If creationism is a scientific theory, put your money where your mouth is.

Originally posted by saint4God
The rules here are part of "The Scientific Method" and might I point out that evolution does not fulfill these requirements either. If you want to throw out Creationism because of this, you must equally discard Evolution in the same regard....

You obviously did not read the entirety of my post. There is no bias in the post. Straight after what you quoted of my, I said:

Originally posted by Gear
...
Evolution does the following:
Observe.
Hypothesis.

...
If Evolution can be considered a Scientific Theory without following Scientific Method, Why can't Creationism?

I clearly stated that evolution does not follow Scientific Method either.
There is no room for argument.

working from gear's criteria

Observe. check
Hypothesis. check
Develop test. CHECK, darwin's finches, digging up bones can be seen as tests
Prediction of outcome. CHECK we will find change over time even within a species and we will discover transitional fossils
Test. CHECK, already stated
Observe outcome. CHECK, we find transitional species in the dirt all the time and darwin's observational tests of the finches produced results
Reach Hypothesis. check
Repeat.

here's ID. Observe: Read some bible
Hypothesis: Goddunit
Develop test: Plan to read bible
Prediction of Outcome: Bible right
Test: Read bible
Observe outcome: Circular logic proves bible right
Reach Hypothesis: Goddunit
Repeat: Go back to church every sunday

not to say that all religious people are IDists, just that suspiciously EVERY IDist is a religious person

[edit on 3/7/07 by madnessinmysoul]

I believe in evolution but I can't look at a biological machine and not see it was intelligently created. The human species may count for nothing, but the existence of mind has significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. We are a medium for the universe to be self-aware. The only proof you need is that you exist. For these kinds of questions, it is best to meditate on them.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Develop test. CHECK, darwin's finches,

Evidence shows fluctuation across a mean. It takes quite a bit 'o extrapolation, a "mountain of" extrapolation I'd say - to use that mechanism of adaption and correction - to say, for example, that cows and whales share a common ancestry, or even man and ape imho.

Same "mountain of evidence" different interpretation/inference. No?

here's ID. Observe: Read some bible
Hypothesis: Goddunit
Develop test: Plan to read bible
Prediction of Outcome: Bible right
Test: Read bible
Observe outcome: Circular logic proves bible right
Reach Hypothesis: Goddunit
Repeat: Go back to church every sunday

not to say that all religious people are IDists, just that suspiciously EVERY IDist is a religious person

[edit on 3/7/07 by madnessinmysoul]

There's no scipture used to formulate anything in ID. How many religous people support other theories? Suspicious?

But it does get more clever every time I read it [/ ]

Originally posted by Gear
I clearly stated that evolution does not follow Scientific Method either.
There is no room for argument.

I sit corrected and apologize for misunderstanding. I read the first grouping as the things evolution had contained and the second as what Creationism had, which made the last part admittedly confusing. After re-reading, I see where I was wrong.

As a side-note, in college I had evolution taught in subjects that did not relate to biology. For example, in the physics class "Quarks, Quasars, and Black Holes" by Dr. Harry Shipman, we had a good chunk of weeks devoted to evolution. Hm...why is this?

[edit on 8-3-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
not to say that all religious people are IDists, just that suspiciously EVERY IDist is a religious person

Not every.

Also Rren, we're not here to discuss "fluctuations" which is a mechanistic function of genetic variability. Don't need Darwin for that, Mendel had already figured it out. The faith miracle is going from genetic variation to trans-speciation as you'd described your cow and whale heritage idea. I'd like to hear more about that on the "evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none" thread, as here the focus is on Creationism.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
working from gear's criteria

Observe. check
Hypothesis. check
Develop test. CHECK, darwin's finches, digging up bones can be seen as tests
Prediction of outcome. CHECK we will find change over time even within a species and we will discover transitional fossils
Test. CHECK, already stated
Observe outcome. CHECK, we find transitional species in the dirt all the time and darwin's observational tests of the finches produced results
Reach Hypothesis. check
Repeat.

here's ID. Observe: Read some bible
Hypothesis: Goddunit
Develop test: Plan to read bible
Prediction of Outcome: Bible right
Test: Read bible
Observe outcome: Circular logic proves bible right
Reach Hypothesis: Goddunit
Repeat: Go back to church every sunday

not to say that all religious people are IDists, just that suspiciously EVERY IDist is a religious person

[edit on 3/7/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Everyone, please stay on the topic. I like how you covered ID, but please keep evolution out of this. This is a matter of whether or not creationism and ID are a scientific theory. Not whether or not evolution is.

I have still yet to see a legitamate theory from creationists or ID'ers. What is the process or mechanism behind creation? I understand that you view the world as being created by an intelligent design, but what is the process behind it? What is the evidence for it? Saying "it looks like it has been intelligently designed" is not a theory. Lets remember that a scientific theory lays out a mechanism or process to an observation and not merely stating an observation. You have to get more specific than this.

Hey saint4God, how are ya?

Originally posted by saint4God

Also Rren, we're not here to discuss "fluctuations" which is a mechanistic function of genetic variability. Don't need Darwin for that, Mendel had already figured it out.

I agree that we don't need Darwin, but disagree that the discussion is off topic re: creationism. The finch data fits the creation model wrt a 'kind barrier,' or atleast, it doesn't contradict it sans the extrapolation from that to 'macro-evo.' Do you disagree?

The faith miracle is going from genetic variation to trans-speciation as you'd described your cow and whale heritage idea.

I'm with ya... but... I don't know that calling it a "faith miracle" is a good way to get a civilized discussion going. I just take issue with the critic[s] who say to the creationist[s] 'oh yeah, well if don't accept common ancestry just look at the Finch.' It's a non-sequitur imo, unless the issue of the 'correction and stabilization' properties of the genome are addressed.

There's nothing in the Finch data, to this layman, that suggests it will ever be anything other than a bird. Adaption/micro-evo is sound Theory but macro is just a[n un-testable/repeatable imo] hypothesis or an inference. The fossil record is more evidence of stasis or 'horizontal evo' in line with creationist models moreso than gradualism... imo.

That doesn't mean CA (limited or universal) is wrong either, the Goulds or Shapiros [et al] of the world could have it right. I say gradualism is dead, or dying, but [many] other ideas or interpretations of the evidence exist outside of gradualism and creationism.

I'd like to hear more about that on the "evolution, where is the evidence???!!! I see none" thread, as here the focus is on Creationism.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by saint4God]

Yikes! That thread is still going? You know this stuff more than I do saint, so I don't know what help I could be there. I don't consider myself anti-evo just skeptical and have to admit my bias. It wouldn't wreck my world, or Faith, to know I'm a 'better' ape but, to be honest, my skeptism is as much theologically based as it is scientific. I'm not necessarily strong in either discipline so I don't have much business in a real debate over either issue[s].

Good to see ya though.

Your brother from another mother,
~Rob

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs


Everyone, please stay on the topic. I like how you covered ID, but please keep evolution out of this.

You like it? Even though I pointed out the logical [read: factual] issues with his, rather weak, post re: ID. Typical.

This is a matter of whether or not creationism and ID are a scientific theory. Not whether or not evolution is.

You have to falsify one as support for the other, ie: X-model is wrong 'cause of this that and the other therefore 'I' propose Y-model (ie, gradualism/common ancestry -vs- kinds/stasis). Why propose special creation if you can't falsify macro-evo. The creation counter will be rooted in NDE. You disagree?

I have still yet to see a legitamate theory from creationists or ID'ers.

No comments on anything I posted/linked in my original post (ie, baraminology or RATE)? Did you read them?

What is the process or mechanism behind creation? I understand that you view the world as being created by an intelligent design, but what is the process behind it?

Intelligent agency for ID. God for creationism. A model of special creation doesn't require proof of either imo, any more than NDE requires an abiogenesis model. You disagree? Please be specific.

What is the evidence for it? Saying "it looks like it has been intelligently designed" is not a theory. Lets remember that a scientific theory lays out a mechanism or process to an observation and not merely stating an observation. You have to get more specific than this.

Seriously? What if you were asked the same (ie, from LUCA to man with specific details, pathways and mechanisms), would it be reasonable to expect you to do so (you can't btw, nobody can/has yet) on a discussion board? I think not and your agreement with maddnessinmysoul's description of an ID model, which was ridiculous, unsupported hyperbole shows how willing you are to "discuss" this. [Tongue in Cheek]Little bit of pot-kettle racism goin' on here[/TiC]

FWIW I don't consider ID or special creation to be true [T]heory... yet, but the arguments are scientific (as every link I've given thus far supported) and we can have a discussion without invoking Scipture/theology regardless of maddness's opinions, conflations, rhetoric and strawmen or your agreement with such tripe.

Eh, same ol' same 'ol. :sigh:

"Every time I think I'm out... they pull me back in"
~Rren Pacino.

Something that crosses my mind from time to time is fruit.

I ponder how in the world could trees have evolved, to produce fruit with seeds, to be eaten by a critter, then deficated later, to seed and grow. How on earth could a tree even comprehend that:

1. The critters have a digestive system, and If they were to eat the fruit, that the seeds would eventually come out later.

2. The seeds they produce in the fruit, wouldn't be digested. Would be resistant to the critters digestive acids.

3. The critters would eat the fruit period.

4. That there are even critters around.

These are simple rough ideas, but I don't have the time to really put much coherent thought into it.

I guess I understand evolution as being a causal/effect system. But with regards to fruit and seeds; how does the tree's genetics or whatever, recieve the effectual information needed to evolve?

Something to ponder I guess. I don't subscribe to either scenario fully.

:edit:

and another thing. I'm not an arborist so I don't know what tree's produce the 'whirly birds', but do you know what I'm talking about? The single wing tree seeds that fall and spin like a rotor? How does a tree understand lift? When the first seed dropped straight to the floor but couldnt get enough light to grow because it was too close to mom, how did the tree know that the little tree didn't grow? How could the tree hold the concept that it's seeds had to travel a distance away from mom? Crazy stuff really.



[edit on 8-3-2007 by nextguyinline]

From ISCID (International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design) I'd recommend Peter Borger's paper and the thread where it was discussed. ISCID, for those who never heard of it, is a place I lurk (I only post here) and the best ID/evo/creationism board around imho.

Shared mutations: Common descent or common mechanism? (.pdf file and rather long I like to right-click/save as)

Abstract

Mutations are a fact of life. Darwin gave mutations, which he called natural variation between individuals, a key role to explain the origin of species. The origin and nature of mutations is one of the most fundamental questions of biology, and are a hot topic in origin debates. If mutations are merely a matter of chance, then the alignment of mutations in distinct species that do not reproduce together qualifies as independent molecular evidence of common descent. We know now, however, that mutations are not utterly chance driven phenomena as the DNA context may determine to a considerable extent where mutations occur. If mutations are modulated because of biophysical mechanisms the question is not whether rules and laws determine where mutations are introduced, but rather – do non-random mutations affect phylogenetic analysis? The DNA analysis of the 1G5 gene in Drosophila melanogaster demonstrates that over 70 percent of the mutations that are shared between subpopulations of species that do not interbreed are independent of common descent. Likewise, over 50 percent of the mutations in the GULO pseudogene that are shared between humans and the great apes are mutational hot spots also found in guinea pigs – they exactly match the mutations that set humans and primates apart from the rat and line up independent of common ancestry. This paper advances a new hypothesis to understand alignment of mutations in homologous DNA sequences of separated species as the result of a common mechanism operating in similar genomes, and provides the first biological evidence that the location where a mutation will occur and the type of mutation (transition or transversion) are largely predetermined. The consequence is that we may not be able to discriminate between common descent and this common mechanism.

The ISCID discussion thread is here FWIW Borgor believes in special creation and attempts, with this paper, to seperate man and ape, aka special creation.

There's plenty of stuff out there to choose (besides what I've thus far linked you too) Luda so you'll have to pick something specific to discuss or we'll just get bogged down in semantics and continued definitions of what "Theory" is and is not. Boring imho.

The 'you guys aint showed me nothin' yet' may give you that warm, superior feeling all over but your failure to comment on anything presented thus far, other than maddness's straw-model of ID, makes me question your intellectual honesty. Whether the creation science is right or wrong, like it or not, it's there for your consideration. Heck I even started with YE stuff, which I don't accept (outside of the 'kinds' related issues), just to get the discussion going.

You gotta take a swing at something sooner or later, dontcha?

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Everyone, please stay on the topic. I like how you covered ID, but please keep evolution out of this. This is a matter of whether or not creationism and ID are a scientific theory. Not whether or not evolution is.

I agree with you here. I have to hold myself back from following the evolution rabbit trail myself, but will do my best to maintain consciousness of avoiding it.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I have still yet to see a legitamate theory from creationists or ID'ers.

Patience Iago, patience. It's like walking into a bar and asking to meet someone who doesn't like to drink. I don't think you'll find many Creationists or ID'ers on a conspiracy website. I hope I'm wrong though.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
What is the process or mechanism behind creation? I understand that you view the world as being created by an intelligent design, but what is the process behind it?

It's assembly instead of transformation. That is to say existing parts of matter were put together at one time instead of chemical addition or morphing over time.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
What is the evidence for it?

I think the best place to start is to say "if assembly is the mechanism, what are the building blocks?" To that we turn to carbon. Carbon is found in the earth and all living things (so it's no stretch when the Bible says man was made from the dust of the earth). Also contained within the earth is dihydrogen oxide (H2O) which is a chief component of living things. The statistic varies but I hear we're ~80% water. It would not make sense to say that man was made from the air, as we're not a Nitrogen-based lifeform. Further, it would not make much sense to say we came from sea water due to the lack of sodium chloride (unless of course you believe evolution somehow filtered that out through the duration of bijillion years). At any rate, earth components are indeed found in terrestrial living things. The question then becomes "how were they assembled?" THAT is when the science really gets exciting. We can talk about the understood polar attractions, organelle designs, and DNA coding. I'd like to, but only if there's some interest in more "framework ideas" rather than the actual science from someone who has physically done research on the matter.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
Saying "it looks like it has been intelligently designed" is not a theory. Lets remember that a scientific theory lays out a mechanism or process to an observation and not merely stating an observation. You have to get more specific than this.

Agreed, but I think you have to be even more specific than that. As previously mentioned, a theory is much more than mere mechanism and observation.

Originally posted by Rren
Hey saint4God, how are ya?

Good good! Is all well with you too?

Originally posted by Rren
I agree that we don't need Darwin, but disagree that the discussion is off topic re: creationism. The finch data fits the creation model wrt a 'kind barrier,' or atleast, it doesn't contradict it sans the extrapolation from that to 'macro-evo.' Do you disagree?

Finch data is just that. Data. It doesn't speak for neither Creation nor Evolution. You can incorporate the data into either idea, but doesn't say anything on its own...from my observations at least.

Originally posted by Rren
I'm with ya... but... I don't know that calling it a "faith miracle" is a good way to get a civilized discussion going.

I meant no disrepect, and meant it literally. Without a functional evolutionary mechanism, we have to rely on faith/miracle.

Originally posted by Rren
I just take issue with the critic[s] who say to the creationist[s] 'oh yeah, well if don't accept common ancestry just look at the Finch.' It's a non-sequitur imo, unless the issue of the 'correction and stabilization' properties of the genome are addressed.

There's nothing in the Finch data, to this layman, that suggests it will ever be anything other than a bird. Adaption/micro-evo is sound Theory but macro is just a[n un-testable/repeatable imo] hypothesis or an inference. The fossil record is more evidence of stasis or 'horizontal evo' in line with creationist models moreso than gradualism... imo.

That doesn't mean CA (limited or universal) is wrong either, the Goulds or Shapiros [et al] of the world could have it right. I say gradualism is dead, or dying, but [many] other ideas or interpretations of the evidence exist outside of gradualism and creationism.

I think you've brought up some thought-provoking points here.

Originally posted by Rren

Yikes! That thread is still going?

Hehe, yep. And I'm still watching it. There were about 3 going at one time and Mattison had some fabulous things to say on the other two. They didn't seem to keep going on as this one did.

Originally posted by Rren
You know this stuff more than I do saint,

Whoa hey, I wouldn't claim to know more or less. I'll claim to know differently which is not to say that someday sooner or later we may know the same.

Originally posted by Rren
so I don't know what help I could be there. I don't consider myself anti-evo just skeptical and have to admit my bias. It wouldn't wreck my world, or Faith, to know I'm a 'better' ape but, to be honest, my skeptism is as much theologically based as it is scientific. I'm not necessarily strong in either discipline so I don't have much business in a real debate over either issue[s].

It's good to have skeptics on both sides of the fence on this issue. The most frustrating thing for me to see is someone who accepts evolution on blind faith...or anything in science as blind faith. I say this because in doing research, it's not the chivalrous noble cause many may think it is (it was a shocker for me to find out otherwise myself). Trace the dollar, you'll get the answer $_$. Perhaps there are volunteer/charity scientific organizations who can show me otherwise?

Originally posted by Rren
Good to see ya though.

Your brother from another mother,
~Rob

Good to see you too!

Originally posted by nextguyinline
I ponder how in the world could trees have evolved, to produce fruit with seeds, to be eaten by a critter, then deficated later, to seed and grow. How on earth could a tree even comprehend that:

1. The critters have a digestive system, and If they were to eat the fruit, that the seeds would eventually come out later.

2. The seeds they produce in the fruit, wouldn't be digested. Would be resistant to the critters digestive acids.

3. The critters would eat the fruit period.

4. That there are even critters around.

These are great points, way to think outside the box! In addition, acorns do not drop from trees at the same rate every year. If it did, the squirrel population would be so steady that all the squirrels would gather/eat the acorns so that none would grow new trees. Rather, on an "off cycle" year, a bunch of acorns drop which overwhelms the squirrel population allowing new trees to grow. Interesting, no? There are literally thousands of examples like this in ecology, genetics, and microbiology alone. How does the tree "know" anything? Or, was it designed to work this way so that more trees could propagate?

You have voted nextguyinline for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

Hi nextguyinline,

I ponder how in the world could trees have evolved, to produce fruit with seeds, to be eaten by a critter, then deficated later, to seed and grow. How on earth could a tree even comprehend that:

Yeah the symbiosis of the biosphere, regardless of scale (macro or micro), gets my noodle cookin' too.


Hi saint4God,

Originally posted by saint4God
Good good! Is all well with you too?

Very well, thank you.

Finch data is just that. Data. It doesn't speak for neither Creation nor Evolution. You can incorporate the data into either idea, but doesn't say anything on its own...from my observations at least.

Well sure... but, it always seems to be brought up as proof of evolution and a falsification of creationism. I take issue with that and think [though not sure] it provides a hurdle for macro-evo in the sense that it's evidence of the cyclical nature of natural selection [evolution] moreso than the progressive nature of it.

I meant no disrepect, and meant it literally. Without a functional evolutionary mechanism, we have to rely on faith/miracle.

Lol I'm one to talk anyway. I just meant that some critics, especially atheists, get upset when it's implied they have faith... if you follow me. Not saying it's wrong, necessarily, just counter-productive. One of those hot-button terms. But like I said look who's talking.

Hehe, yep. And I'm still watching it. There were about 3 going at one time and Mattison had some fabulous things to say on the other two. They didn't seem to keep going on as this one did.

Ahhhh, mattison... the good ol' days. Don't know if you've talked to him lately but he's moved more toward a telic evolutionary position (pro common ancestry) than he used to be. I still think he just likes playing the foil, lol. Put when you got the chops... you play.

Whoa hey, I wouldn't claim to know more or less. I'll claim to know differently which is not to say that someday sooner or later we may know the same.

Well humility prevents you from.... um, ok, yeah thanks. You've had a formal education re: Biology and genetics, I have not. I hope you know more than me, else you better be asking for your money back.

[...] in doing research, it's not the chivalrous noble cause many may think it is (it was a shocker for me to find out otherwise myself). Trace the dollar, you'll get the answer $_$. Perhaps there are volunteer/charity scientific organizations who can show me otherwise?

Keep on keepin' on brother. Anything interesting going on for you research wise? If it's off topic a u2u will do.

Regards

[omitting all the cool stuff Rren had to say in order to respond to the following...]

Originally posted by Rren
Well humility prevents you from.... um, ok, yeah thanks.

You've had a formal education re: Biology and genetics, I have not. I hope you know more than me, else you better be asking for your money back.

I had asked for my money back. They said "no". Kidding, in all fairness what I did pick up was instrumental career-wise.

Originally posted by Rren
Keep on keepin' on brother. Anything interesting going on for you research wise?

If it's off topic a u2u will do.

Regards

I did write a small history, but then deleted it, realizing it is probably off topic and will U2U.

Here's a relevant point. There's money to be had in evolution (using this as a counterpoint). By exercising control over the world intellectually, then mastering it physically, we can throw tons of funding into it to get designer genes. Not jeans. Jeans are at the GAP and are fairly cheap. BUT! Designer genes can run four thousand dollars or more a pop if the industry wishes to cater to the wealthy. There's money to be had in it. If you don't believe me, go to the doctor for a sinus infection and find out how much you and the insurance company paid out for that in addition to the medicine to treat it.

Reasonably thinking though, there should be the same financial opportunities in the same way, right? Nope. Admitting to a Creator (especially God) means relinquishing absolute human control of the science. That's bad for two reasons. 1.) We have to accept that we cannot "own the science" entirely and 2.) We have to now battle ethical issues with screwing around with God's work.

Things that make you go "hmmm". Ask a university to fund your research on Creationism. Let me know how much you get

[edit on 8-3-2007 by saint4God]

My proof is the Holy Bible. This is all the proof I need.

The questions I have for the Evolutionists are:

Where did the matter come from that was spewed forth after the big bang? Space dust? Superstrings? What made them. Stuff doesnt magically appear.

How did life form on the earth after the big bang? If the earth was part of the mass that was spewed out and it eventually cooled, how did plant life begin? Did seeds just magically appear? If so, how? If the seeds were already here, then who made the seeds in the first place? Where did they come from and who ensured they would actually find their way on the chunk of mass that would eventually be called the earth after the big bang?

How would seeds survive extreme temperatures and pressure as the earth was being formed? Where did the little tiny amoebas come crom that we are supposedly born from? How did they survive the heat and pressure?

The only logical explanation is God formed the universe and He planted the seeds and raised up man and animals.

Hello ozmorphus,

First let me say welcome to ATS.

Originally posted by ozmorphus
My proof is the Holy Bible. This is all the proof I need.

You should realize that many evolutionists also believe in the inerrant Word of God. In other words evolution and Scripture are not mutually exclusive. If Biblical exegesis were so simple this debate would have been over, one way or the other, long ago.

I would recommend this page: How I Understand Genesis as an example of theistic evolution. On that page the author quotes Stannard:

Stannard identifies a few core theological points made by the Genesis authors:
~There is a God

~There is a single all powerful God.

~Man is formed in the 'image' of God

~God takes a personal interest in Man's well-being.

~Creation is seen to be good.

~We are destined to fail to live up to our intended role.

~We are fundamentally alienated from God

And again from that page/Stannard: "Whilst there is no denying that the biblical myths describe events that did not occur in any historical sense, that is not the point; they never professed to be accounts of that nature. The symbolic language in which they are couched is but a vehicle - a means of transmitting what really matters: their deep underlying truths.

The questions I have for the Evolutionists are:

Where did the matter come from that was spewed forth after the big bang? Space dust? Superstrings? What made them. Stuff doesnt magically appear.

Your question has nothing what-so-ever to do with evolution [BioChem] but instead theoretical astrophysics.

How did life form on the earth after the big bang? If the earth was part of the mass that was spewed out and it eventually cooled, how did plant life begin? Did seeds just magically appear? If so, how? If the seeds were already here, then who made the seeds in the first place? Where did they come from and who ensured they would actually find their way on the chunk of mass that would eventually be called the earth after the big bang?

Again not evolution but this time it's abiogenesis or sometimes called OOL [Origins of Life] research. There's no theory here.

How would seeds survive extreme temperatures and pressure as the earth was being formed? Where did the little tiny amoebas come crom that we are supposedly born from? How did they survive the heat and pressure?

Ditto.

The only logical explanation is God formed the universe and He planted the seeds and raised up man and animals.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I do agree somewhat. Except I don't know that I'd be comfortable boxing God into the logic of man.

Most of your questions were for atheists/materialists and not necessarily for evolutionists as the two are not mutually inclusive.


Welcome again and enjoy your stay.

Regards,
~Rren

When Nothing is comprehended then the entirety of Existence' most mysterious workings will be revealed to all who seek the unseekable

Originally posted by ozmorphus
The only logical explanation is God formed the universe and He planted the seeds and raised up man and animals.

Sure, but how? That's really what the debate is about. Evolution states one "how", Creationism states a different "how". I understand and respect those who could care less about finding the answer but to those who are interested in studying the science, we wanna dig in there and find out. Some of us view science as an acquisition of knowledge that helps us better understand God. God gives us all kinds of things to discover, should we take an interest in doing so. The Bible gives a lot of short-cuts for the morality of why, but that how question is one He seems to leave to us.

How did God assemble man? Simple really. Carbon rings paired with Nitrogen and Hydrogen. Carbon from the earth. Nitrogen from the atmosphere, Hydrogen from the earth/water/air. Here's the structure of perhaps the first thing built: www.chem.duke.edu... . Next, build an opposite but complementary structure called Thymine. For variability, another set of pairs - Guanine and Cytosine. Great! We have a structure starting to build, but what holds them together? "The DNA backbone is a polymer with an alternating sugar-phosphate sequence." The word "sequence" implies a plan, an intelligent design. Sugar made of carbon, phosphate also found in the earth ( www.blc.arizona.edu... ). Twirl it around into a double-helix for maximizing the information in a tightly enclosed space. Bingo, we have the code to create organelles, cells, and entire individually unique organisms.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by saint4God]