Let me fill the void then.

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/8775/religionj.jpg

The church of the flying Spaghetti Monster claims the same. Ramen! :yeah: Let'S discuss the faith of that there is the flying spaghetti monster beside relativity, gravity, and the effectiveness of penicillin.

Creationism is no theory, it never found any material qualifying it for that status. It is superstition. The Kindergarden-boy believes in the Easter bunny. The elementary school boy may believe in Santa Claus. The adult believes in creationism.

You see, the problem is that time and time again it is demanded to debate creationism and test it and make it object of academic analysis - while ignoring totally that this has already been done a thousand times, always with the same overkilling result. But still the demand is coming in that this dead horse must still be beaten. It mjust be beaten not to test the validity of a claim, but to produce the result of the claim being seen as a valid one - ignorring the lacking validity.

When you defend this, you do not want any scientific result on assessing creationism. What you want is creationism being given same status of reputation and credibility like a scientific theory that has proven its value to man since long. You want the reward. But you don't want to deliver first.

You know what. Creationism has been disproven so often, it is no longer science's "duty" to repeat that once again. It is the duty of those believing this fantastic stuff to prove their claims. As long as people cannot do that and cannot show that evidence and proof, they have no claim to make that their pet hobby should be taken serious as an academic object.

You bring something new, you bring some new proof - we talk again. Til then: bye, and please, creationists out there in the intellectual wilderness: try to be less noisy. Nessie else one day may find and eat you.

The thread hasn't been closed as no one has gone berserk yet. :wah: :arrgh!:

EDIT: I probably spoke too soon......

It was only a matter of time.

Why do you feel the need to be insulting so as to call me "ill educated"? I know very well about the use of words in and out of context. Now, you seem to be upset that I don't believe in what you believe. That's not taken out of context, that's what the entirety of your post is indicating.
I don't believe in Evolution so, according to you, you assume and call me names. Those are schoolyard tactics. Sorry, I don't believe what you believe, but I never called you any names. I've been spending most of my time in this thread replying to posts that are trying to convince me of something instead. All because I suggested a film that I thought might raise some eyebrows about what the scientific community does to scientists, professors and journalists who claim to have found some evidence of "Intelligent design". Some members of this thread have offered intelligent and insightful comments, and a few have brought nothing more to the table than an instigative comment or two. You yourself, offer nothing more than an insult while basically saying, "yeah, what they just said".

Now, I've seen the documentaries, I've read the books (some of them, very long ago). I know what Evolution teaches, I know that it claims to have volumes of evidence, and all this was told to me by other people who said, "This is it! This is the way it happened. This is how it happened and why it happened that way".
Sorry, I'm still unconvinced. I don't have to resort to name calling or belittling tactics because I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I never told anyone they need to believe what I believe. My OP simply suggested that, maybe there's more to the story.

I think the post before yours may qualify...

BTW, I am not a creationist. I have a rather firm belief in the theory of evolution. I simply believe anyone may put forth an idea or theory, but must defend that idea, when asked, by logic, critical thinking, empiricism, or any other rigor to which any other idea or theory is subject. History is rife with ideas and theories initially derided by the "science" of their times only to be proved as valid. Flat earth, anyone? History is also rife with theories and ideas subjugated by the "beliefs" of their time. Galileo, anyone?...

EDIT:

My god, but your posting speed (and acuity) are impressive...
<O>

Would Seton Hall University count? No, I did not major in science, nor did I get my degree. I basically studied Criminal Justice, Criminal Science, Psychology and Sociology. I can't remember half of what I was taught anymore (sincerely). That goes for even the simple things like Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry; hell I can't even do short division anymore.:nope: (Half-joking) I honestly believe I'm a candidate for Alzheimer's.

If any field of study is rife with definitions of it's own, it's Law. There are definitions for everything. Almost every chapter of Criminal or Civil Law has an opening index of what each word/term means for each different chapter. It's actually mind boggling. But, that's law. The intrinsic definitions of the words don't change, only their applications to specific statutes or rules of law.

@ vienna: I don't feel you did anything wrong by posting this thread.

You may find this of interest:

Quote:

Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling. All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...to-creationist

I was unable to view the page in it's entirety. I got some Windows message about a "long running script" on the page. I was able to read the first paragraph though. Looks like all the things I've already heard over the past 45+ years.
I'd be a liar if I didn't say that, "very much of it sounds as plausable today as it did when I was first taught about it in school". However, I have chosen the narrow path. It was my choice and I'm not trying to convince anyone that they have to follow me.
There are arguments on both sides of the fence. Being in a majority does not substantiate the credibility of either side. One simply chooses to believe one or the other.
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

Fair enough mate.

I don't know of any instance in history, that science, historical methods or math has ever proved the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural stands on faith.

Interesting link. It cites 6 total hoaxes, with 77 links to make it look more impressive. Yes, frauds are committed, usually by someone either out to make a name for himself, make money, or just have a good laugh. They are not usually perpetrated by scientists desperate to prove a point, and they are usually found out by other scientists. National Geographic made themselves and others look foolish by not doing their research.

Does this make Evolution unreal? Not really. The question still stands: If the dinosaurs were created at the same time as everything else, where did they go? Did men hunt them to extinction, as the original link suggests? If so, why are there no records?

All the links on that page (the ones that still work anyway) are attempts to condemn Evolution by association. Someone perpetrated a hoax, therefore all Evolutionary claims are suspect. I looked at one article on the Archeoraptor hoax and found 36 separate verified feathered dinosaur finds. Are they all hoaxes too? Then there are links that try to use the comparative gambit: If Evolution can be shown to have flaws then Creationism must be true. That's not only bad science, it's bad logic as well.

So my other question still stands: Is there one single piece of evidence ever found anywhere that would lead an unbiased observer to the theory that the universe was created, as it is today, in six days? Unbiased meaning anyone who didn't already believe it because he read it in the Bible? Just one?

Arguments aren't what matters. What matters is the evidence. So far, creationists have produced no scientific evidence whatsoever...

It seems to me that if man was sharing space with T. Rex and all the other baddies of the dinosaur realm, there would be many more stories of dragon slaying in mythology, and the Bible. Man defeating T. Rex would be epic in scope n'est pas?

True why did David not kill a T-Rex with just a sling?

Honestly I do not believe the story in Genesis.At the same time life does not simply come from nothing.As far as I am aware no one has proved how life occurs(meaning originates the first example of a living thing) and evolves from a scientific means.

While pondering the possible origins of life, I was just suddenly reminded of this experimant I first heard of when I was in junior high school. I couldn't recall the exzct name of the scientists involved, so I Googled "experiment to create life from chemicals" and found the reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%...rey_experiment

This is far from a "smoking gun" to fully support the scientific theory of the origins of life, but it is an interesting idea, nonetheless...

<O>