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>

While AndyJ was somewhat insulting in his post you objected to it would appear that he is correct.
You clearly seem to be getting very basic concepts completely wrong.

I like your last link, it manages to do nothing to support your claims about creationism or do anything to undermine science.
In fact if you read the spiel you can see that it is nothing but crap with a fixed agenda and backwards logic.
The primary function of a creation scientist is to investigate the nature of our world from the intelligent design perspective. We must theorize from our unique point of view if the truth is to be understood. Given the effect of the theory of evolution on people's ability to believe in God, evolutionary biology is probably the most important topic for a creationist to study.

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18jp...g/k-bigpic.jpg

/thread

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/8...sonwithrel.jpg


http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/8...ppc1qizwbz.jpg


http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/824...4878005155.jpg

I thought raptors would be faster :hmmm:

I never said there was such evidence. In fact, I think I stated definitively, somewhere in this thread, that I could not prove the existence of God.
In all honesty, I don't frequent that website to which I posted the link. I happened upon it by chance while trying to research a name that I could not recall. I simply posted it as an example of the arguments on both sides of the fence, and, to show why I don't always trust everything others purport as fact. I did not post it to prove OR disprove anything or anyone. I started (in my OP) by posting a reference to a film that, according to those interviewed (scientists, professors and science journalists), if there is such evidence, it is being quashed and those trying to bring it to light are being blackballed.
As an afterthought:
I don't know exactly how many hoaxes it cites, you say 6. The links that do work (I checked some of them) appear to be credible. I'm certain, if you really wanted to, you could easily Google them to check their validity. I'll bet they are all correct. I may be wrong, but your response implies (to me) that you were somewhat unaware of such hoaxes (if you already knew, you wouldn't have had to research the links) . If 6 hoaxes (i.e., lies) are not enough; How many times does someone have to lie to you before you begin to question their credibility?

And the suggestion that the technique of dropping rocks on the creationists heads would work in a similar fashion - aka - extinguishing the physical life of whomever/whatever was hit in the head with said rocks, follows this how?

No one had posted that everyone must believe or be condemned. No one was imposing any belief..... but the comment was still made. Which is where my problem is. Respect is a 2 way street. I disagree with much of the evolutionary theory - yet I don't go suggest that evolutionists should be killed.

Depends on the raptor, but the average is about 30mph which is 13.41m/s, but some supposedly could reach 50mph (21m/s).

Gallimimus could hit 43mph, but others of its genus (Ornithomimosauria) could clock 60mph in a sprint. :yep:

Being on the wrong side of either genus would be a bad thing though, especially given how damaging an ostrich kick is.

The Velociraptor size is right, but the Dilophosaurus size is wrong, far too big.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...urus_scale.png

I am amazed at the rhetoric you can get on this subject. None of it is new. Even the insult jokes are reruns. I think it is all pretty childish. Yes, the claim in the link is laughable, but the internet is full of that kind of stuff. You would think it was something new. Why it still gets the reaction it gets is the real joke.

History can be a good teacher. Look at the United States of America. From the first moment that Europeans set foot on this continent, religion has played a prominent role in American life. Through out its entire history up to the present it has contributed to American life and culture in a significant way. At the same time the US was and still is one of the most advanced nations on earth. Americans fought a civil war, two world wars, put men on the moon, expelled their segregation demons and went through many other trials. Technologically and scientifically they are a very advanced nation. Yet they are still a religious people. Is this a coincidence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that the US is a 'blessed nation'. What I am suggesting is that diversity in all things is a strength, not a weakness. Still there are those who wish to change this model in the belief that the world will be a better place. I would say that that would be mistake.

I am almost certain that we will never see Creation Science taught in the public education system of any Western democracy. I would bet on it. Most religious people would oppose it as well as the secular. I also think that the New Atheists like to make a big deal out of the possibility because it gives them a chance to speak.

Some time ago I saved this quote but I don't know who wrote it. I thought it was pretty good. The emphasis is mine.

We aren't talking about the existence of God. Despite some people's insistence on overt hostility, this thread is about Creationism and Evolution. What I said was that there is no evidence for the six-days creation of Earth. All evidence used in that argument is force-fitted into the pre-existing concept, which is derived solely from the Bible. It's attempting to use science to "prove" faith.

Unlike some, I'm not anti-religion, or anti-anything other than faulty arguments. Yes indeed, there are a few who treat their belief in Evolution, or even Athiesm, as though it were a religion. That may be a part of human nature. They are, however, in the minority. I may be unique in not having a dog in this hunt. I don't care if Evolution is the correct answer or not. I only look at the logic applied by both sides of an argument, and try to understand what they're doing wrong. I still get it wrong as often as not.


I did check them - every single one.

And you would win that bet, if only on the point that the hoaxes were real. People do that sometimes. On the other hand the agenda behind the links themselves is false. The people posting the links are trying to prove Evolution wrong based on what some dishonest people perpetrated. They attempt to paint all research and all finds with the same brush, which is dishonest on their part.

I was familiar with Piltdown Man and a couple of others. I wasn't aware of Archeoraptor. As for looking at links or not, I have the habit of looking at everything, just to see what that particular take is.

1. Each lie was put forth by a different person, or set of people. Each case must be taken individually. Why did they do it? Money? Fame? As I said earlier, was any of the six perpetrated by a reputable scientist desperate to prove Evolution? I couldn't fine one, or even anyone accusing them of that other than some Creationist or other. Therefore the Creationist in question is trying to apply someone's personal motivation to all scientists who subscribe to Evolution. Therefore the Creationist is lying just as much as he accuses the Evolutionist of doing.

Therefore: 2. How many lies are you going to believe before you begin to question their credibility? It has been pointed out several times that Creationism has no science behind it all, and there is nothing discovered that would lead an unbiased observer of the evidence to conclude that the Earth was created in six days. For all I know it may have happened that way, but there is no evidence for it at all.