COme on that wasn't a attack,He been saying something and then saying the complete oppiset in the next post, its been driving me crazy!Look.

And then he go on to say.


See Condiction at it finest, how can belief shown that it is not less proven and then not be proof! it is senseless!
I think my comment was completly justified in this matter.
But I do agree that 'shouting' was probalby not the best thing to do (even thought I'll normal shout at someone talking such nonsesnse in real life) and I'll appoligse for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look pay attention okay!
1)Animo acids combined to form single cell life in the seas.
2)Life became more complex
3)We know this because we discovered sea life on land were sea once existed,
4)This evidence was buried under tons of earth.
5)Above this evidence in the earth was land based life
6)For this sea life to exist in the oldest layers of earth and again on moutian tops, it is blinding overious that such life existed before land based life.
7)And as we see that simple singled cells life is at the lowest level of that earth we know that it was the first form of life.




[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-01-2001).]

you just gave me several speculations, with no evidence. How do you know that some amino acids were floating around in the seas and then combined to form single celled life? Simply put, no one does know that, they speculate that that may be the case. You appear to have taken this speculation to heart.

I propose that once the sea covered a larger area than it now does. It left some dead sea animals on the sea floor. sedimentation took place as it does in any body of water, and buried this life. When the sea drained off, land animals took up residence on the sedimentation, and continued adding to it. The only thing obvious from this is that in that certain spot the sea was present, and then the sea retreated. And this says absolutely nothing about the sea life turning into land based life, so it really doesn't give any relevance to your argument in any case.

Know one knows if single celled life was the first type or not. there is no proof of that at all. It could have begun simultaneously with other forms of life. We just don't know. It's another speculation.

As far as my contradicting myself, no I did not. Perhaps I didn't explain things clearly enough for you to understand what I meant, and so in a later post I explained it further for you.

------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif

"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

Sir Real, I'll give you three guesses as to where animal life begain in the seas first was stated. (oh, yea your first two guesses don't count http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...es/biggrin.gif )
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Do you give up?
*
*
*
*
*
*
Yup, you got it the Bible Genesis 1:20



------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

1)Animo Acids are the base of all life on earth, hell I learned that when I was 6.
2) the ocean covers mountians, in fact it once covered the whole freaking world but you don't get it this life is found deeper than any other there for it came first as NO other life is as old as it. AND guess what it was singled celled.

BUT enough your as just standing a saying that my belief is wrong and I defending it, hang on Where the hell are the Mod on this, this isn't a dissiuion, A discussion is whrer we both state evdenice to show how right and in your refusal to do this it go to show your blantly attacking my beleifs!

Where the *toffee* has that come from???? I never said that it didn't so what are *toffee* are you getting at here! I may of stated that the ideal that some God 'made' man to be wrong and that we evoluted over time but I haven't attack the bible, I'm not suasidal

[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-02-2001).]

Real Mature there Sir Real, no one said you attacked the Bible.
This is where it came from, a post by you in a series of post by you to prove that evolution is fact and that the creation by God is false.
************************************************** ************
Originally posted by Sir Real:
Look pay attention okay!
1)Animo acids combined to form single cell life in the seas.
2)Life became more complex
3)We know this because we discovered sea life on land were sea once existed,
4)This evidence was buried under tons of earth.
5)Above this evidence in the earth was land based life
6)For this sea life to exist in the oldest layers of earth and again on moutian tops, it is blinding overious that such life existed before land based life.
7)And as we see that simple singled cells life is at the lowest level of that earth we know that it was the first form of life.
************************************************** *************
Talk about contradiction you use something for your side of the arguement (Creation is false, evolution is fact). When the other side uses the samething for their side you get all pissed off. Oh yea where does the creation story come from the Bible. And don't try to give me any excuses about how you were talking about Norse, Greek, or what ever Mythology. Because it is clear from you earlier posts (on this thread and another thread on the same subject)you are speaking about the major Creation story (as beleived by the Jews, Christians, and Muslims), and not some obscure ancient religion version.
(edit to remove some of the asterxs inorder try to comply with Sazerac's Edict)
(second edit for the same reason as the first I hope I got it right this time http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...es/biggrin.gif )
(well maybe the third time is the charm) http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...es/biggrin.gif
------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 11-01-2001).]

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 11-02-2001).]

[This message has been edited by John D Harris (edited 11-02-2001).]

Okay freaky shit My post didn't contain what I wrote but the what I wrote in a post before I tryed to delete it and then edit it because I miss read John D Harris post.


Okay that post that you use for a reason is not saying anywhere in it that the bible didn't say fish life existed first and after being rasied as a christan I don't remember that passage by heck I'm rusty so you know better.
The point of that post was to tell Prime2U that they is evidence that life existed in the sea first not who said it first, Heck it should have Prime2U name instead of mine becuase he the one denying it. Now I amite that I called the story of creation fictious but the theory of Evolution proves that in my eyes.

So I'm sorry for jumping to the ideal that you attack me but I couldn't see what that post had to with anything I had said and was angery with having to explain another post to Prime2U (no offence intended).

[This message has been edited by Sir Real (edited 11-02-2001).]

Actually, the very first thing I'll say is that I never denied sea life came first. I know Genesis just as John does. I deny that there is any proof that sea life became the land animals.

I should add that although I believe that sea life came first, there is not enough scientific proof of that to make it certain. The only reason i believe that is because it is stated so in the creation. The proof to this date only proves that in certain areas the sea used to cover the land. Far more samples are required to be anywhere near scientific proving this conclusively.


[This message has been edited by Prime2U (edited 11-02-2001).]

1)Animo Acids are the base of all life on earth, hell I learned that when I was 6.
2) the ocean covers mountians, in fact it once covered the whole freaking world but you don't get it this life is found deeper than any other there for it came first as NO other life is as old as it. AND guess what it was singled celled.

I would consider Nucleic acids more important to having life than amino acids, especially in single celled organisms. In single celled organisms they would have to have a thick cell wall, which relies on peptidoglycan, or they'd never withstand the water pressure. They would also need some sort of bilayer, commonly using lipids, in order to withstand the isotonic salt concentration of the sea water. A few amino acids collecting could not spring to life, there would need to be several other components in precise amounts gathered at the same time.

Yes indeed the oceans did cover the whole world. Called Noah's flood. Want proof? Check into Mount Ararat. Sea life did come first, but that doesn't mean in any way that it evolved into land life. That is a jump in logic based on pure conjecture and not one sngle fact. How in the world would anyone know it was even there if it was single celled? A single celled organism, after being dead for a very short time, can be classified as dirt. I have no idea how anyone could possibly claim to have discovered ancient remains of single celled sea life buried deep within the earth. There is no proof of this whatsoever.


------------------
http://www.wizardrealm.com/images/prime.gif

"Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." - Lennon

Sir Real calm down man! Your going a bit overboard here, preaching the theory of evolution around. I too support and believe mostly in evolution but we dont try and force our own beliefs onto people. You may believe that evolution is true but that is for you to hold as your belief rather than saying to people "I am right and you are wrong" The spirit of debating is that you can argue a point on a SUBJECT without involving personal emotions. You must make rational arguments which Prime2u has done to you even when your temper has gotten the better of you.
So lets calm down and collect your thoughts for a bit okay?
I'll add my little bit to the debate later onhttp://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...miles/wink.gif

------------------
http://www.asnsoup.com/Azurewolf%20copy.jpg http://www.tvdance.com/drewcarey/mimi.gif
"I was born of darkness. My fathers eyes closed before mine opened. I am not of this world or the other, and I have the right to be what I am..."

Overlord of all that I behold and anything that i happen to not notice either.

Founding Hamlet of the HADB.

Actually since creationism and Evolution are based on very different premises and ideas: Scientific thought and Faith,there is no need to prove one to disprove the other. Creationism can be proven false withine scientific arguement, but evolution cannot be comprehensively dispelled. Also Im sorry but there is scientific evidence for evolution(like the fossil record) but no true scientific evidence for creationism, there is only vague accusations and untruths as far as creationism is concerned(no one can seriously belive god created fossils to mislead us all can they?),it is not needed to offer any alternative theory to disprove creationism. some evidence for evolution anyway?

click here

try the article on 29 evidences for Macroevolution. also talking about "only a series of speculations using facts that were either rigged (and exposed) or circumstantial findings that in actuality hold no relevance in support of the idea" is too vague.If you can can present scientific evidence for creationism please do so.

------------------
http://www.games-workshop.com/40kuni...Battleship.gif

These Ships among the stars serve as the physical embodiment of the God-Emperor's will, punishing all who dare oppose the doctrines of Terra



[This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 11-02-2001).]

No offence taken, we all understand anger. The point of my post (I could of phrased it better, I'm not immune to angermyself http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...es/biggrin.gif ) is that yes scienctific(SP?) facts show that life begain in the sea. Something that was proven in the last 100+ years, yet it was writen about 3500-4000 years ago. When you compare other ancient religions with their stories about how every thing came about, I beleive you will find that science backs creation. I personally don't have a problem with evolution, or even the Big Bang, because science can not answer the question of why it came to be. Science maybe able to answer the phsyical finite questions of how. I would see that as no contratdiction to creation, since it would be logical to me that God would have used the laws of phsyics,and of nature in the putting together of a universe, that is going to be run by those very laws.




------------------
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS
Airline ticket to Afghanistan $800
High powered rifle with scope $1000
Hotel room with roof access $100
A clean Head shot on that sack of Horse Manure Usuma Bin Laden PRICELESS!

If a system can be enclosed, and then manipulated, and the results of that manipulation are predicted according to a theory, and it turns out that that prediction was correct, is it not logical to infer (after hundreds of tests) that the THEORY was correct?
In other words, if a population of fruit flies (some with normal wings, some with curled wings) is placed in a sealed case with food hanging from the ceiling, the theory of natural selection states that the flies with normal wings would thrive, and those with curled wings would eventually die out, even though both types are free to inter-mate and produce offspring, because those with curled wings have more difficulty in reaching the food. Actually performing this experiment shows this prediction to be valid, and therefore, the theory of Natural Selection is vindicated.
Natural Selection and Evolution are essentially one and the same: The difference is scale. Natural selection operates on the scale of the individual organism; Evolution operates on the scale of the entire species. And since we now know that changes in the environment provoke changes in organisms, and that our own environment is constantly changing, the logical conclusion is that we have been evolving ever since we existed.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SixOfSpades:
If a system can be enclosed, and then manipulated, and the results of that manipulation are predicted according to a theory, and it turns out that that prediction was correct, is it not logical to infer (after hundreds of tests) that the THEORY was correct?
In other words, if a population of fruit flies (some with normal wings, some with curled wings) is placed in a sealed case with food hanging from the ceiling, the theory of natural selection states that the flies with normal wings would thrive, and those with curled wings would eventually die out, even though both types are free to inter-mate and produce offspring, because those with curled wings have more difficulty in reaching the food. Actually performing this experiment shows this prediction to be valid, and therefore, the theory of Natural Selection is vindicated.
Natural Selection and Evolution are essentially one and the same: The difference is scale. Natural selection operates on the scale of the individual organism; Evolution operates on the scale of the entire species. And since we now know that changes in the environment provoke changes in organisms, and that our own environment is constantly changing, the logical conclusion is that we have been evolving ever since we existed.<hr></blockquote>

Indeed, we have been evolving as long as we've existed. No arguments from me there. There is more difference than scale when common ancestry and random beginnings of life come into play. These entail more than natural selection. As you said, evolution operates on the scale of an entire species, and I personally belief it operates at an even higher order than that. However, I do not believe that it operates, for example between mammals and reptiles, reptiles becoming mammals and so forth, and there just isn't proof at this point to say that this happens.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:



Actually since creationism and Evolution are based on very different premises and ideas: Scientific thought and Faith,there is no need to prove one to disprove the other. Creationism can be proven false withine scientific arguement, but evolution cannot be comprehensively dispelled. Also Im sorry but there is scientific evidence for evolution(like the fossil record) but no true scientific evidence for creationism, there is only vague accusations and untruths as far as creationism is concerned(no one can seriously belive god created fossils to mislead us all can they?),it is not needed to offer any alternative theory to disprove creationism. some evidence for evolution anyway?


click here


try the article on 29 evidences for Macroevolution. also talking about "only a series of speculations using facts that were either rigged (and exposed) or circumstantial findings that in actuality hold no relevance in support of the idea" is too vague.If you can can present scientific evidence for creationism please do so.

<hr></blockquote>


The entire basis of my arguments in this thread are from a scientific standpoint, not a religious one. Scientifically, we cannot disprove creation. The only way we can do so is to prove that life was first begun randomly with no guiding force. And this is something that is just not possible. The fossil record is not conclusive in any way. There is absolutely no way to know if a prehistoric skeleton is that of a primitive form of man or that of an extinct primate. Plus there are gaps at this time that allow any hypothesis to be pure conjecture at best. Yes, in my logical reasoning, you must disprove the long term, established belief before the newfound, unestablished belief can become credible. Otherwise, you are only believing in the new belief (evolution) out of a desire to disbelieve in God, not out of any proof that one or the other is wrong. I did look at article "29 reasons" and I found it very interesting that the author stated clearly at the beginning of the topic that 1. It was a hypothesis (not theory) and 2. These were predictions (not facts nor proofs, nearly predictions based on what was found so far). This is exactly what I have said numerous times in this thread already. At this point, there is a lot of speculation, but no solid scientific proof. Perhaps when some of the gaps are filled in there might be some proof.

I cannot present scientific evidence for creation, except for the fact that what science has so far discovered mirrors what was written in the bible. I'm going at this whole thread from a technical scientists standpoint. trying to leave religion out of it. I've never said creation could be proven, as quite frankly it cannot. I simply say that a random beginning of life, and a common ancestory for either a microbe or sea life, cannot be proven either.

I've always believed in a combination of Creation and Evolution, I believe that there is a God, and I believe that he/she started everything off, I believe that he/she created the Big Bang, I believe that he/she has had an effect on life and it's creation, BUT I also believe that Evolution has shaped the way that life looks today and that it is happening right now.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Prime2U:
except for the fact that what science has so far discovered mirrors what was written in the bible.<hr></blockquote>

Actually scientific proof and truth is contingent on something not comeing along to disprove it. nothing yet can disprove evolution, nor offer a viable and credible alternative with current evidence, therefore evolution in all its forms could be considered the most plausible scientific truth of the moment regarding life on earth and how it evolved.
What science has discovered does not mirror that of the bible and to even suggest so is preposterous. Were heaven and earth all created on 4004 b.c? i think not.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:



Actually scientific proof is contingent on something not comeing along to disprove it. nothing yet can disprove evollution, nor offer a viable alternative therefore evolution in all its forms could be considred the most plausible scientific truth of the moment.
What science has discovered does not mirror that of the bible and to even suggest so is preposterous. Were heaven and earth all created on 4004 b.c? i think not.<hr></blockquote>


Actually NO scientific proof is just that, proof. It is false UNTIL proven, it's not a trial in the US, it's science. If you want to show something is true in science, you MUST prove it, until the it is considered false.
There is no way to disprove creation, and it was around long before evolutionist ideas, and it is indeed very plausible, therefore by your own words creation is the true one of the two choices. You may want to rethink your argument there.... because logic trending that direction entirely supports creation, in fact that is my logic from a scientific viewpoint.
I am sorry, but nowhere in the bible does it say that everything was created in 4004 B.C. so that is irrelevant in the extreme. A rumor started somewhere, no doubt.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Prime2U:



Actually NO scientific proof is just that, proof. It is false UNTIL proven, it's not a trial in the US, it's science. If you want to show something is true in science, you MUST prove it, until the it is considered false.
There is no way to disprove creation, and it was around long before evolutionist ideas, and it is indeed very plausible, therefore by your own words creation is the true one of the two choices. You may want to rethink your argument there.... because logic trending that direction entirely supports creation, in fact that is my logic from a scientific viewpoint.
I am sorry, but nowhere in the bible does it say that everything was created in 4004 B.C. so that is irrelevant in the extreme. A rumor started somewhere, no doubt.<hr></blockquote>

if you look at the bible carefully you can work out that heaven and earth were created in 4004 bc it was some guy in britain i belive who worked that out from the bible.Evolution fits the vast majority of the evidence availible to us at this moment, therefore it is a scientific truth, nothing can conprehensively disprove it as of yet whereas there is considerable evidence against creationism, how ever as this is an emotive issue most people tend to ignore it. whether YOU think it is true or not depends on how you apply the term truth. But the vast majority of the scientific communtiy will accept evolution as a scientifc truth until it can be disproved.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:


if you look at the bible carefully you can work out that heaven and earth were created in 4004 bc it was some guy in britain i belive who worked that out from the bible.Evolution fits the vast majority of the evidence availible to us at this moment, therefore it is a scientific truth, nothing can conprehensively disprove it as of yet whereas there is considerable evidence against creationism, how ever as this is an emotive issue most people tend to ignore it. whether YOU think it is true or not depends on how you apply the term truth.<hr></blockquote>

And what, Dramnek, is this considerable evidence against Creationism?

BISHOP USSHER DATES THE WORLD: 4004 BC
James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of All Ireland, and Vice-Chancellor of Trinity College in Dublin was highly regarded in his day as a churchman and as a scholar. Of his many works, his treatise on chronology has proved the most durable. Based on an intricate correlation of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean histories and Holy writ, it was incorporated into an authorized version of the Bible printed in 1701, and thus came to be regarded with almost as much unquestioning reverence as the Bible itself. Having established the first day of creation as Sunday 23 October 4004 BC, by the arguments set forth in the passage below, Ussher calculated the dates of other biblical events, concluding, for example, that Adam and Eve were driven from Paradise on Monday 10 November 4004 BC, and that the ark touched down on Mt Ararat on 5 May 1491 BC `on a Wednesday'.

heres a little but i can get much more if you want it... they come from here

Creationism is not scientifically explanatory.
Science and religion are two different cognitive fields between which communication is not possible.
Science is dynamic, its goal to approach the objective truth as much as possible, and religion is static, its goal to protect a system of subjective truths set a priori.
Being religious does not have to mean being creationistic.
Why would, of all the available creation-myths, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic be the only valid one ?
Creationism is inherent to a view of life in which man is disconnected from nature, and has the right to exploit his environment, which is characteristic of expansionistic religions.
Despite of what creationists say, evolution is a scientific theory which produces testable hypotheses that are still corroborated everyday by data from the fossil record, comparative morphology, biogeography, molecular systematics, and other disciplines.
Creationism is not concordant with the fossil record.
Creationists do not seem to be aware of, or prefer to ignore, the latest findings on the field of Self-organisation and Chaos/complexity theory which indicate that life really is able to originate and develop on its own.
The idea that nature has been designed and crafted together is so anthropomorphic, that it is more likely to be a projection by ourselves. Is not nature equally wondrous by imagining that it has all come into being on it's own?

Introduction

This is a collection of questions which many people who support conventional science wonder about when confronted with those who oppose conventional science in the name of creationism. The questions are grouped in these categories: what is creationism; what is conventional science; how does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science; theological questions. Within each category there are numbered specific questions, surrounded by introductory or other explanatory material. These questions are repeated at the end of each category (sometimes paraphrased) for emphasis.

We begin with the more important questions, and answers to them are greatly desired in order to promote communication. Later questions may be considered to be about details.


A few comments about some terminology

The expression "conventional science" is used here as it is a neutral expression, and many people object to misunderstandings surrounding such expressions as "evolutionism" or "theory of evolution".

The other side is referred to as "creationist" as that appears to be the self-description of those opposed to conventional science in the ways of interest here. It is not intended to include all people who believe in creation.


What is creationism?

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?


Exposition of creationism.
Definitions of terms.
Evidence for creationism.
Rules of evidence.
Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
Evidence which modifies creationism.
How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

evolution
primitive
natural selection
theory
(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?


What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
What is does conventional science say?
What is the evidence for conventional science?
What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?


Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.
Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?


Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science

By James Lippard:
Johnson sent me a copy of the paper of this title from the January 1993 issue of First Things, and I thought some portions to be worth quoting:


p. 9: "Those who regard Scripture as more authoritative than scientific theories, and who are confident that they know the correct way to interpret it, may choose to defend the Genesis account as literally true and employ scientific argument to discredit the alternatives. Fundamentalist creationists of this kind make up perhaps half of the 47 percent that the Gallup poll described as creationist. Unfortunately, the commitment of this large group to a literal interpretation of Genesis has confused and divided the Christian world, and even played into the hands of the evolutionary naturalists. Darwinists assiduously promote the notion that the only possible alternatives are six-day Genesis literalism on the one hand, and fully naturalistic, neo-Darwinistic evolution on the other."
[Johnson suggests putting aside biblical issues, the age of the earth, and the method of creation on the same page. He seems to suggest that he is unconcerned about whether or not evolution has occurred or not.]


p. 10: "The theistic naturalists seem to share this fervent faith that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life simply must be there to be found. To suppose that God may have played some direct, active role in creating the first life on earth would reduce God to the status of a creature, would posit an impossible missing relation between the members of nature, and would deny the functional integrity of the universe. One might almost say that it would constitute blasphemy."
[This is the view he is arguing against.]


p. 12: "In any case, Darwinistic evolution would be a most peculiar creative method for God to choose, given the Darwinistic insistence that biological evolution was undirected. That requirement means that God neither programmed evolution in advance nor stepped in from time to time to pull it in the right direction. How then did God ensure that humans would come into existence so that salvation history would have a chance to occur?"
[This is his critique of "theistic naturalism," which holds that God exists but that nature proceeds without supernatural influence.]


p. 12: "Of course, God could make some use of random mutation and natural selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God can act freely as He chooses: that is just the problem for those who would constrain God by philosophy. God could employ mutation and natural selction or act supernaturally, whether or not His choice causes inconvenience for scientists who want to be able to explain and control everything. Once we allow God to enter the picture at all, there is no reason to be certain a priori that natural science has the power to discover the entire mechanism of creation. Maybe science can discover how living things were made, and maybe it can't. Consistent theists will therefore accept Darwinist claims for the creative power of mutation and selection only insofar as those claims can be supported by evidence. That isn't very far at all."
[This seems to me to be Johnson's central claim. That there is no a priori reason to suppose that God doesn't intervene, and that the empirical evidence for such things as common ancestry is so weak that we should be at best agnostic, and more likely reject it in favor of divine intervention. Further, he argues that the only reason people have thought that the empirical evidence for common ancestry is strong is because of their presupposition that God does not or cannot intervene. His argument about the a priori doesn't seem half-bad, but I think he is wrong about the state of the empirical evidence--and that his own presuppositions are biasing his own examination of it.]


p. 13: "When people ask whether Darwinism and theism are compatible, they normally take the Darwinism for granted and ask whether the theism has to be discarded. It is far more illuminating, however, to approach the question from the other side. Is there any reason that a person who believes in a real, personal God should believe that biological creation has occurred by Darwinian evolution? The answer is clearly no. The sufficiency of any process of chemical evolution to produce life has certainly not been demonstrated, nor has the ability of natural selection to produce new body plans, complex organs, or anything else except variation within types that already exist. The fossil record notoriously does not evidence any continuous process of gradual change. Rather, it consistently shows that new forms appear suddenly and fully formed in the rocks, and thereafter remain fundamentally unchanged. ... If Darwinian evolution is the only allowable source for life's diversity and complexity, then the shortage of evidence doesn't matter. The only question, to borrow Darwin's own words, is why 'Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms.'"

p. 14, continuing immediately: "Atheists can leave the matter there, but theists have to go farther. If God exists, then Darwinian evolution is not the only alternative, and there is no reason for a theist to believe that God employed it beyond the relatively trivial level where the effects of variation and selection can actually be observed.

"In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem unbiblical to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to natural evolution is possible. To know that is to assume that God does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create. To infer that mutation and selection did the creating because nothing else was available, and then to bring God back into the picture as the omnipotent being who chose to create by mutation and selection, is to indulge in self-contradiction."
[Here Johnson seems to contradict his earlier statements about what can and cannot be established a priori. His sentence "To know that Darwinism is true ... one has to know that no alternative to naturalistic evolution is possible" is false, whether he means "logically possible" or "physically possible." Either way, it leads to a radical skepticism, to a rejection of virtually all knowledge. Ruling out all alternative possibilities is far too strong a condition for knowledge. I would challenge Johnson to specify what relevant probabilities (as in probable explanations, not numeric probabilities) have not been ruled out as an alternative to "naturalistic evolution." If there are no highly probable alternatives to naturalistic evolution, then we do know that naturalistic evolution has taken place. Johnson suggests that there are such possibilities, but never actually specifies any. This is surely a tactic to avoid having to defend his own views, as I suspect that any possible alternative he would be happy believing suffers from problems of internal incoherence. (E.g., if God is good and doesn't want to deceive us, why plant all this misleading evidence for evolution? Johnson's only response to this will be to deny that there is such evidence.)]

[Added July 1, 1994: Timothy Chow has suggested to me that what Johnson means by his claim that "To know that Darwinism is true (as a general explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative to natural evolution is possible" is that Darwinism rests on the assumption that there are no possible alternatives, i.e., that's the only argument for Darwinism. If this is indeed what Johnson meant, then my response above misses the point of his argument. Instead, the proper response is simply to deny the claim that Darwinism is predicated on the assumption that no other alternatives are possible.]


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

[From part 3 of a review of Michael Bauman, editor, Man and Creation: Perspectives on Science and Theology, 1993, Hillsdale College Press, originally posted to talk.origins on February 2, 1994 in <2FEB199417113350@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu>:]

Phillip E. Johnson, "What Is Darwinism?"

Johnson begins by describing what he thinks is uncontroversial about Darwinism:

Darwinian theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity in life forms can develop once various types of complex living organisms are already in existence. If a small population of birds happens to migrate to an isolated island, for example, a combination of inbreeding, mutation and natural selection may cause this isolated population to develop characteristics different from those possessed by the ancestral population on the mainland. When the theory is understood in this limited sense, Darwinian evolution is uncontroversial and has no important philosophical or theological implications. (pp. 177-178)
He immediately goes on, however, to say that

Evolutionary biologists are not content merely to explain how variation occurs within limits, however. They aspire to answer a much broader question: how complex organisms like birds, flowers and human beings came into existence in the first place. The Darwinian answer to this second question is that the creative force that produced complex plants and animals from single-celled predecessors over long stretches of geological time is essentially the same as the mechanism that produces variations in flowers, insects and domestic animals before our very eyes. (p. 178)
Johnson claims that this latter view is "a philosophical doctrine so lacking in empirical support that Mayr's successor at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, once pronounced it in a reckless moment to be 'effectively dead.'" (p. 178)

He asks how so many people could hold such an unscientific theory, and states that the answer requires definition of key terms: creationism, evolution, science, religion, and truth.

Johnson begins with creationism, which he says "means simply a belief in creation." He chides Darwinists for using the term to refer to young-earth creationists, which he takes to be an illegitimate way of setting up a false dilemma. (Here, I think the blame falls as much on non-young-earth-creationists as it does on evolutionists. By failing to stand up to the young-earthers and make it known that belief in a creator doesn't entail such views, the use of the term "creationist" has come to mean "young-earth creationist" in the English language. Old earth creationist Davis Young concedes the term "creationist" to the young earthers in his book Christianity and the Age of the Earth.)

Johnson goes on to say that in the broadest sense, a creationist is someone who believes that there is a creator who has created the world and its inhabitants with a purpose. He then asks if creationism in his sense is compatible with evolution. Of course it is, right? Here's Johnson:

The answer is "absolutely not," when "evolution" is understood in the Darwinian sense. To Darwinists, evolution means naturalistic evolution, because they insist that science must assume the cosmos to be a closed system of material causes and effects that can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature--by God, for example. (pp. 179-180)
Johnson has just complained about illegitimate narrow definition of "creationism," but then he immediately turns around and does exactly what he was complaining about to "evolution"! Further, even the definition of evolution that Johnson gives here is, contrary to his claims, quite consistent with the existence of a creator, at least a deistic one. It is perfectly consistent for a theist to say that God created the universe as "a closed system of material causes and effects that can never be influenced by anything outside of material nature" AND that what is produced in that closed system has meaning and purpose as a result of God's design. (BTW, it is a consequence of the commonly held evangelical Christian view that God is "outside of time" and immutable that the universe is such a system. See the first few chapters of Richard M. Gale's On the Nature and Existence of God, 1991, Cambridge Univ. Press, for detailed argument. Gale argues that theists should give up both the "outside of time" notion of God's eternity and the immutability doctrine.)
Next, Johnson talks more about "materialistic evolution." He says that on this view, evolution is at bottom based on chance, "because that is what is left when we have ruled out everything involving intelligence or purpose" (p. 180). He maintains that evolutionary speculation need not be confirmed by any evidence (experimental or fossil), but that "To Darwinists the ability to imagine the process is sufficient to confirm that something like that must have happened" (p. 180).

The next term to be defined is "science." Johnson maintains that Darwinists (all of them, apparently) assume "scientific naturalism"--that (a) science is inherently limited to the natural and (b) science (potentially) describes all there is. This claim is falsified by Van Till, who accepts evolution and (a) but rejects (b), by me (I accept evolution, reject (a), and am agnostic about (b)).

Johnson goes on to say that scientific naturalism has normative rules which govern criticism and replacement of theories based on Kuhn's notion of a paradigm--that acceptable explanations must fit the requirements of the paradigm (in this case, evolution), no matter how wild and contorted such explanations may be. Unless a suitable replacement paradigm is available, this process continues. (Johnson explicitly says that the contortions may involve deception: "Supporting the paradigm may even require what in other contexts would be called deception" (p. 182).)

The last term to be defined is "truth," which Johnson claims "is not a particularly important concept in naturalistic philosophy" (p. 186). (This is completely at odds with the naturalism advocated by such persons as Philip Kitcher (The Advancement of Science) and Alvin Goldman (Epistemology and Cognition), for whom truth is central to their epistemological views.) Johnson's reason for his statement is that scientific knowledge is dynamic rather than absolute--what was scientific knowledge in the past is not so today. This seems to take for granted the Kuhn/Laudan critique of scientific progress, which I think is a major mistake (chapters 4 and 5 of the above-mentioned Kitcher book give a good account of genuine scientific progress and elucidate problems with Kuhn's and Laudan's arguments).

Johnson maintains that theism is a source of truth which competes with science and gives a framework from which one can reject evolution because of its weaknesses (which he claims the scientific naturalist can't do unless another paradigm comes along).

Near the end of his article, Johnson again argues for his claim that creationism and evolution in his senses are contradictory (which I disputed above). Here's the core of his argument:

Darwinian evolution is by definition unguided and purposeless, and such evolution cannot in any meaningful sense be theistic. For evolution to be genuinely theistic it must be guided by God, whether this means that God programmed the process in advance or stepped in from time to time to give it a push in the right direction. (p. 188)
Here I think there is a possible confusion of levels of description. One can consistently hold that the processes of evolution are inherently "unguided and purposeless" at one level of description, while simultaneously holding that the system in which the processes operate was "programmed in advance" by God. Johnson seems to hold that it is contradictory for God's plan to have components that make use of randomness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Bill Hamilton:
The following communication appeared in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation), Vol 44 No 4, December 1992, pp. 253, 254

I thought the comments on the value of evolution as an explanatory framework, the nature of science and the need for an alternative model (i.e. a "Theory of Creation") if creationists expect creationism to be considered science are especially appropriate to some of the current discussions.

Note that Gingerich is a Christian, and he has concerns about the potential for abuse of evolutionary theory to "support" atheistic and social agendas. But he defends evolution as science because of its explanatory power.

Further Reflections on "Darwin on Trial"
By Owen Gingerich
Astronomy and History of Science
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Cambridge, MA 02138


For some of the ASA members attending the 1992 Annual Meeting in Kona, Hawaii, a highlight was a spontaneously organized discussion session following Phillip Johnson's paper. In the round-robin of correspondence that has ensued since the meeting, I realize that some of my own remarks at this session as well as my review of Johnson's Darwin on Trial (PSCF, June 1992) were not understood as clearly as I had hoped.

On one point there was unanimous agreement: the issue is not evolution versus creation. The issue is design versus accident.

Phillip Johnson has impressively documented the extent to which much evolutionary teaching comes with philosophical baggage claiming that "accident" is a real feature of the world, "proven" by evolutionary doctrine. In the time since Newton, science has used mechanistic explanations that dispense with divine intervention (the "God of the Gaps"), and with considerable success. To the extent that design represents divine intervention and "accident" does not, the later explanation can be invoked as part of a mechanistic explanation. All too frequently teachers in their naivete, or because of a deliberate atheistic orientation, present their material as if such a mechanism describes the actual world rather than being simply a rule of science.

Johnson and I both agree that the teaching must become more nuanced in its presentation, and we both reject evolutionism as a philosophy. But in my reading of Johnson, his strategy appears to invoke a frontal attack on evolution. I think this is misguided and ultimately fruitless. My brief is to launch the attack against the atheists who are using evolution to further their materialistic philosophies, against those who raise a reasonable structure of scientific explanation into a naturalistic ideology.

In an upcoming article ("Theistic Naturalism and The Blind Watchmaker," scheduled for the March 1993 issue of First Things) Johnson presents statistics to the effect that only a small minority of Americans accept the seemingly accidental, zig-zag pathways of evolution as being the wholly mechanistic way that brought intelligent life into existence. Part and parcel of Johnson's strategy is to define evolution in those terms, with the insinuation that anyone who thinks of evolution otherwise (in fact, the majority) is being duped. And, he maintains, the mechanisms that could build up the great chain of being, from microorganisms to fishes to mammals, are so flimsily and inadequately demonstrated that the whole structure should be dumped.

My counterstrategy would be to accept evolution as a reasonable theoretical structure for explaining a great many relationships in the biological world. It gives a very sensible explanation of why the DNA in yeast is so closely related to the DNA in human chromosomes, or why the genetic content of chimpanzees is so similar to those of Homo sapiens. It explains numerous morphological patterns from the coelocanth to the gorilla. It provides an insight into the many examples adduced by Darwin for imperfect adaptation. It helps us understand why Hawaii has so few species compared to the older continental areas, and why there would be flightless birds on the islands (now, alas, extinct since the recent introduction of such predators as the mongoose). Johnson's rejoinder is that distribution of species is not evolution. Of course not, and I never claimed so; but it is an excellent example of the sort of empirical evidence that remains mysterious and even capricious in the absence of some sort of explanatory structure, which the theory of evolution supplies.

The theory of evolution requires two basic elements: variation and selection. Darwin was greatly baffled as to how variation could arise, and his theory was rejected in many scientific quarters until a much greater understanding of genetics, and ultimately of the chemical basis of genetics, was achieved. There still is no satisfactory detailed mechanism for producing large enough, non-lethal variation of the DNA to produce a new species in a single jump, and it remains an act of faith on the part of evolutionists that there is some way for it to have happened bit by bit. As a Christian theist, I believe that this is part of God's design. Whether God designed the universe at the outset so that the appropriate mechanisms could arise in the course of time, or whether God gives an occasional timely input is something that science, by its very nature, will probably never be able to fathom. But as a scientist, I accept evolution as the appropriate explanatory structure to guide research into the origins and affinities of the kingdoms of living organisms.

In closing my review of Darwin on Trial, I expressed my frustration by Johnson's apparent lack of appreciation about how science works, and this seems to be the least understood statement in my review. In Kona I tried to illustrate what I meant by mentioning Foucault's pendulum experiment, carried out in Paris on the night of 7-8 January 1851. The next morning there was not dancing in the streets because finally experimental proof for the earth's rotation had been found and that Copernicus was right. It was a marvelous demonstration, but Foucault's pendulum hardly affected the status of Newtonian theory or heliocentrism. It made no differenceQpeople were already convinced about a rotating earth because Newtonian physics connected so many observations together into a coherent structure. I firmly believe that science concerns itself mostly with building coherent patterns of explanation, and rather little with proof. Lawyers seek proofs, and that's why I said that Phil Johnson was approaching science like a lawyer, somehow supposing that if he could show that evolution has no proofs, it would crumble. That, I think, is misguided.

In the discussion in Hawaii, John Wiester spoke well of the Science paper by Alan Lightman and me, in which we analyzed anomalies in science and the resistance of scientists to acknowledging them (Science, 255, pp. 690-695). But the essential, underlying thesis of the paper was that anomalies will generally pass unrecognized until the availability of an alternate theory in which they suddenly make sense. When I said above that Johnson's approach would probably be fruitless, I did so in this precise context. Until or unless there is another acceptable scientific explanation for the temporal and geographical distribution of plants and animals and their structural relationships, biological evolution will remain the working paradigm among scientists. To invoke God's active agency as the explanation for slow, long-term changes in the biological record will be no more efficacious as a scientific theory than to say that the moon orbits the earth or apples fall from trees because of God's sustaining activity in the universe. While I believe both to be true, they do not pass as scientific explanations. In reading Darwin on Trial, I am left with the impression that Johnson wishes they would.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:


if you look at the bible carefully you can work out that heaven and earth were created in 4004 bc it was some guy in britain i belive who worked that out from the bible.Evolution fits the vast majority of the evidence availible to us at this moment, therefore it is a scientific truth, nothing can conprehensively disprove it as of yet whereas there is considerable evidence against creationism, how ever as this is an emotive issue most people tend to ignore it. whether YOU think it is true or not depends on how you apply the term truth. But the vast majority of the scientific communtiy will accept evolution as a scientifc truth until it can be disproved.<hr></blockquote>

someone speculated that it meant 4004 bc. The whole problem today is that people take speculation as fact. If they would LOOK they would see there is no fact to it. Anything other than natural selection still has no good evidence at the moment, evolution fits the speculation that has formed due to the consideration of it. Nothing is scientific truth until it has been scientifically proven, and more than once, any scientist knows this. There is NO evidence against creation at all, whatsoever, that is a blatant falsehood. Nothing can comprehensively disprove your version of evolution, that is true. But it has a standing belief accepted long before it, and that belief must be disproved before a new belief can surpass it. No real scientist will ever accept ANYTHING as truth until it IS proven. This is why they are so against creation. Rather illogical, as by the same token, they should be against common descent and random formation of life as well.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:
heres a little but i can get much more if you want it... they come from here


Creationism is not scientifically explanatory.
Science and religion are two different cognitive fields between which communication is not possible.
<hr></blockquote>

In all honestry I didn't read any more of this post than this line. I'm not arguing anything on a religious viewpoint in this thread. I'm in total scientist mode and stating the obvious fact that many people are 1. misenterpreting what science has discovered so far, and 2. Believing in speculations to such an extent that it's become much like a religion to them (the best way I could phrase it)

From a scientific viewpoint, common descent and random creation of life are hypothesis at best and are not proven. There are some predictions involving them, but you know, speculation is a nice synonym for prediction. Scientific method is based on proof, through and through. and there is none in relation to these ideas. There is only prediction. As such, I refuse to accept them until the proof is found. I will, quite logically, follow the belief that is hundreds of times older and has more credibility. When this new idea has been proven, then I will consider acepting it as a valid replacement. But it will never be proven, and anyone who claims such a strong belief in it with no proof should proclaim they have a religion based on faith in scientific speculation. Science, or evolution, must be their God.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Prime2U:


I do not believe that it [evolution] operates, for example between mammals and reptiles, reptiles becoming mammals and so forth, and there just isn't proof at this point to say that this happens.<hr></blockquote>

Why not between mammals and reptiles? What are mammals and reptiles anyway, except names that human scientists have given to certain characteristics, to make it easier to classify and describe species? The line between the two groups was far from a clear-cut line; mammal-like reptiles were a thriving group in the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic. (An example of a mammal-like reptile would be the cynodont: Its skeleton was largely reptilian in design, though its skull showed some definite mammalian traits, such as large canine teeth. Its spine moved from side to side, like a reptile's, yet it had fur and whiskers.)
And if you want some modern-day proof, do some DNA analysis; an alligator is more closely related to, say, a pelican than it is to a boa constrictor.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by SixOfSpades:



Why not between mammals and reptiles? What are mammals and reptiles anyway, except names that human scientists have given to certain characteristics, to make it easier to classify and describe species? The line between the two groups was far from a clear-cut line; mammal-like reptiles were a thriving group in the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic. (An example of a mammal-like reptile would be the cynodont: Its skeleton was largely reptilian in design, though its skull showed some definite mammalian traits, such as large canine teeth. Its spine moved from side to side, like a reptile's, yet it had fur and whiskers.)
And if you want some modern-day proof, do some DNA analysis; an alligator is more closely related to, say, a pelican than it is to a boa constrictor.<hr></blockquote>


Well.. for starters, a pelican isn't a mammmal. Actually... that's all i really care to say.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Prime2U:


someone speculated that it meant 4004 bc. The whole problem today is that people take speculation as fact. If they would LOOK they would see there is no fact to it. Anything other than natural selection still has no good evidence at the moment, evolution fits the speculation that has formed due to the consideration of it. Nothing is scientific truth until it has been scientifically proven, and more than once, any scientist knows this. There is NO evidence against creation at all, whatsoever, that is a blatant falsehood. Nothing can comprehensively disprove your version of evolution, that is true. But it has a standing belief accepted long before it, and that belief must be disproved before a new belief can surpass it. No real scientist will ever accept ANYTHING as truth until it IS proven. This is why they are so against creation. Rather illogical, as by the same token, they should be against common descent and random formation of life as well.<hr></blockquote>

Evolution is proven as a certainty by the evidence we already have. It is accepted as the the truth. Scientific proof depends on the theory being the best fit. If it fits most or all of the evidence availible it is a scientific proof, when something comes along that explains better that may be considered truth.the arguement for creationism has NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS!creationism requires that you have belief in a diety, the existence of a god cannot be proven by science therefor "scientific" creationism has shot itself in the foot. and cannot even be considered as the truth as it is worthless.there is evidence supporting evolution, but there is no evidence supporting creationism.

[ 11-04-2001: Message edited by: Dramnek_Ulk ]</p>