ATTN: John L. (no air content people, sorry!)

Evolution is based on religious belief? I can hear old Charlie Darwin rotating at 1200rpm. Evolution is the only reasonable explanation of why we are all here and writing to this forum. I never said the belief in God is baseless. On that question, the jury is still out and will always be. The Isrealites were probably a couple of mountain tribes at the time in question and these stories were written down at a later date as a way to teach the kiddies why they sat around on Saturdays. The history of the U.S. can hardly be called a religious document. On the contrary we have a constitution that forbids the establishment of any one religion over another. One of the very smartest things the founders did. The big bang is a theory, as is evolution;because all science, with few exceptions, are works in progress, and can be demonstrated for anyone willing to use an open mind; one not hung up on formal religions. Nothing has caused more misery and death than formal religions, without exception. And that's a fact.

P.S. I do believe the bible is myth, as is the koran and any other religious tract you care to name, and that includes the old and the new testaments. Someone mentioned the Illiad which, as I understand it, is not a religious document, but a written version of an oral tradition, which is still practiced in that area of the world. The Odyssey sounds to me as something told around a campfire over long nights when the wife wants to know where in hell you you were for all those years.

"Both [creationism & evolution] are based on a fervent religious faith and both defy every law of nature."

Really???

Theories, valid ones anyway are not based on faith.

Anyway, let's compare and contrast theory "C" to theory "E";

C1 = Begins with the answer - the world was created, by GOD, in 7 days.
E1 = Observes the evidence and formulates an answer consistent with that answer.

C2 = Immutable - GOD did it - what more do you need to know?
E2 = Is revised over time as new evidence is uncovered.

C3 = Supported by radical fundimentalists who beleive that evolution is somehow responsbile for all the ills of society.
E3 = Supported by 99% of the scientific community who support a theory that best explains the evolution of life on planet earth.

To an open mind Faith is often a blind alley.

For those w/ want in depth info. here is link;
http://www.talkorigins.org/

To Chris;

Here is an article on Ron Wyatt - the guy that your site seems to think is the real deal Delusional might be more to the point;
http://noahsarksearch.com/ronwyatt.htm

Regards,
Barkhorn

Regards,
Barkhorn.

[mike_baram]

Mt. Sinai in Arabia? It's news to me...last time I saw it it was still in the Sinai peninsula, looming over Santa Catarina monastery.
In any event, the national passion in Israel (next to trying to survive the good intentions of the past US administration) is Archeology. As a scientific treatise, the Bible leaves an awful lot to be desired, but as a chronicle of events it does a reasonable job. Want to know where King Saul consulted with the "Witch of Eindor"? For ten years I lived less than a mile from the site.
Oh, and the old hag wasn't a "witch".....the exact meaning of the original Hebrew is "necromancer".
Want to know where Deborah raised her army? It's right across the highway from the Biblical Ein Dor.

[stephen]

Faith is the fundamental element of religion. From the standpoint of the scientific method (repeatability, observability, predictability), both evolution and creation fall flat on their faces. They both appeal to an unknown power (God or time/chance/wishful thinking) to perform that which is impossible (make something out of nothing), and they both rely on exactly the same evidence to support their claims - only the interpretation of that evidence varies. Lacking proof of their theories, both take the available evidence and combine it with faith to arrive at the achievement of the impossible.

Creationists readily admit that an element of faith is required in addition to the evidence they produce. Loathing the religious label, evolutionists hide behind science in a desperate attempt to pawn their religious theories as absolute fact, bitterly denying the element of faith that they, too, invoke just as readily. But the ugly truth is that they are as religious as any "born again Christian" ever was... but they'll die a thousand deaths before admitting it. To do so robs them of the "pure science" facade that they work so desperately to advance. Religious buildings don't always have steeples... sometimes they have government grants and university status.

Something does not come from nothing. Never did; never will. That pretty much shoots both theories right out the window unless you have a nice, healthy dose of...

FAITH.

>Creationists readily admit that an element of >faith is required in addition to the evidence >they produce.

What "evidence"? What physical evidence has been found to back that claim? I've seen none.


>Loathing the religious label, evolutionists hide
>behind science in a desperate attempt to pawn
>their religious theories as absolute fact,
>bitterly denying the element of faith that they,
>too, invoke just as readily.

I have seen no evolutionist that has attempted to pawn their religious theories as absolute fact. In fact, most would agree the current picture of evolution is incomplete, and always will be to some extent, never becoming "absolute fact". Any decent scientist will tell you there's simply no such thing as a known "absolute fact".

>Religious buildings don't always have
>steeples... sometimes they have government
>grants and university status.

Tell me about it. And I'm damn sick of these religious groups infiltrating the scientific community, using what evidence they like, and dismissing the rest as total crap. We have plenty of those right here on this campus. I'm not denying anybody the right to hold religious views, but those views cannot hinder the pursuit of knowledge. I've seen elementary school teachers that tell their kids that the dinosaurs all drowned in the flood! And before fossil evidence of dinosaurs was readily accepted as being "real", these same people said dinosaurs never existed, and that the "fossils" were the work of the devil. The study of ancient history is very succeptable to this sort of attack. Any thing dug up, that seems to provide some sort of supporting evidence for some occurance in the Bible, is put on an ivory tower, while any evidence contrary to the "word of God" (or really, the word of some guys that thought they heard god, or something, talking to them) is immediately dissmised as being false, and having no creedence whatsoever. But by all means, believe whatever you want. Personally, I'm more inclined to accept (though still question at times) the word of modern, educated persons around the world, than I am to accept the word of some people, who were all but anonymous, who lived thousands of years ago, and who thought rain came from "God" and disease was caused by "evil spirits".

[stephen]

>>>>sick of these religious groups infiltrating the scientific community, using what evidence they like

Wait a minute... you just told me they didn't have any.

>>>>And before fossil evidence of dinosaurs was readily accepted as being "real", these same people said dinosaurs never existed, and that the "fossils" were the work of the devil.

Never heard a creation scientist say any such thing. Gee whiz. No wonder you're so confused. Who on earth are you listening to?

Air Gecko, please don't allow yourself to fall into the close-minded trap that evolution is pure science and anyone who supports a theory different from yours should be ridiculed and censored from the educational community. Such things are not necessary for evolutionists to promote their faith... the validity of your ideas should be enough.

Remember, just like creation, the evolutionary faith teaches that the impossible can be accomplished (making something from nothing)... it only appeals to a different power to make it happen. Be careful with censorship and rejecting science that doesn't fit your religion... you are dangerously close to becoming what you hate most.

[mike_baram]

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

>>>>>sick of these religious groups infiltrating
>the scientific community, using what evidence
>they like

>Wait a minute... you just told me they didn't
>have any.

I don't remember saying that. In fact, it sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. Give me the exact quote.

>>>>>And before fossil evidence of dinosaurs was
>readily accepted as being "real", these same
>people said dinosaurs never existed, and that
>the "fossils" were the work of the devil.

>Never heard a creation scientist say any such
>thing. Gee whiz. No wonder you're so confused.
>Who on earth are you listening to?

Well then, I suppose you weren't a victim of Bible-belt style public education. Many a phamplet just as I've described were handed out to kids in a PUBLIC school. I have personally seen and heard teachers there telling their class about the dinosaurs being killed in the flood. And, mind you, I said "creationist" not "creation scientist". Such a term is a contradiction within itself. Again, don't put words in my mouth. Just stick to arguing with the ones I actually said.

>Air Gecko, please don't allow yourself to fall >into the close-minded trap that evolution is >pure science and anyone who supports a theory >different from yours should be ridiculed and >censored from the educational community.

Again, read my posts before hitting "reply". The thing I've said again and again is that I don't care who thinks what, just as long as they don't persist in tainting science. If someone wants to believe in the Biblical account of creation, by all means, let them. I've not ridiculed anyone for their beliefs, only for SOME using a highly selective set of data to support their beliefs (i.e., regarding science as supportive of their cause good, while all other scientific knowledge is false.)

>Remember, just like creation, the evolutionary >faith teaches that the impossible can be >accomplished (making something from nothing)... >it only appeals to a different power to make it >happen.

Evolution doesn't support the impossible, but the probable. It's been shown through repeated laboratory experiments that the gasses and organic materials likely present in Earth's early atmosphere could react in such a way to form simple cells. It's also been shown how such simple cells could have, over time, naturally mutated, and joined together, to what we would today call an organism. The theory of evolution is based upon laboratory testing and first-hand observation.

>Be careful with censorship and rejecting science
>that doesn't fit your religion... you are
>dangerously close to becoming what you hate most.

And exactly what science have I rejected? Again, as I asked in my last post, state your evidence. Also state what evidence I have "rejected". I haven't hardly posted one thing without a disclaimer of some sort within, such as "probable" or "likely". I never said anything that I claimed was the "gospel truth".

Replies:

"From the standpoint of the scientific method (repeatability, observability, predictability), both evolution and creation fall flat on their faces."

You are not understanding scientific methodology or evolutionary theory to make a claim like that.

"They both appeal to an unknown power (God or time/chance/wishful thinking) to perform that which is impossible (make something out of nothing)…"

No "they" do not!! Only Creationism does. Evolution does not make any claims to perform the impossible - something out of nothing. The earth is not a closed system ( a common Creationist mistake).

"…and they both rely on exactly the same evidence to support their claims - only the interpretation of that evidence varies. Lacking proof of their theories, both take the available evidence and combine it with faith to arrive at the achievement of the impossible."
The exact same evidence - huh?? Again, you miss the boat here. Creationists take "some" evidence to support their arguments, ignoring or distorting that which is inconvenient. Evolutionists reinterpret evolutionary theory in light of new evidence to achieve a fairly consistent (and plausible) explanation of what happened. No faith or believing in impossibilities needed here.

"Creationists readily admit that an element of faith is required in addition to the evidence they produce."

Hooray for them.

"Loathing the religious label, evolutionists hide behind science in a desperate attempt to pawn their religious theories as absolute fact, bitterly denying the element of faith that they, too, invoke just as readily."

No scientist is hiding behind science - whatever that means. And no one stated that Evolutionary theory is absolute fact. It is simply the best explanation mankind has come up w/ yet and has stood the test of time. Again, EVIDENCE not faith here.

"But the ugly truth is that they are as religious as any "born again Christian" ever was... but they'll die a thousand deaths before admitting it. To do so robs them of the "pure science" facade that they work so desperately to advance."

Rubbish!!! Evolutionary theory has - well - evolved over time. Scientists modify their views to accept new evidence or they fade away.

"Something does not come from nothing. Never did; never will."

We agree here.

"That pretty much shoots both theories right out the window unless you have a nice, healthy dose of...FAITH."

You have not even come close to proving your point. Again, I provide the link below which offers a scientific perspective on this issue;
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Regards,
Barkhorn.