Robski - if you only want to debate with Toptuan, PM him. Otherwise, surely the point of a forum is that we all join in.

And just for the record, I don't know a single credible scientist that would state that "evolution is scientific fact". Good scientists postulate theories and seek for evidence to prove or disprove them. It's an excellent discipline and I admire their minds and intellectual discipline. They don't pretend things have been proven that have not.

That is science! Which is the perfect answer to the op!

When you guys have finally laid this debate to rest and arrived at the truth, please let me know. A lifetime of searching has not revealed ONE shred of evidence that ANY religious belief holds ANY water. In fact, the more you look the more ridiculous the fantasy becomes. I suppose I'm destined for hel_l because I won't buy the product on ridiculous claims.

You really don't need to be a scientist to see all the cracks in religion. Just plain old garden-type logic will do.

Fear is a terrible thing. It makes us buy into virtually anything. Ask GWB, and many before him. Ask the Pope.

Im an agnostic with atheist leanings, to say that evolution requires a similar leap of faith to creationism I think is WAY off base.

Personally the leap to believe that woman was created from a single man's rib, or the whole species started off with just Adam & Eve, requires a considerable hop skip and a jump of faith.

Creationism's main arguments is that there are no empirical observations etc and no fossils, but there is likewise no proof for creationism. Their convenient retort most commonly given? It doesn't need proof, only faith!

The thing is these concepts are incorrect, evolution is proven, new transitional fossils are being discovered all the time, (see here), (and here), (and here)if you don't fancy clicking a link and don't trust wikipedia reach around and touch your coccyx or better yet check out this link which has photographs of human tails!! . This is proof enough for me, whereas the only way we can get proof for creationism is to wait till we meet the pearly gates, the second coming, or for the four riders.

Religion has its place (society's moral compass), it has nothing to do with working out how things physically work and come to be, that is science's domain. The fact of the matter is that very many Christians also believe in Evolution, after all why can't the creator also have created the process of evolution?

Even Stephen Hawking admits that even at the level of physics that he is studying, multiple universes etc. that there is still room for a creator. The sheer scale of the universe makes the whole theory that life only evolved on Earth staggeringly egotistical.

Sorry guys, but the spaghetti monster theory gets my vote.

Here's another story that will no doubt raise a few heckles First Artificial Life Possible Within Months

Scientists could create the first new form of artificial life within months after a landmark breakthrough in which they turned one bacteria into another.

Craig Venter likened the process to 'changing a Macintosh computer

into a PC by inserting a new piece of software'

In a development that has triggered unease and excitement in equal measure, scientists took the whole genetic makeup - or genome - of a bacterial cell and transplanted it into a closely related species. ...

As much as I don't buy into the Bible's version of the creation, it is actually undisputable that evolution is also just a theory, and not fact. At the moment I find evolution the most likely theory, but it is still distinct from for example the speed of light in that you can measure the speed of light getting the same result every time.

Evolution is a theory of how life evolved. It is supported by bits and pieces of evidence that add up to something substantial, but that still does not make it fact.

The good thing, in my opinion, with creationism, is that it works so hard to find the gaps and inconsistencies in the theory of evolution and inspires scientists to look harder. That way we'll hopefully be able to get closer to the mystery of life, whatever it is.

It's true that the theory of evolution is incomplete. However, it is so compelling (and has explained so many things, despite its gaps) that there is no other serious scientific theory in competition with it at this time- scientifically, that is, not politically.

For example, having had an incomplete record for years between the "current" whale (vestigial legs only) and a land-living or amphibious ancestor more like a hippo, evolutionary models predicted intermediate steps between them. For the longest time, nothing was found (which is the most usual result of the fossil record) but recently something like 6 stages between the two creatures were found, with proportionately different leg sizes at each stage, filling in the gaps quite as well as predicted.

The problem is that in the absence of full data (the fossil record is too sparse) some scientists get a little overspeculative, and occasionally when the hard data arrives their claims are made to look ridiculous. However, this is how science operates- you work based on the most likely models derived from the data. If the new data trashes your model, you have to adjust it. That doesn't mean that science itself as a process is flawed or in question.

Most recent argument about evolution scientifically is in regard to whether it moves gradually most of the time, or in discrete jumps. I rather think the end result of that debate will be "sometimes one way, sometimes the other," but people will find reasons to argue.

For those of you who claim that "creationism" is a science, here is a simple request: what would constitute a solid body of test data demonstrating that an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being did NOT create the universe? (to be scientific, your hypothesis has to be negatable and testable, remember). Any other discussion of creationism as a "science" begs this question first.

P.S. I'd just like to add that if you believe in creationism *religiously* then I have no argument- and can have no argument- with you. Religious, faith-based beliefs are by their very nature difficult or impossible to test empirically, and therefore we're talking about a different domain of truth.

and on that note, so long and thanks for all the fish.

awww that brings back a certain memory

I like the new avatar Mig (sorry off topic )

in order to keep this discussion on topic...may I suggest those that would like to discuss my avatar can do so in the comfort of my living room

Ohh but BYO please...

now back to Science......

We are, for the greater part, clueless as to where we were before birth and just as clueless as to where we will find ourselves after death. That statement is made given the assumption that our existence transcends earthly life in both directions.

We are also clueless as to what we are doing in this world as well as why we find ourselves in it in the first place. We spend an enormous chunk of our lives asleep each night and are clueless as to where our consciousness goes during those hours.

In conclusion, we know so very little about who we really are. But rather than attempt first an understanding of our own nature, our own identity, our own self, we attempt instead to understand the world, the universe, around us. Origins, for example.

IMHO it ain't gonna happen because it's putting the horse before the cart. It's like trying to understand effects without ever questioning their source. I would venture to say that if you discover who you are the world which seems to surround us becomes self explanatory. That an exploration into the self would lead to an understanding that the outer world is merely a reflection of our own inner world.

Perhaps time does not even exist as we suppose that it does. That it's merely our physical perceptive mechanisms that force us to experience existence in a linear fashion only. Perhaps our precious little physical existence isn't the only one, and that our one-world, one-self concept is simply . . . well . . . fallacy. If that were true . . . if that were true . . . then all of our current theories of origins would crumble to dust.

There is only so much in this life of a material nature that one can hold in their physical hands for everyone to see and agree upon. The rest becomes up to one's personal belief. The arguments can, therefore, never conclude.

Hey, but it's all in good fun.

"A Priori" and "A Posteriori" me thinks

I AM A GOD!

I AM A GOD!

I remember a philosopher once saying 'Your god is what you worship!' Do you worship yourself kayo?

The mice did it.

'The mice did it.' now we have the definitive answer where is Toptuan?

'The mice did it.' now we have the definitive answer

Ahh, is this an allegorical reference to the forebears of Reepicheep and Reepiceek? and the cutting of the cords of a Fallen Saviour only to be resurrected because of a belief in an even more ancient philosophy.

I was always taught that the religion I was brought up in and I use most of the relevant words of this sentence it its most loose context, that because you cannot prove scientifically some written text, in this case the Bible, you must take it as, 'Act of Faith', sometimes even a, ' Leap of Faith'.

But whether you believe it Literally or with a certain amount of, ' Poetic licence', I see no real need to go blasting with a Light Sabre through peoples strongly held or in certain cases a lightly held, but significant belief in their own creation and ultimate salvation.

Moss

Wow! and I thought Jet had the definitive answer... thanks for that Monsineur Moss

Now where is toptuan? maybe a rename to 'hit'n'run'.

I remember someone else used to have that title, but then it was politics and not religion... those where the days.... NAH!

Anyway Mr Moss stick to what you do best, green curry and beer.

'The mice did it.' now we have the definitive answer

Ahh, is this an allegorical reference to the forebears of Reepicheep and Reepiceek? and the cutting of the cords of a Fallen Saviour only to be resurrected because of a belief in an even more ancient philosophy.

I was always taught that the religion I was brought up in and I use most of the relevant words of this sentence it its most loose context, that because you cannot prove scientifically some written text, in this case the Bible, you must take it as, 'Act of Faith', sometimes even a, ' Leap of Faith'.

But whether you believe it Literally or with a certain amount of, ' Poetic licence', I see no real need to go blasting with a Light Sabre through peoples strongly held or in certain cases a lightly held, but significant belief in their own creation and ultimate salvation.

Moss

A sensible, intelligent and difinitive answer from Moss. Just what we've come to expect. Well done Moss.

<deleted>!

Wow! and I thought Jet had the definitive answer... thanks for that Monsineur Moss

Anyway Mr Moss stick to what you do best, green curry and beer.

Now first off my friend, that will never be the case.

And secondly, the Green Curry, Credit must go with Mrs Scouse and as for the beer it was most welcome to share a beer or fifteen with yourself the other day.

'The mice did it.' now we have the definitive answer

Ahh, is this an allegorical reference to the forebears of Reepicheep and Reepiceek? and the cutting of the cords of a Fallen Saviour only to be resurrected because of a belief in an even more ancient philosophy.

I was always taught that the religion I was brought up in and I use most of the relevant words of this sentence it its most loose context, that because you cannot prove scientifically some written text, in this case the Bible, you must take it as, 'Act of Faith', sometimes even a, ' Leap of Faith'.

But whether you believe it Literally or with a certain amount of, ' Poetic licence', I see no real need to go blasting with a Light Sabre through peoples strongly held or in certain cases a lightly held, but significant belief in their own creation and ultimate salvation.

Moss

A sensible, intelligent and difinitive answer from Moss. Just what we've come to expect. Well done Moss.

As you can probably tell Suegha, I am going through a crisis of faith that has been on going for many years, which in its own right doesn't necessarily deem that I believe in your views but am completely in no man's land at this time.

Moss

<deleted>!

It would appear you disagree with my particular thoughts on this discussion, I thought you would have put a more definitive response than your more vulgar alternative.

Although I still look forward to our next quiet drink.

Good Luck

Moss

I AM A GOD!

In all seriousness, I would agree with that, kayo.

Well that view is just plain silly! Of course the dinosaurs existed and roamed the earth and no person, scientist or lay person, can say how they were wiped out. However, you could quote views from all sorts of nutters who hold the most silly views but that never helps a discussion.

I'll tell you an even funnier one. I once had a Christian say that dinosaurs were a result of genetic enginering! Oh yeah, I can just see stoneage man with his bunsen burner and test tube rustle up a T-Rex! What for? So there all sorts of nutters out there! No, dinosaurs were part of the original creation!

Suegha, let me just say I grew up in a community with your point of view of Creation. So you can see my perspective, at least from youth.

So, knowing what I know (this is just small comment), how does stoneage man fit into your view of creation? The Creationists I know that believe in Adam and Eve believe they were smarter than us. I have heard the genetic engineering dinasour origins talks in my youth. If you believe in Creation, surely you believe Adam and his immediate descendants were capable of these experiments because they had superior intelligence?

And, to be honest, if I remember the talks correctly (not saying it's fact), it was Cain's offspring, thus those reveling in evil, that were doing these experiments. Thus, dinosaurs came about from Cain's clan and their dastardly, but superior intelligent, deeds.

Also, while the Egyptian pyramids still befuddle many due to the technology back then, they don't befuddle Creationists as they believed we started out smarter than we are now. Of course, there is also the belief that just before the end times knowledge will increase in leaps and bounds.

I'm a huge agnostic now so I'm not going to enter the general discussion, but believe myself to be quite a moderate thinker and able to consider both sides. However, I found Steven's first few comments on page one condescending to a fault.

Oa backlash against the harsh realities of scientific fact.

This is not a promotion of Creationism over Evolution, but rigid and honest scientists would have to admit it's not scientific fact but a scientific theory. Don't confuse the two.

You could say it's a scientific theory that's generally accpeted and has a lot of evidence, but you can't call it fact. Not scientifically, anyway.

The sheer scale of the universe makes the whole theory that life only evolved on Earth staggeringly egotistical.

And whose view is that? Not the view of Creationism.

I actually found IJWT points of view to be the most rational, these in particular;

For those of you who claim that "creationism" is a science, here is a simple request: what would constitute a solid body of test data demonstrating that an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being did NOT create the universe? (to be scientific, your hypothesis has to be negatable and testable, remember). Any other discussion of creationism as a "science" begs this question first.

P.S. I'd just like to add that if you believe in creationism *religiously* then I have no argument- and can have no argument- with you. Religious, faith-based beliefs are by their very nature difficult or impossible to test empirically, and therefore we're talking about a different domain of truth.

The last point being the most intelligent one yet made in this discussion.

<deleted>!

It would appear you disagree with my particular thoughts on this discussion, I thought you would have put a more definitive response than your more vulgar alternative.

Sorry Moss I thought I was Moderating again.

I actually found IJWT points of view to be the most rational, these in particular;

For those of you who claim that "creationism" is a science, here is a simple request: what would constitute a solid body of test data demonstrating that an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being did NOT create the universe? (to be scientific, your hypothesis has to be negatable and testable, remember). Any other discussion of creationism as a "science" begs this question first.

P.S. I'd just like to add that if you believe in creationism *religiously* then I have no argument- and can have no argument- with you. Religious, faith-based beliefs are by their very nature difficult or impossible to test empirically, and therefore we're talking about a different domain of truth.

The last point being the most intelligent one yet made in this discussion.

Those are not the comments to which I was referring.

I AM A GOD!

I remember a philosopher once saying 'Your god is what you worship!' Do you worship yourself kayo?

I AM A GOD!

In all seriousness, I would agree with that, kayo.

Thank you Tippy. And Suegha, the answer to your confounding question, is....

Yeah! Why not? I should start doing so more often.

Well that view is just plain silly! Of course the dinosaurs existed and roamed the earth and no person, scientist or lay person, can say how they were wiped out. However, you could quote views from all sorts of nutters who hold the most silly views but that never helps a discussion.

I'll tell you an even funnier one. I once had a Christian say that dinosaurs were a result of genetic enginering! Oh yeah, I can just see stoneage man with his bunsen burner and test tube rustle up a T-Rex! What for? So there all sorts of nutters out there! No, dinosaurs were part of the original creation!

Suegha, let me just say I grew up in a community with your point of view of Creation. So you can see my perspective, at least from youth.

So, knowing what I know (this is just small comment), how does stoneage man fit into your view of creation? The Creationists I know that believe in Adam and Eve believe they were smarter than us. I have heard the genetic engineering dinasour origins talks in my youth. If you believe in Creation, surely you believe Adam and his immediate descendants were capable of these experiments because they had superior intelligence?

And, to be honest, if I remember the talks correctly (not saying it's fact), it was Cain's offspring, thus those reveling in evil, that were doing these experiments. Thus, dinosaurs came about from Cain's clan and their dastardly, but superior intelligent, deeds.

Also, while the Egyptian pyramids still befuddle many due to the technology back then, they don't befuddle Creationists as they believed we started out smarter than we are now. Of course, there is also the belief that just before the end times knowledge will increase in leaps and bounds.

I'm a huge agnostic now so I'm not going to enter the general discussion, but believe myself to be quite a moderate thinker and able to consider both sides. However, I found Steven's first few comments on page one condescending to a fault.

Thanks for contributing jimjim. I'll pm you for a chat. We know that there were times and places where people had only wooden and stone implements, that's what I mean by 'stone age'. I was actually using it to frame the sentence not the time period.

Yes it is correct to say our forefatherers were intelligent, (I hate the view that they were all simple and the stories were for simple men) but like today and every era, there were some very intelligent and some not so intelligent (just check tv to see this in action ). There are lots of things from antiquity that we don't understand, the pyramids are a case in point, the knowledge has been somehow lost. You also refer to the increase in knowledge in the latter days, this is the case and is a precursor to the return of the Lord Jesus, however, linked to intelligence, I don't think the availability of knowledge increases intelligence (or wisdom). It also states that fewer people will believe in God because of increased knowledge!

So back to the dinosaurs, I can't see the genetic engineering argument holding water! What for and why? It also flies in the face of the creationist’s argument that only God gives life. No, they existed and we don't know how they were wiped out. Probably in the flood - only God knows.

Well remembered that it was Cain's descendants that represented the unrighteous line (Seth represented the righteous). However, in both the righteous and unrighteous lines were find the opposite. That's why Jesus own genealogy is so interesting; it contains murderers, adulterers and a prostitute.