verifiable/based) answers to support intelligent design.

Assume you are a person who was born into a part of this world not exposed to any particular religious pre-conditioning, and notice only that the strongest survive in nature, (while being in some way aware that called Darwin had summarized the ramifications of that verifiable natural selection process) and work it out logically from there.

BUT the scientifically verifiably FACTS you MUST consider include:

a) life forms you now see did NOT form at a single point in time.

the formation of life did NOT occur only 10,000 years ago. To believe that is to dismiss all science, and set yourself up as totally uncredible to begin with. You must at least embrace understandings that are black and white for all to see. As an analogy, if we were debating the sun, you couldn't base any of your arguments on a book that says it is square in shape.

c) that living things change and evolve as an observable process, meaning the debate is limited to degree of change rather than whether the process exists at all. As I say, that things evolve is a FACT.

[globederby 8]

You and I know this is going nowhere.

I might point Don to the Christian Science Foundation in Australia for some real info that might verify that "christians" do indeed use observable data.

I wish you luck Lloyd,altho I dislike the word luck in the Christian context.

[Don Frampton 1]

You and I know this is going nowhere.

I might point Don to the Christian Science Foundation in Australia for some real info that might verify that "christians" do indeed use observable data.

I wish you luck Lloyd,altho I dislike the word luck in the Christian context.

I think you do know where this is going.

Unfortunately, your scientists with an agenda will purposely be ignoring the science that shows life has been around a billion years or more.

I will wager a choc fish that NO scientist in the entire world (whether of a religious agenda or not) can prove scientifically that life has only been around for about 10,000 years.

Are you on?

You see this is the fundamental premise that supporters of intelligent design get wrong before they even start.

As I said to Lloyd, you can't have a debate about (say) how the tides affect sealife if the starting point is wanting to believe the world is flat.

While it may be recorded in a book of earlier times that the world was flat, you have to let go of that flawed thinking to be able to sensibly engage in the debate.

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

You and I know this is going nowhere.

I might point Don to the Christian Science Foundation in Australia for some real info that might verify that "christians" do indeed use observable data.

I wish you luck Lloyd,altho I dislike the word luck in the Christian context.

My motivation to debate here was never to change somebodies mind, but to counter untruths for those reading who are not obsessive experts on these topics, so they are not influenced by those marauding as authorities, holding all the answers.

I can debate all aspects of all the faults in 'intelligent' design, but there are good resources around if you look for the right source. During the Bush era in the US, 'i'.d. was pushed very hard in many spheres, but the institutions stood up and showed it up for what it is, anti-science. If you are unsure, see the rulings, it was thrashed over in the US and totally dismissed by the authorities, no purpose me going through it, the correct answers are there if you choose to go to proper sources.

'Intelligent' design takes credit for all the wonder and complex forms that are so incredibly well adapted to their environment, but what about all the forms that were designed to be incredibly unnecessarily complicated, faulty functioning, ugly, problematic... 99% of all species that existed are extinct, so many blind allies, so many sad unfortunate deaths.

Our own bodies are full of so many badly designed faults. Also large numbers of parasitic retrovirus in our DNA. You are not just you, look at your skin and internally, every part of your body has millions upon million of bacteria and microbes that are also part of you, but not exactly you. For every unit of you in your body, there are 10 other units that are not you, but part of you, from the billions of bacteria and microbes in your gut to things like prions and retrovirus along for the ride.

Loyd keeps repeating that how can you get something from nothing, regardless of having been given explanations. What is this nothing, then the universe would be pure hydrogen and nothing else, but this something coming from nothing, nothing is all the elements and compounds. Evolution DOES NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics.

[Ye Zhi Hao 0]

Ye Zhi Hao,and Don.

I do not wish to get into this philisophical debate. For those that have come to Christ in Faith and believe he is the Son of the living God and God himself is the creator being, those eyes have been opened to the Truth of our exsistance. The scriptures explain that mans understanding will be Foolishness to his Ears without his loving grace if only we would open our minds and accept him.

Blind Faith, No, A living Faith in all areas of life,using our minds, hearts and soul.

What you believe will ultimitely determine how you spend eternity.

therefore I will pray for both of you that the God of all Heaven and Earth would open the ears of your understanding .

God Bless The Globe

This is psychology, neuro-psychology. Our brain evolved biological neuro-psychology has evolved these brain functions to help us be successful large group social organisms.

I can accept the feeling of love in my heart, and feel the waves of endorphins flowing through my body and feed off this delusion of love that is often brought on by social engagement and interactions. I enjoy this and encourage stuff like this, but I still prefer to keep it in context and do not attribute it to anything so mysterious.

[Kiwigirl 0]

Arguing over evolution is like arguing over whether night follows day. It is a FACT.

Religious nuts who deny it are deluded idiots. And I'm not saying there isn't a spiritual element in the Universe, either.

The problem with your comment DC7 (not that I am advocating religion ) is scientists keep changing the goal post.

Originally is was thought that there was a direct link between the Panderichthys and early amphibians, which in turn later went to the first reptiles etc etc. However maybe 5 years ago, it was decided that unfortunately the Panderichthys (after finding an old skeleton or image of somewhere) didn't have the correct amount of digits or bone shape to be able to cross to an amphibian.

No Way! Not at all!.

Now I am no scientist, but when they stand up and say, umm, oops we have made a mistake and we can't work out how we came out of the water (which we would have had to do, to suppport the big ban theory), I then think, well, if you can't tell us by facts how we got here, then how can we say for a fact we didn't get here in a seven day type scenario?

De ja vu, it happens, though if you only adhered to what scientists say, it doesn't exist (considering it is a physic phenomenom) though I bet you have felt it before.

My point, you don't always have to see, feel, touch for it to be, and scientists ......well they aren't always right (they might be today, but have changed their minds by tomorrow!)

[Don Frampton 1]

The problem with your comment DC7 (not that I am advocating religion ) is scientists keep changing the goal post.

Originally is was thought that there was a direct link between the Panderichthys and early amphibians, which in turn later went to the first reptiles etc etc. However maybe 5 years ago, it was decided that unfortunately the Panderichthys (after finding an old skeleton or image of somewhere) didn't have the correct amount of digits or bone shape to be able to cross to an amphibian.

No Way! Not at all!.

Now I am no scientist, but when they stand up and say, umm, oops we have made a mistake and we can't work out how we came out of the water (which we would have had to do, to suppport the big ban theory), I then think, well, if you can't tell us by facts how we got here, then how can we say for a fact we didn't get here in a seven day type scenario?

De ja vu, it happens, though if you only adhered to what scientists say, it doesn't exist (considering it is a physic phenomenom) though I bet you have felt it before.

My point, you don't always have to see, feel, touch for it to be, and scientists ......well they aren't always right (they might be today, but have changed their minds by tomorrow!)

You are correct Kiwigirl in that going back 100s of millions of years presents problems with making exact calls of where things fit - if only for the reason that the great majority of all life forms that have ever been on this planet will not necessarily die in a way or place to end up as a discovered fossil (you included I would suggest).

This means a great majority of intermediates will never be discovered meaning the jigsaw of the entire ancestral tree will always need fine-tuning as new items are discovered which have to be put into holes that might be big enough for 100 missing pieces every time a new find has to be slotted in.

But the one thing such fine tuning doesn't change is the APPROXIMATE age and therefore location in the family tree jigsaw of such discoveries and the knowledge that the PROCESS of evolution itself is a proven fact.

And, ironically, because scientists are not as rigid (as itelligent design conspirators) this means they ARE prepared to keep fine tuning as new EVIDENCE unfolds.

To scientists, the seeking of truth is the main aim (not the consideration of whether such finds might cause inconvenient collateral damage to any number of the thousands of religions whose mythological content might be affected in the process).

That evidential scientific approach is different to believers of intelligent design.

Firstly, they have no evidence unfolding, and;

Secondly, they are rigid in sticking to a simple convenient belief and;

Thirdly, their whole theory of creation is based on the mistaken foundation that life has only been around for a relatively short time of (say) 10,000 years, when science can absolutely prove that life has been preserved in sedimentry layers that have been deposited over time and in turn covered by more layers dating back 100s of millions of years.

That is a fact, as much as the earth is now scientifically proven to be round as against flat and the moon was not made of cheese afterall.

And, the tide of unfolding knowledge, making things more and more accurate as time passes, will always cause their swim against the tide to become harder and harder - to the point that at some stage the weight of evidence against creation (if not already reached) will make the "magical" concept impossible to believe for any person with an open and enquiring mind.

[Don Frampton 1]

I meant to finish my last post by saying...

And thus, because religions will never go away, religion will need to adapt and embrace scientific discovery.

I say never, because the great majority of people need religion and benefit from it - they may even have evolved a religious gene that now demands it, given that people with non-religious genes would have been burnt in earlier times so being part of the evolutionary PROCESS, ensuring the "desirable" gene was more widely bred on.

So, with most people not necessariliy being fundamentalists, that means written documents will either no longer be accepted on a literal basis (it being understood as being mythologically based) or they will need to be modified every so often to ensure they can to some degree remain literally relevant through contemporary updates that take scientific discoveries into account.

I know this may sound difficult for you to accept, but it will be a reality to ensure that particular religions to carry on.

And lets face it, scribes a few thousand years back could hardly have been expected to have future-proofed their writings against scientific discoveries that would automatically as a by-product, uncover their stories as myths.

They wouldn't have seen that coming. They probably didn't even know what a fossil was, let alone suspect a bright spark called Darwin would be born to put two and two together. They couldn't have seen the resolve of scientists in a different time with the benefit of technology and carbon dating techniques, enabling them to seek out the truth no matter what it was and no matter how it ran contrary to the herd's thinking in the future (nor that open political environments would exist allowing such findings to see the light of day).

[WRECKER 0]

heres the simple truth of creation and evolution, depends solely on whose viewpoint it is... ie that of the higher being(Creator of the Universe) or that of the Man searching for his origins

both have truth in them, Creator says let there be light, Man has found out it all started with a Bang...

Who here really gives a s#@t about the rest