Re: creation science vs. evolution
Mello,<br />You seem confident in your science. You seem to have great faith in it, in fact. Tell me how many transitional forms you've found. Not sporadic incomplete examples, but showing the ENTIRE transition. They are simply not there. In fact the movement in science is away from gradual evolution because it cannot be supported with any hard evidence not requiring mathmatical manipulation (like carbon or isotope dating)or great amounts of imagination. Scientific theory dictates that that something be observable and reproduceable for it to be considered fact. There were no witnesses and even Sidney Fox's experiments demonstrated that any atmosphere which could perhaps allow the formation of nucleic acids randomly would also destroy any protein actually formed. The thought amongst the cutting edge crowd is that it must have been modulated somehow- sporadic. But no one has any real explanation for any such mechanism. Bottom line is that the closer you look both explanations require faith. Many prefer to not look close enough to have to choose, because if the question "how did we get here?" gets answered we have to crawl off the fence and decide where to stand. The notion that God might have used evolution does not ultimately float because reasonable hermaneutics require something which pretty closely resembles a literal 6 days of creation. I realize that this gets debated, but these theories which attempt to harmonize faith with evolution were started as attempts to appease what was perceived to be sound science in the 1800's. Much of what was then thought to be sound science then has been discarded and replaced or at least severely modified, as will be the current set of scientific theories of origin. Why do the dates of the big bang keep getting revised? Or of the timeline of life beginning? Because flaws in the science as revealed by new evidence exclude the previous dates, so adding another hundred million years becomes the standard answer to each new discovery. Still fails to really answer the questions. This will never be conclusively proven either way scientifically for any of us who stand on this earth. But to state that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution fails to acknowledge that what all the hot "evidences" were 20 years ago have been pretty much dismissed for newer ones. There are plenty of ardent evolutionary PhD's who acknowledge this. Funny, from where I stand I see overwhelming evidence of Creation. Keep on looking. Look closer. Look close enough and you may switch over like I did.<br /><br />I say teach both as theory in schools, since neither can be scientifically established as fact.
Mello,<br />You seem confident in your science. You seem to have great faith in it, in fact. Tell me how many transitional forms you've found. Not sporadic incomplete examples, but showing the ENTIRE transition. They are simply not there. In fact the movement in science is away from gradual evolution because it cannot be supported with any hard evidence not requiring mathmatical manipulation (like carbon or isotope dating)or great amounts of imagination. Scientific theory dictates that that something be observable and reproduceable for it to be considered fact. There were no witnesses and even Sidney Fox's experiments demonstrated that any atmosphere which could perhaps allow the formation of nucleic acids randomly would also destroy any protein actually formed. The thought amongst the cutting edge crowd is that it must have been modulated somehow- sporadic. But no one has any real explanation for any such mechanism. Bottom line is that the closer you look both explanations require faith. Many prefer to not look close enough to have to choose, because if the question "how did we get here?" gets answered we have to crawl off the fence and decide where to stand. The notion that God might have used evolution does not ultimately float because reasonable hermaneutics require something which pretty closely resembles a literal 6 days of creation. I realize that this gets debated, but these theories which attempt to harmonize faith with evolution were started as attempts to appease what was perceived to be sound science in the 1800's. Much of what was then thought to be sound science then has been discarded and replaced or at least severely modified, as will be the current set of scientific theories of origin. Why do the dates of the big bang keep getting revised? Or of the timeline of life beginning? Because flaws in the science as revealed by new evidence exclude the previous dates, so adding another hundred million years becomes the standard answer to each new discovery. Still fails to really answer the questions. This will never be conclusively proven either way scientifically for any of us who stand on this earth. But to state that there is overwhelming evidence for evolution fails to acknowledge that what all the hot "evidences" were 20 years ago have been pretty much dismissed for newer ones. There are plenty of ardent evolutionary PhD's who acknowledge this. Funny, from where I stand I see overwhelming evidence of Creation. Keep on looking. Look closer. Look close enough and you may switch over like I did.<br /><br />I say teach both as theory in schools, since neither can be scientifically established as fact.
Its kinda like not using the instruction sheet with your new bar BQ, and you wonder why you have nuts left over!
