The best way to prove creationism as it is sold wrong would be to prove that two beings emerged from a giants armpit as the offspring of a cow and a giant.
After all you can only compare mythology with mythology.

no that is not true - you just claim this to minimise the value of the scientific method. The way UI describe it is not just taken out of the blue or by refrering to some fictional writing, but is basing on conclusions based on observation, it is based on my knowledge about science' own descritpion of it'S methodlogy and it'S inherent criterias. I do not need to just believe these things.

When I stand on a mass that revolves around itself, and I let fall an apple in my hand, then I even must not see it faling to the ground, but I know it falls to the ground. Believing has nothing to do with it. I know there is an (uncomplete) theory of that gravitation, that bases on earlier observations and calculations, and that the strength of gravitation has something to do with how fast the apple falls. I can possibly even calculate the speed in advance, and where the apple will hit the ground.

that is bollocks, and you better should check your own understanding of facts first. Your error is that you do not differ between science and methodology, and paradigm. Paradigms are long-lasting influential "meta-theories", so to speak, that serve as a praemisse for all subordinate scientific work being done, they also can influence the way an object of interest is being approached in method and observation design. But even paradigms do change over time. And never are their valdity that total that some rebels do not work in violation of them, sometimes proving them wrong, while often a poaradigm slowls fades out due to contradictions in the results it produces in observation and prediction. The relativisation of the Newton physics and Cartesian way to see and interprete the world may serve as examples.

That you think you must especially name Global Warming Scepticism and Creationism as examples defending your point, tells me something about how close-minded you are yourself. Becasue these express what you want to see taken as serious, but you do not check whether or not the claims of these do qualify for being seen as scientific argument. In case of creationism, it is no scientific qualification whatever, it even does not base on any basis of objective observation, but just narration and imgination, reilgious dogmatism and hear-say. In case of Global Warming Scepoticism, there has been so many, many systematic attempts by the interest economy elites to ridicule the statements of global waming research and every year a very influential lobby channels hundreds of millions in support for ridiciulous "alternative" scnearios who all just have two points in common: these constztructions are propagadanda efforts who heavily distort both existing scientific data or distort the scientific methodlogy to present their own"conclusions" or quote existing data out of context. From the "theory" of the more CO" the greener the pklanet to generally increasing ice levels at the poles, from sun activity being the deciding factor behind warming to fake petitions of thousands of scinetisits who either does not exist or were brought to sign by raising fake institutions and fake projects and showing them fake documents to sign, but then claimning they signed something different - the one that is presented to the public.

That all is no scientific methodology, and what it results in therefore rightfully should be rejected to be compared to scinece - as if it could meet science on same eye level.

It cannot.

Nevertheless to achieve this result is the purpose of your post.

Creationsim is not even wrong...
 

I'm sorry, there can be no debate; Creationism as a theory (scientific theory ?) to paraphrase one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century "is not even wrong".
Evolution is a fact, you may dispute the mechanism through which evolution manifests itself (natural selection), but refuting evolution is akin to refuting that we orbit the sun.
I always wonder why is it that the rest of the civilised world has no problem with the scientific theory of Evolution, whereas it is a gigantic problem in the US. :hmmm:

Isn't the answer obvious...? Religion plays a greater role in the US and has a stronger influence on wider parts of the society, than in Europe. In parts of the old world where relgion is stronger than in european mean, you also see a stronger symoathy for creationism (Poland, and the slvic-orthodox- sphere in general). Even in the islamic society, an islamised version of creationism is spreading rapidly, for example in turkey, and now also in Syria. especially the religious conservatives with quite a good ammount of education fall for it. creationism is more of what relgious conservatives are used to. That's why it is welcomed the more the more fundamentalist it's audience is. And that is true for Christian AND Muhammedan countries.


Damn, first I point out how pointless this thread will be, and then I stay here and even participate in the pointless effort. I better should listen to myself.

I'm out here. ;) Can't believe i even spend time arguing in here.

Nikimcbee you fail to understand just what a scientific theory is.
I doubt you would even understand what the scientific method is all about. Man this is an age of scientific obscurantism.
Carl Sagan must be screaming in his grave.
:nope: :nope:

No, the answer is not obvious at all. If it were as you say Italy should declare Evolution as being banned from schools. Hey we have the Vatican and all it represents. If there is one country on earth were Religion has a political voice and influences a laic society it is Italy. But even here you don't hear the Pope or ArchBishops, or other eclisiasts touting that Darwin's Theory is nonsense and that Creationism is the answer.
No the problem is much much deeper. I think it has to do with a failing of understanding of what science is all about. Ignorance, this is about ignorance or as I say obscurantism.
In the US religion is more open, but it has much less influence in the public sphere than the Vatican has in Italy. And nontheless the Creationist debate is over there, not here. It makes you think about what an entire generation of americans is learning or not learning actually about the methods of science.

I disagree, Goldorak. Remember that old debate we had about the drastic increase of evangelical'S influence in the US armed forces, namely the Air Force? The public routs in some places in the Us wehre Creatijists and orthodox tried to install relgious pseudo-science parallel to science lessons in curruculums of public schools? Bush defending this?

Creationism is creeping forward in almost all of europe, just with varying speeds. strongest it is in - extremely conservative - Poland. Spain also gets mentioned, and it too is quite a conservative catholic country, although the socialist government drives splits and trenches into the population by confronting the churche's influence. The fastest creationism grows in the Eastern european (slavic) regions, and Russia.

Italy I just don't know. Thge role of the church I see there as comparable to the role of the church in Poland.

creationism's spread is slowest in France, Germany, and the Nordic countries. They have in common to be amongst the most "areligious" countries in Europe, if ignoring their Islamic parallel societies for a moment.

In the Muslim world, creationism grows fast in Turkey I know for sure, as well as in Syria, but also fast in Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, I read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk :DL

For all those participating in a constructive way - Thank you!

A "young earth" belief does not mean that one cannot acknowledge the process of natural selection. It simply postulates that the earth and the life it sustains is not the product of untold billions of years worth of random chance happenings that all just amazingly came together to bring us to here we are.

Onelifecrisis - most young earth theories do exactly as you suggest, noting that God did not just create the earth, but the universe as well, and thus laid down its laws and set things in motion just about as we see them today, including putting the light we see from stars millions of light years away already in place, etc.

Stealth-hunter - unfortunately the theory of evolution must be tied to the origin of the universe, simply because of the amount of time that evolution states it takes for the huge changes it postulates have occured throughout the history of the universe. If it takes a billion years for a fish to develop lungs, then it and its evolving progeny has to have a place to swim for that billion years. If the earth can be demonstrated to not be a relatively stable and suitable platform for such a time frame, then water breathers could not have evolved into mammalian life forms on the earth, as is stated in the evolutionary theory. Hard to evolve if the planet your on doesn't exist...

McBee - I am not falling over myself to prove a different view wrong. I find that open debate can often open me, and others up, to additional information that can be used to further refine and modify my own belief based on reasonably demonstrated and verifiable facts.

More to come.

Sailor Steve-

Regarding the moon - the 750 Million year age is the absolute maximum possible, meaning evolution would not have had the time to occur as evolution postulates. This simply shows that the evolutionary timeline is flawed. However, there is nothing that states that God, in his wisdom, did not create the moon somewhat closer to the earth, a few thousand years ago, which is the view put forth by the young earth theory.

Aramike - Oil wells.

The density does have a place in the equation, but porous rock under significant pressure usually over time slowly loses its structural integrity (the barriers between can break down). Rock under enough pressure will crumble, while cork, in your example - under the pressure of champagne, is "springy" enough to actually compress and thus INCREASE its density (and thus the tensile strength of the barriers between the pores) as well as collapsing the pores themselves, limiting the pressure that can be applied to them. Rock has no such ability, nor is it under the constraints of pressure from a stronger, outside source, unlike a cork that is held in place by the constraints of the stronger glass that surrounds and compresses it. Its also fair to note that the pressure igneous rock is subjected to is much greater than that of cork sealing a bottle. While at first glance its a nice picture, a closer look shows your comparing apples to oranges, and not apples to apples, which is why the comparison is not vaild.

On that same note - Sailor Steve, the young earth theory puts the formation of such oil wells - and indeed the formation of oil in its many parts of the world, at between merely 3-4 thousand years ago. In fact, the mere presence of oil in the great quantities it is seen actually are one of many evidences of a worldwide, bilbilcal flood, as described in the time of "Noah". This time frame would explain why there is still pressure on the wells.

Aramike - on the mito-eve - I am not sure I understood your counterpoint. I understand your saying its invalid - but your explanation of why wasn't something I could follow. Could you explain it in a step by step process so I can evaluate it? I am not trying to be difficult, but there must be facts in the argument I am not aware of that invalidate the concept, because what you said was as clear as mud to me.

Lastly - to tribesman - since I rarely am going to stoop to acknowledging your inane comments. You again prove your lack of openmindedness and forthrightness considering the whole thing section on "dragon bones", you noted it specifically references the animal in question and identifies it as a T-rex. The original author substituted terms, which you well knew, but instead wanted to pick and choose to try and discredit an entire arguement. You also have a PM regarding this.

I really like some of the points brought up - but so far, all I have seen is "counterpoints" to why a young earth can't be accurate - but not a single post pointing out why evolution is a fact. Cmon people - a debate is an open forum to present both sides, not just poke holes in one. Lets have some arguements that point out the other side. If no one puts any out, then some may conclude that the "evolution" camp has no proof at all......

Oh - Platypus - no I don't think creationism and evolution must be distinct and seperate views personally.

Halpo:
Hypothetically, if it was the case that the 'Young Earth' idea was
incorrect, what kind of evidence would we find that we do not find now?

Or to put it another way: What evidence of age would an old Earth
produce that this young Earth does not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--OWKYNm66s


Beside that and what Letum said, why to assume young world "theory" in the first? There is no hint and not evidence for ther world being that young, and there is no other need to assume that "theory" (it is no theory, but a claim) that would be different from creationism simply claiming that the world is young.

Also, get your scientific knowledge straight. The "timetable" of evolution and the earth's age you just outlined is so much out of scale and so extremely, unbelievably simplified that I would not even know where to begin. That is no model you described there - it simply is utmost confusion. A confusion you claim to be real scinece in the next step, and accusing this science then to be of flaws and errors. But actually you just point out the flaws and errors in your own inadequate understanding of the matter. And that is not science's problem - but yours.

For German readers, to introduce yourself in a very entertaining, yet competent way to the timetable of the earth's developement, and the emerging of life and the forming of species in the oceans, I recommend the wonderful and very entertaining, exciting (thick) book by Frank Schätzing, "Nachrichten aus einem unbekannten Universum". Books like this that are entertaining and educating at the same time are a true gift for readers interested in a popular and general understanding of science.

You talk a lot about openmindedness, Haplo. What you mean by that is just this: you want hear-say and unproven, unreasonable fantasies being taken as serious science, that qualifies as that by criterias of academic and scientific standards. I think that demand is - sorry to be so blunt - impertinent, not only when it is being raised by you, but by religions in general. That's what makes projects and attempts like this thread so very annoying. You demand recoignition and merit for something that does not qualify for receiving it. As if we do not already have to deal with a Pope who tries to reverse enlightenment and wants to claim science for the church by trying to force it under a preamisse of that science may all be nice and well but must necessarily base in all working and concluding on assuming God to be real in the first. How very much absurd, anti-scientific and a true assassination of reasonability that is.

Did God in his infinite wisdom guided the asteriod that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and therefore to the humans as the dominant species on this planet ?
What do you say CaptainHaplo ? Chance or Destiny ?

CaptainHaplo wrote :

Meteor Crater in Arizona is estimated to be 50 000 years old.
How does that compute with your young earth "theory" ? :hmmm:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../cf/Meteor.jpg

Is the crater a hoax done by the evil evolutionists ? :haha:

Too funny.
Creationism, especially young earth creationism, requires a complete lack of openmindness.
That is demonstrated perfectly by your approach to the subject and by the sites you posted, the whole pattern of which is best summised as simply attempting to make things fit to a preconcieved position and flatly rejecting anything that doesn't fit.
Creationism is by its very nature a closeminded concept.