momo3boys wrote:Thank you Theodore and knobren, This is fun, I don't always get a chance to debate anymore!
Open debate is healthy.
As far as science goes. this is a subject dear to my heart. Mostly because of my father. Creationists are scientists, and they truly do use science on a daily basis. They have faith in God, but evolutionists have faith in Evolution. Here is an example of evolutionists not telling the whole truth.
Creationists are not scientists. Supernatural explanations cannot be tested (falsified); therefore, they cannot be addressed by scientific methods.
from www.icr.org regarding human footprints, found to be 3.5 million year old according to conventional testing.
"As far as the footprints go, her data are not questioned, but the interpretation of the data illustrates the lengths to which evolutionists will go to avoid questioning man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry.
The prints themselves are quite human-like "indistinguishable from those of modem humans" (Anderson, New Scientist 98:373, 1983). Following extensive research it was concluded that the footprints "resemble those of habitually unshod modem humans.... (If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus" (Tuttle, Natural History March 1990).
Because of the dates, the prints have been assigned to Australopithecus afarensis, i.e., Lucy's kind. But is this valid? Lucy was essentially a chimp. Even discoverer Donald Johansson only claims that Lucy was a chimp that walked somewhat more erect than other chimps. The Australopithecus foot was an ape's foot, with an opposing thumb, and long curved toes just right for climbing in trees, but most unlike a human's foot. According to researcher Dr. Charles Oxnard in a 1996 interview: "If you examine (Australopithecus foot bones) more closely, and especially if you examine it using the computer multivariate statistical analysis that allows you to assess parts that the eye doesn't easily see, it turns out that big toe was divergent."
Why do evolutionists continue to maintain that the chimp-like Lucy made the Laetoli human-like footprints, and that both represent our ancestors? Well, it's certainly not for scientific reasons. The drive to prove man's animal ancestry is great, for it frees one from accountability to a creator-God."
I'm not sure what footprints you are referring to. The footprints next to the dinosaur tracts are actually dinosaur footprints, not human footprints. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
As far as other religions being shown as well, most religions start with Genesis and God creating the world in seven days, Jewish, Muslims, Christians,,, I know theres more but I'm not a religion major. [/quote]There are many proofs like this that secular science has ignored. Trees standing in layers of strata, whale fossilized in millions of years of strata, and human prints next to dinosaur prints. Why can't children in High school see the evidence of this debate.
Why do creationists primarily argue about fossils and geology? There is a ton of evidence for common descent that are found in the biological sciences rather than just palentology or geology. Evolution is after all a topic of BIOLOGY. I'm not really familiar with what you and Theodore are saying about trees and so forth. Please send a link, so I can see what you are talking about. I don't understand the problem. I would assume that a geologist would realize what events could cause this tree thing. I just don't know anything about it.
Theodore talks about freshly laid rock that appears old. I assume that he is talking about lava flows. Some lava flows carry unmelted rock in them. These rocks would register as old because they are being carried up from deeper depths. The melted rock wouldn't appear old. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html
Adult laypersons don't believe scientists when they answer creationists arguments with scientific data; how would kids be able to understand it? I sent an excerpt before that discussed how science views commen descent to be a "fact" in as much certainty as anything can be proven. Scientists argue about the mechanisms of evolution and those are the theories of evolution. These theories also are "highly-probable" based on the available evidence. Science can never prove anything with 100% certainty, but all of the available evidence supports the predictions that one would expect to see if these theories are correct. That is why evolution is not a religion. It is not based on faith. It is based on tests and observations. Creationism is not.
One thing that creationists argue about is that common descent could not be observed. Chemists can't see subatomic particles, but they have deduced their parts and functions based on tests and predicted outcomes. http://www.krysstal.com/subatomic.html
Biologists can't see sodium pumps embedded in cell membranes, but they can make predictions about what will happen in an experiment if their models are correct. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagere ... ageindex=1
Gravity cannot be seen directly, but we can observe how it acts on apples, etc. (By the way, before the theory of gravity, I think that people thought that apples were attracted to the "earth" element of earth, fire, air, and water.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
I don't see anyone calling for teachers to show the evidence for these topics and letting children try to interpret the data to reach a conclusion!
Knobren, I also wanted to ask you if you knew that one of the number one damaging effects of abortion in psychological not physical. Many anti-abortion projects are turning into abortion counseling. I don't know of any non-religious companies doing this.
And yet, we have Theodore perpetuating the myths of increased rates of sterility and cancer in women who have had abortions. Personally, I would find it more emotionally damaging to carry a child to term and then give her/him up for adoption, never knowing what had become of her/him. People are also know to neglect or abuse kids that they didn't want or couldn't afford.
If you want to have fewer abortions, then you need to make contraception easily available and affordable and teach people how to use it. Dear Abby had a letter recently about some girl who got pregnant because she believed the myth that you can't be pregnant if you have sex in a swimming pool. Lots of kids also believe the myth that you can't get pregnant the first time or that withdrawl before -CENSORED- is sufficient protection against pregnancy. Sex ed. is essential to dispelling these myths.
As far as contradiction goes, How can someone be okay with killing an innocent child, but want to keep a criminal, murderer rapist alive? I don't think we should kill anyone. God is the judge, as I've said before. If we believe in survival of the fittest than why do we support gays and lesbians, they wouldn't survive in a natural world with out science to help them conceive, and we wouldn't help those people with debilitating genetic diseases. Just some contradictions I've seen that I can't seem to get an answer for.
Human technology has advanced faster than human evolution. People survive injuries, infections, congenital defects, etc who would not have survived in the past. I'm certainly not against that. Homosexuals have had kids in the past and continue to do so today because they often marry and procreate in order to try to fit in or they may have been forced to do so by their families and in order to produce heirs. What's the difference in helping them conceive by artificial means - they don't cause emotional harm to their deceived spouses or bring home diseases contracted from extra-marrital affairs. Are you also against aiding heterosexuals to reproduce?
As far as other religions being shown as well, most religions start with Genesis and God creating the world in seven days, Jewish, Muslims, Christians,,, I know theres more but I'm not a religion major.
I wouldn't call that "most" religions. What about Buddism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Shinto, Candoble, Paganism, Zoroastrianism, various Native American beliefs, etc.? http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/
Thank you again for this debating opportunity. I haven't had this much fun since high School.