Is God real post your thoughts!

[syndrome445]

science is too complicated. lets just say god did it all then oversimplify and mock opposing arguments.

 

 

 

I completely disagree, in fact science provides some of the best evidence for creationism. Anyone who thinks science and religion conflicts is either ignorant or misinformed. What else could have orchestrated such a perfect harmony such as that of the big bang (which I do in fact believe in) and the organization of atoms and organisms.

[Roberthree]

science is too complicated. lets just say god did it all then oversimplify and mock opposing arguments.

 

 

 

I completely disagree, in fact science provides some of the best evidence for creationism. Anyone who thinks science and religion conflicts is either ignorant or misinformed. What else could have orchestrated such a perfect harmony such as that of the big bang (which I do in fact believe in) and the organization of atoms and organisms.

 

 

 

lol wut? The bible clearly says 7 days and whatnot. That DIRECTLY conflicts with scientific evidence.

[syndrome445]

science is too complicated. lets just say god did it all then oversimplify and mock opposing arguments.

 

 

 

I completely disagree, in fact science provides some of the best evidence for creationism. Anyone who thinks science and religion conflicts is either ignorant or misinformed. What else could have orchestrated such a perfect harmony such as that of the big bang (which I do in fact believe in) and the organization of atoms and organisms.

 

 

 

lol wut? The bible clearly says 7 days and whatnot. That DIRECTLY conflicts with scientific evidence.

 

 

 

Define Day.

[Obtaurian]

science is too complicated. lets just say god did it all then oversimplify and mock opposing arguments.

 

 

 

I completely disagree, in fact science provides some of the best evidence for creationism. Anyone who thinks science and religion conflicts is either ignorant or misinformed. What else could have orchestrated such a perfect harmony such as that of the big bang (which I do in fact believe in) and the organization of atoms and organisms.

 

 

 

lol wut? The bible clearly says 7 days and whatnot. That DIRECTLY conflicts with scientific evidence.

 

 

 

Define Day.

 

 

 

What planet are we talking about?

[syndrome445]

science is too complicated. lets just say god did it all then oversimplify and mock opposing arguments.

 

 

 

I completely disagree, in fact science provides some of the best evidence for creationism. Anyone who thinks science and religion conflicts is either ignorant or misinformed. What else could have orchestrated such a perfect harmony such as that of the big bang (which I do in fact believe in) and the organization of atoms and organisms.

 

 

 

lol wut? The bible clearly says 7 days and whatnot. That DIRECTLY conflicts with scientific evidence.

 

 

 

Define Day.

 

 

 

What planet are we talking about?

 

 

 

Do you honestly think that people in ancient Jerusalem would comprehend such terminology as 400 billion years ago...

[Zierro]

lol wut? The bible clearly says 7 days and whatnot. That DIRECTLY conflicts with scientific evidence.

 

 

 

The Bible only pertains to Christianity - not creationism as a whole.

 

 

 

And maybe I'm the tooth fairy.

 

 

 

I really hate when people use an example of an already-known myth and try to equate it to God. That's blowing things out of proportion because God =/= Tooth Fairy. How about using an example that all of humanity (except for little children of course ;) ) hasn't established as being completely fake instead?

[Obtaurian]

science is too complicated. lets just say god did it all then oversimplify and mock opposing arguments.

 

 

 

I completely disagree, in fact science provides some of the best evidence for creationism. Anyone who thinks science and religion conflicts is either ignorant or misinformed. What else could have orchestrated such a perfect harmony such as that of the big bang (which I do in fact believe in) and the organization of atoms and organisms.

 

 

 

lol wut? The bible clearly says 7 days and whatnot. That DIRECTLY conflicts with scientific evidence.

 

 

 

Define Day.

 

 

 

What planet are we talking about?

 

 

 

Do you honestly think that people in ancient Jerusalem would comprehend such terminology as 400 billion years ago...

 

 

 

Try not to ask for vague definitions. I can define what a day is for any of the eight planets in our solar system. I assume that you were referring to a different connotation?

[syndrome445]

science is too complicated. lets just say god did it all then oversimplify and mock opposing arguments.

 

 

 

I completely disagree, in fact science provides some of the best evidence for creationism. Anyone who thinks science and religion conflicts is either ignorant or misinformed. What else could have orchestrated such a perfect harmony such as that of the big bang (which I do in fact believe in) and the organization of atoms and organisms.

 

 

 

lol wut? The bible clearly says 7 days and whatnot. That DIRECTLY conflicts with scientific evidence.

 

 

 

Define Day.

 

 

 

What planet are we talking about?

 

 

 

Do you honestly think that people in ancient Jerusalem would comprehend such terminology as 400 billion years ago...

 

 

 

Try not to ask for vague definitions. I can define what a day is for any of the eight planets in our solar system. I assume that you were referring to a different connotation?

 

 

 

Ok, sorry for not being clear. Yes, I was.

[Sly_Wizard]

Not a troll, but maybe I was a little blunt/harsh with my previous statement. I do not believe than being an Atheist makes you "Stupid" per say, because some of the most prominent scientists are atheists. I do believe, however, that Atheists are afraid to conform to a superior being because they firmly believe that humans are the top of the ladder, and do not owe allegiance to any other beings.

 

 

 

It is obvious that I am trying to knock down the Berlin Wall with a Nerf Bat at this point, so I will respectfully leave you to your discussions.

 

 

 

Did I tell you how much I like you?

[Roberthree]

yea it has nothing to do with the fact that religious arguments are always based on blind faith instead of rationality, it's all because we're afraid of big things. makes perfect sense.

[Lenticular_J]

You realize how ridiculously childish you sound, only claiming that religious arguments can't be supported while speaking nothing of yourself? Come on, man.

 

 

 

And what the hell do big things have to do with ... anything? Sure, if an elephant charges at me, I'll be scared.

[Roberthree]

I open a physics or biology texbook. it has examples based off what I see every day and observable evidence.

 

 

 

I Open the bible. I crazy stories about how I should love an invisible fairy or he'll bully me after I die.

 

 

 

science books speak of gravity, how the body works, and the laws of physics. I can observe these in my everyday life and see their effects. I see thousands of "prayers" go unanswered. I see nothing god has done. and I'm supposed to just believe on a whim that he made everything and is watching in secret. most of the arguments for god tend to be [something unexplainable at the moment], god must have done it. it's a huge freaking gap between those two things though.

 

 

 

I'll be the first to admit I'm not very good at vocalizing my thoughts. I also haven't read the whole 130 pages. I've also grown very tired of defending what I think in the past and I'm a bit disappointed I broke my promise to myself to never get into this stuff again.

 

 

 

the big things comment was directed at the quote above me. the bit about conforming to something greater.

 

 

 

If I ever saw god do something, something that is directly related to god not something unexplainable, I'd believe in him. At the moment it just seems like a way for people to be comfortable with the unknown.

 

 

 

Sorry about sounding childish before, I forget that the discussion doesn't always come down to Darwinism vs. creationism and I was being a bit brief and not really paying attention (was on a slayer task)

[Saru Inc]

Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs,

 

PSSSSSSSSSSST. Creationism's been around for ten thousand years.

 

 

 

Not in a written form, although it comes somewhat close to the timeframe you mentioned. Earliest egyptian hieroglyphs that far outdate biblical, islamic or buddhist scripture were written 3200 BC which is over 5,000 years ago, and they often concern their local gods and descriptions on how the world was made/how gods should be worshipped.

 

 

 

In an oral form amongst primitive tribes the idea has probably been around for as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other (cave paintings and archaeologic evidence of rituals, sacrifices etc. support this)

 

 

 

Albert Einstein explained the phenomena pretty thoroughly

 

'During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods

 

 

 

*sigh* I've already been over this; you're obviously not reading any of my posts. But I'll say it anyways. What I mean by opinion is, we have the same exact facts, we have the same earth, the same fossils, the same people. But based on our pressumptions, we choose to believe one way over the other. And niether side can see how the other one could be (not necesaarilly though) correct.

 

 

 

The problem is, only proven and useful things matter in reality and the world. When you get an education at school, you can't write your personal opinion to answer a question demanding a logical and objective answer. If you refuse to believe easily proven scientific theories and facts and select religious mythology, you can't really graduate from most colleges or universities (bar religious schools or Koran colleges)

 

 

 

Not sure how many times it has to be repeated, but accepting scientific facts doesn't mean you can't be religious. There are countless religious scientists both in the present and history.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course science and religion can combine, and work together. Just not evolution or big bang. You guys act like I'm some luddite or hate science. Not at all, I just don't agree with Evolution or Big Bang. And actually, you can graduate from college witho ut accepting Evolution or Big Bang.

 

 

 

I just found this great site, it's Christian, but not that biased. Some interesting things I saw:

 

 

 

[hide=Young Earth]Minerals Have Too Much Helium

 

 

 

The shiny black specks in granite are mica. Within mica are natural zircon crystals, only a few microns in size. Helium quickly diffuses out of zircon.

 

 

 

If the granite is millions of years old, as commonly believed, all the helium should be gone.

 

 

 

However, measurements indicate that much of the helium still remains. Either the diffusion rate of the helium is not uniform, the zircon crystals are younger than believed, or both. Helium in granite is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/zircon-helium/

 

 

 

The Sea Does Not Have Enough Minerals

 

 

 

There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old.

 

 

 

Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time.

 

 

 

Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/ocean-salinity/[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=Debunking Evolution]Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

 

 

 

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

 

 

 

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

 

 

 

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

 

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

 

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

 

 

 

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

 

 

 

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

 

 

 

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of todays invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

 

 

 

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

 

 

 

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

 

 

 

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

 

 

 

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

 

 

 

Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial

 

 

 

Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.

 

 

 

Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.

 

 

 

Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.

 

 

 

Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiationsudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/fossilization/

 

 

 

Fossils Are Found at All Levels

 

 

 

The earth is covered with layers of sedimentary rock, much of it containing microscopic fossils such as plankton, pollen, and spores.

 

 

 

The entire record of visible fossils consists mainly of marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone), including clams, jellyfish, and coral. What is surprising is that these ocean creatures are found primarily on the continents and rarely in the deep ocean basins. More clam shells are found on mountain peaks than under the ocean floor.

 

 

 

From the bottom layers to the top layers, most fossils are marine creatures. The upper levels do have an increasing number of vertebrates, such as fish and amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, but the fossils at the bottom levels are equally as complex as any animal today.

 

 

 

All fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed and fully functional, without less complex ancestors under them.

 

 

 

The fossil record is strong evidence for the sudden appearance of life by creation, followed by rapid burial during a global flood.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/invertebrates/[/hide]

 

 

 

[hide=Creation]The Universe Has a Center

 

 

 

Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

 

 

 

Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.

 

 

 

In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/universe-center/

 

 

 

The Universe Was Created Recently

 

 

 

The universe is only several thousand years old.

 

 

 

Comets are an example of a natural clock within our solar system. With each orbit around the sun, comets lose considerable mass. They cannot be very old because they cannot survive many orbits.

 

 

 

 

 

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.

 

 

 

 

 

Each year our knowledge of astronomy increases with new evidence concerning the origin of our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. While it is possible to make assumptions beyond what can be observed and verified, the heavens continue to bear witness to recent creation.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/[/hide]

 

 

 

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all. Huh? I always thought Atheists always had the evidence.

 

 

 

[hide=Earth]Earth's Core Was Created to Protect Life

 

 

 

Our planet was created for life.

 

 

 

 

 

A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life.

 

 

 

A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase. A stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere.

 

 

 

Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/earths-core/

 

 

 

Earth's Water Cycle Protects and Provides

 

 

 

Clouds function as earth's curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system.

 

 

 

Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth's surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry.

 

 

 

Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow.

 

 

 

 

 

The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean.

 

 

 

Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy.

 

 

 

As a liquid, water's temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth's climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly.

 

 

 

Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/water-cycle/[/hide]

 

I think there are some very good points in here.

[Errdoth]

Just a question, if the universe is only several thousand years old, how are we able to see light from stars that are hundreds of millions of light-years away?

[tryto]

Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs,

 

PSSSSSSSSSSST. Creationism's been around for ten thousand years.

 

 

 

Not in a written form, although it comes somewhat close to the timeframe you mentioned. Earliest egyptian hieroglyphs that far outdate biblical, islamic or buddhist scripture were written 3200 BC which is over 5,000 years ago, and they often concern their local gods and descriptions on how the world was made/how gods should be worshipped.

 

 

 

In an oral form amongst primitive tribes the idea has probably been around for as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other (cave paintings and archaeologic evidence of rituals, sacrifices etc. support this)

 

 

 

Albert Einstein explained the phenomena pretty thoroughly

 

'During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods

 

 

 

*sigh* I've already been over this; you're obviously not reading any of my posts. But I'll say it anyways. What I mean by opinion is, we have the same exact facts, we have the same earth, the same fossils, the same people. But based on our pressumptions, we choose to believe one way over the other. And niether side can see how the other one could be (not necesaarilly though) correct.

 

 

 

The problem is, only proven and useful things matter in reality and the world. When you get an education at school, you can't write your personal opinion to answer a question demanding a logical and objective answer. If you refuse to believe easily proven scientific theories and facts and select religious mythology, you can't really graduate from most colleges or universities (bar religious schools or Koran colleges)

 

 

 

Not sure how many times it has to be repeated, but accepting scientific facts doesn't mean you can't be religious. There are countless religious scientists both in the present and history.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course science and religion can combine, and work together. Just not evolution or big bang. You guys act like I'm some luddite or hate science. Not at all, I just don't agree with Evolution or Big Bang. And actually, you can graduate from college witho ut accepting Evolution or Big Bang.

 

 

 

I just found this great site, it's Christian, but not that biased. Some interesting things I saw:

 

 

 

[hide=Young Earth]Minerals Have Too Much Helium

 

 

 

The shiny black specks in granite are mica. Within mica are natural zircon crystals, only a few microns in size. Helium quickly diffuses out of zircon.

 

 

 

If the granite is millions of years old, as commonly believed, all the helium should be gone.

 

 

 

However, measurements indicate that much of the helium still remains. Either the diffusion rate of the helium is not uniform, the zircon crystals are younger than believed, or both. Helium in granite is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/zircon-helium/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

 

 

 

 

 

The Sea Does Not Have Enough Minerals

 

 

 

There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old.

 

 

 

Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time.

 

 

 

Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/ocean-salinity/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Debunking Evolution]Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

 

 

 

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

 

 

 

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

 

 

 

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

 

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

 

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

 

 

 

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

 

 

 

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

 

 

 

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of todays invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

 

 

 

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

 

 

 

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

 

 

 

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

 

 

 

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

 

 

 

EVERYTHING is a transitional stage. There is NO end-point in evolution.

 

In addition, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

 

 

 

 

Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial

 

 

 

Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.

 

 

 

Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.

 

 

 

Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.

 

 

 

Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiationsudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/fossilization/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC362.html

 

 

 

 

Fossils Are Found at All Levels

 

 

 

The earth is covered with layers of sedimentary rock, much of it containing microscopic fossils such as plankton, pollen, and spores.

 

 

 

The entire record of visible fossils consists mainly of marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone), including clams, jellyfish, and coral. What is surprising is that these ocean creatures are found primarily on the continents and rarely in the deep ocean basins. More clam shells are found on mountain peaks than under the ocean floor.

 

 

 

From the bottom layers to the top layers, most fossils are marine creatures. The upper levels do have an increasing number of vertebrates, such as fish and amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, but the fossils at the bottom levels are equally as complex as any animal today.

 

 

 

All fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed and fully functional, without less complex ancestors under them.

 

 

 

The fossil record is strong evidence for the sudden appearance of life by creation, followed by rapid burial during a global flood.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/invertebrates/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Creation]The Universe Has a Center

 

 

 

Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

 

 

 

Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.

 

 

 

In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/universe-center/

 

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

 

Distance to nearest star: 1.3 pc

 

Distance to the Orion Nebula: 450 pc

 

Thickness of Milky Way's stellar disk: 1 kpc

 

Distance to center of our Galaxy: 8.5 kpc

 

Distance to Magellanic clouds (satellite galaxies): 55 kpc

 

Distance to Andromeda galaxy : 0.66 Mpc

 

Distance to Virgo cluster of galaxies : 19 Mpc

 

Distance to edge of observable universe : 3000 Mpc

 

http://sparky.rice.edu/~hartigan/nsci11 ... ssign.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Universe Was Created Recently

 

 

 

The universe is only several thousand years old.

 

 

 

Comets are an example of a natural clock within our solar system. With each orbit around the sun, comets lose considerable mass. They cannot be very old because they cannot survive many orbits.

 

 

 

 

 

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

 

"Comets entering the inner solar system for the first time may brighten rapidly before fading as they near the Sun, as a layer of highly volatile material evaporates. This was the case with Comet Kohoutek in 1973; it was initially touted as potentially spectacular, but only appeared moderately bright. Older comets show a more consistent brightening pattern. Thus, all indications pointed that Comet Hyakutake would be bright."

 

 

 

We can measure the approximate amount of time a comet has been in the solar system through this method, as well as predictive trigonometry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each year our knowledge of astronomy increases with new evidence concerning the origin of our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. While it is possible to make assumptions beyond what can be observed and verified, the heavens continue to bear witness to recent creation.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/[/hide]

 

 

 

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all. Huh? I always thought Atheists always had the evidence.

 

 

 

 

No, but we won't stop looking. All the evidence points to the existence of such a cloud, but that's not enough for us ;). I see ad hominem attacks are enjoyable to you too.

 

If you saw a dripping faucet, would you think it logical to estimate to the existence of a water source nearby?

 

 

 

[hide=Earth]Earth's Core Was Created to Protect Life

 

 

 

Our planet was created for life.

 

 

 

 

 

A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life.

 

 

 

A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase. A stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere.

 

 

 

Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/earths-core/

 

 

 

 

 

There's hundreds of other known planets known to be very similar to our distance in size and distance from the sun. Yes, our planet is okay for life. That's why there's life here. That's not an argument either way.

 

 

 

Earth's Water Cycle Protects and Provides

 

 

 

Clouds function as earth's curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system.

 

 

 

Simple physics. An action causes an equal and opposite reaction. It's really just elementary weather. What about tornadoes, hurricans, typhoons, floods, storms, heat waves, blizzards, and such.

 

 

 

Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth's surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean.

 

 

 

Copypasta of irrelevant preschool wheather, yay!

 

 

 

The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow.

 

 

 

 

 

The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean.

 

 

 

Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy.

 

 

 

As a liquid, water's temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth's climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly.

 

 

 

Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere.

 

 

 

HAHAHAHA. Sorry, I just found that hilarious. It's beautiful, therefore god. What about unbeautiful things? Did the devil make them? :P. The reason water is so heavily used by life is specifically because of these properties, not the other way around.

 

http://www.icr.org/water-cycle/[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

I think there are some very good points in here.

 

 

 

Just a question, if the universe is only several thousand years old, how are we able to see light from stars that are hundreds of millions of light-years away?

 

 

 

A creationist argument here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html (also a refutation)

 

 

 

Sorry, but that load of BS made me very sad. It's taking conclusions and finding evidence to support them, rather than the other way around. A true bastardization of science.

 

 

 

You won't ever find a reputable scientific institution backing a 6000 year old universe/earth; it's based on absolutely no evidence. They would be laughed out of any convention.

[rhyddid2e]

OK

 

 

 

I'm an Asatruar, which means I honour the gods/goddesses of Northern Europe. I'm a polytheist, so I believe in more than one god. I wouldn't even try to convince you about believing, since we dont proselytise. For me, the Aesir and Vanir live.

 

 

 

Aubergine2c

[Saru Inc]

Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs,

 

PSSSSSSSSSSST. Creationism's been around for ten thousand years.

 

 

 

Not in a written form, although it comes somewhat close to the timeframe you mentioned. Earliest egyptian hieroglyphs that far outdate biblical, islamic or buddhist scripture were written 3200 BC which is over 5,000 years ago, and they often concern their local gods and descriptions on how the world was made/how gods should be worshipped.

 

 

 

In an oral form amongst primitive tribes the idea has probably been around for as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other (cave paintings and archaeologic evidence of rituals, sacrifices etc. support this)

 

 

 

Albert Einstein explained the phenomena pretty thoroughly

 

'During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods

 

 

 

*sigh* I've already been over this; you're obviously not reading any of my posts. But I'll say it anyways. What I mean by opinion is, we have the same exact facts, we have the same earth, the same fossils, the same people. But based on our pressumptions, we choose to believe one way over the other. And niether side can see how the other one could be (not necesaarilly though) correct.

 

 

 

The problem is, only proven and useful things matter in reality and the world. When you get an education at school, you can't write your personal opinion to answer a question demanding a logical and objective answer. If you refuse to believe easily proven scientific theories and facts and select religious mythology, you can't really graduate from most colleges or universities (bar religious schools or Koran colleges)

 

 

 

Not sure how many times it has to be repeated, but accepting scientific facts doesn't mean you can't be religious. There are countless religious scientists both in the present and history.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course science and religion can combine, and work together. Just not evolution or big bang. You guys act like I'm some luddite or hate science. Not at all, I just don't agree with Evolution or Big Bang. And actually, you can graduate from college witho ut accepting Evolution or Big Bang.

 

 

 

I just found this great site, it's Christian, but not that biased. Some interesting things I saw:

 

 

 

[hide=Young Earth]Minerals Have Too Much Helium

 

 

 

The shiny black specks in granite are mica. Within mica are natural zircon crystals, only a few microns in size. Helium quickly diffuses out of zircon.

 

 

 

If the granite is millions of years old, as commonly believed, all the helium should be gone.

 

 

 

However, measurements indicate that much of the helium still remains. Either the diffusion rate of the helium is not uniform, the zircon crystals are younger than believed, or both. Helium in granite is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/zircon-helium/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

 

 

 

 

 

The Sea Does Not Have Enough Minerals

 

 

 

There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old.

 

 

 

Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time.

 

 

 

Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/ocean-salinity/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Debunking Evolution]Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

 

 

 

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

 

 

 

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

 

 

 

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

 

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

 

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

 

 

 

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

 

 

 

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

 

 

 

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of todays invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

 

 

 

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

 

 

 

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

 

 

 

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

 

 

 

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

 

 

 

EVERYTHING is a transitional stage. There is NO end-point in evolution.

 

In addition, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

 

 

 

 

Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial

 

 

 

Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.

 

 

 

Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.

 

 

 

Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.

 

 

 

Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiationsudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/fossilization/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC362.html

 

 

 

 

Fossils Are Found at All Levels

 

 

 

The earth is covered with layers of sedimentary rock, much of it containing microscopic fossils such as plankton, pollen, and spores.

 

 

 

The entire record of visible fossils consists mainly of marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone), including clams, jellyfish, and coral. What is surprising is that these ocean creatures are found primarily on the continents and rarely in the deep ocean basins. More clam shells are found on mountain peaks than under the ocean floor.

 

 

 

From the bottom layers to the top layers, most fossils are marine creatures. The upper levels do have an increasing number of vertebrates, such as fish and amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, but the fossils at the bottom levels are equally as complex as any animal today.

 

 

 

All fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed and fully functional, without less complex ancestors under them.

 

 

 

The fossil record is strong evidence for the sudden appearance of life by creation, followed by rapid burial during a global flood.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/invertebrates/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Creation]The Universe Has a Center

 

 

 

Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

 

 

 

Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.

 

 

 

In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/universe-center/

 

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

 

Distance to nearest star: 1.3 pc

 

Distance to the Orion Nebula: 450 pc

 

Thickness of Milky Way's stellar disk: 1 kpc

 

Distance to center of our Galaxy: 8.5 kpc

 

Distance to Magellanic clouds (satellite galaxies): 55 kpc

 

Distance to Andromeda galaxy : 0.66 Mpc

 

Distance to Virgo cluster of galaxies : 19 Mpc

 

Distance to edge of observable universe : 3000 Mpc

 

http://sparky.rice.edu/~hartigan/nsci11 ... ssign.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Universe Was Created Recently

 

 

 

The universe is only several thousand years old.

 

 

 

Comets are an example of a natural clock within our solar system. With each orbit around the sun, comets lose considerable mass. They cannot be very old because they cannot survive many orbits.

 

 

 

 

 

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

 

"Comets entering the inner solar system for the first time may brighten rapidly before fading as they near the Sun, as a layer of highly volatile material evaporates. This was the case with Comet Kohoutek in 1973; it was initially touted as potentially spectacular, but only appeared moderately bright. Older comets show a more consistent brightening pattern. Thus, all indications pointed that Comet Hyakutake would be bright."

 

 

 

We can measure the approximate amount of time a comet has been in the solar system through this method, as well as predictive trigonometry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each year our knowledge of astronomy increases with new evidence concerning the origin of our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. While it is possible to make assumptions beyond what can be observed and verified, the heavens continue to bear witness to recent creation.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/[/hide]

 

 

 

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all. Huh? I always thought Atheists always had the evidence.

 

 

 

 

No, but we won't stop looking. All the evidence points to the existence of such a cloud, but that's not enough for us ;). I see ad hominem attacks are enjoyable to you too.

 

If you saw a dripping faucet, would you think it logical to estimate to the existence of a water source nearby?

 

 

 

[hide=Earth]Earth's Core Was Created to Protect Life

 

 

 

Our planet was created for life.

 

 

 

 

 

A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life.

 

 

 

A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase. A stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere.

 

 

 

Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/earths-core/

 

 

 

 

 

There's hundreds of other known planets known to be very similar to our distance in size and distance from the sun. Yes, our planet is okay for life. That's why there's life here. That's not an argument either way.

 

 

 

Earth's Water Cycle Protects and Provides

 

 

 

Clouds function as earth's curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system.

 

 

 

Simple physics. An action causes an equal and opposite reaction. It's really just elementary weather. What about tornadoes, hurricans, typhoons, floods, storms, heat waves, blizzards, and such.

 

 

 

Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth's surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean.

 

 

 

Copypasta of irrelevant preschool wheather, yay!

 

 

 

The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow.

 

 

 

 

 

The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean.

 

 

 

Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy.

 

 

 

As a liquid, water's temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth's climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly.

 

 

 

Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere.

 

 

 

HAHAHAHA. Sorry, I just found that hilarious. It's beautiful, therefore god. What about unbeautiful things? Did the devil make them? :P. The reason water is so heavily used by life is specifically because of these properties, not the other way around.

 

http://www.icr.org/water-cycle/[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

I think there are some very good points in here.

 

 

 

Just a question, if the universe is only several thousand years old, how are we able to see light from stars that are hundreds of millions of light-years away?

 

 

 

A creationist argument here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html (also a refutation)

 

 

 

Sorry, but that load of BS made me very sad. It's taking conclusions and finding evidence to support them, rather than the other way around. A true bastardization of science.

 

 

 

Sure ok, and Atheists have never ever done that.

 

And fyi, you just answered the Creationist's argument with your reply to my Oort Cloud. We see evidencem and we look for more, surely if we see some water come out, we'll look for more, rather than no water at all.

[tryto]

Obviously Creationism was created by the elite of the USA to force the civilization to follow their beliefs,

 

PSSSSSSSSSSST. Creationism's been around for ten thousand years.

 

 

 

Not in a written form, although it comes somewhat close to the timeframe you mentioned. Earliest egyptian hieroglyphs that far outdate biblical, islamic or buddhist scripture were written 3200 BC which is over 5,000 years ago, and they often concern their local gods and descriptions on how the world was made/how gods should be worshipped.

 

 

 

In an oral form amongst primitive tribes the idea has probably been around for as long as humans have been able to communicate with each other (cave paintings and archaeologic evidence of rituals, sacrifices etc. support this)

 

 

 

Albert Einstein explained the phenomena pretty thoroughly

 

'During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods

 

 

 

*sigh* I've already been over this; you're obviously not reading any of my posts. But I'll say it anyways. What I mean by opinion is, we have the same exact facts, we have the same earth, the same fossils, the same people. But based on our pressumptions, we choose to believe one way over the other. And niether side can see how the other one could be (not necesaarilly though) correct.

 

 

 

The problem is, only proven and useful things matter in reality and the world. When you get an education at school, you can't write your personal opinion to answer a question demanding a logical and objective answer. If you refuse to believe easily proven scientific theories and facts and select religious mythology, you can't really graduate from most colleges or universities (bar religious schools or Koran colleges)

 

 

 

Not sure how many times it has to be repeated, but accepting scientific facts doesn't mean you can't be religious. There are countless religious scientists both in the present and history.

 

 

 

 

 

Of course science and religion can combine, and work together. Just not evolution or big bang. You guys act like I'm some luddite or hate science. Not at all, I just don't agree with Evolution or Big Bang. And actually, you can graduate from college witho ut accepting Evolution or Big Bang.

 

 

 

I just found this great site, it's Christian, but not that biased. Some interesting things I saw:

 

 

 

[hide=Young Earth]Minerals Have Too Much Helium

 

 

 

The shiny black specks in granite are mica. Within mica are natural zircon crystals, only a few microns in size. Helium quickly diffuses out of zircon.

 

 

 

If the granite is millions of years old, as commonly believed, all the helium should be gone.

 

 

 

However, measurements indicate that much of the helium still remains. Either the diffusion rate of the helium is not uniform, the zircon crystals are younger than believed, or both. Helium in granite is evidence that the earth is thousands of years old, not millions.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/zircon-helium/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

 

 

 

 

 

The Sea Does Not Have Enough Minerals

 

 

 

There is not enough salt in the sea or mud on the sea floor for the seas to be billions of years old.

 

 

 

Every year, salt accumulates in the ocean from rivers. Given the present rate it is increasing per year, the current 3.5 percent ocean salinity is much too low if this process has been going on for a very long time.

 

 

 

Mud enters the seas through rivers and dust storms. This occurs at much faster rates than plate tectonic subduction can remove it. Each year, 19 billion tons of mud accumulates. If the oceans were ancient, the oceans would be choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/ocean-salinity/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD221_1.html[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Debunking Evolution]Fossils Show Stasis and No Transitional Forms

 

 

 

The fossil record reflects the original diversity of life, not an evolving tree of increasing complexity. There are many examples of "living fossils," where the species is alive today and found deep in the fossil record as well.

 

 

 

According to evolution models for the fossil record, there are three predictions:

 

 

 

1. wholesale change of organisms through time

 

2. primitive organisms gave rise to complex organisms

 

3. gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms.

 

 

 

However, these predictions are not borne out by the data from the fossil record.

 

 

 

Trilobites, for instance, appear suddenly in the fossil record without any transitions. There are no fossils between simple single-cell organisms, such as bacteria, and complex invertebrates, such as trilobites.

 

 

 

Extinct trilobites had as much organized complexity as any of todays invertebrates. In addition to trilobites, billions of other fossils have been found that suddenly appear, fully formed, such as clams, snails, sponges, and jellyfish. Over 300 different body plans are found without any fossil transitions between them and single-cell organisms.

 

 

 

Fish have no ancestors or transitional forms to show how invertebrates, with their skeletons on the outside, became vertebrates with their skeletons inside.

 

 

 

Fossils of a wide variety of flying and crawling insects appear without any transitions. Dragonflies, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record. The highly complex systems that enable the dragonfly's aerodynamic abilities have no ancestors in the fossil record.

 

 

 

In the entire fossil record, there is not a single unequivocal transition form proving a causal relationship between any two species. From the billions of fossils we have discovered, there should be thousands of clear examples if they existed.

 

 

 

The lack of transitions between species in the fossil record is what would be expected if life was created.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

 

 

 

EVERYTHING is a transitional stage. There is NO end-point in evolution.

 

In addition, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

 

 

 

 

Fossils Show Rapid and Catastrophic Burial

 

 

 

Beveled surfaces below, within, and above thick strata sequences provide evidence of rapid flood and post-flood erosion. Fossils provide universal evidence of rapid burial, and even agonizing death.

 

 

 

Rapid burial is necessary to entomb organisms as the first step in fossilization. The abundant marine invertebrate fossils throughout the entire fossil strata demonstrate extraordinary burial conditions.

 

 

 

Polystrate fossil logs (tree trunks in vertical position running through several sedimentary layers) are common in the fossil layers and are clear evidence of rapid burial.

 

 

 

Common vertebrate fossils show rigor mortis and postures indicative of asphyxiationsudden smothering of the animal (e.g., Archaeopteryx and dinosaur fossils in the quarry at Dinosaur National Monument).

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/fossilization/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC362.html

 

 

 

 

Fossils Are Found at All Levels

 

 

 

The earth is covered with layers of sedimentary rock, much of it containing microscopic fossils such as plankton, pollen, and spores.

 

 

 

The entire record of visible fossils consists mainly of marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone), including clams, jellyfish, and coral. What is surprising is that these ocean creatures are found primarily on the continents and rarely in the deep ocean basins. More clam shells are found on mountain peaks than under the ocean floor.

 

 

 

From the bottom layers to the top layers, most fossils are marine creatures. The upper levels do have an increasing number of vertebrates, such as fish and amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, but the fossils at the bottom levels are equally as complex as any animal today.

 

 

 

All fossil types appear suddenly, fully formed and fully functional, without less complex ancestors under them.

 

 

 

The fossil record is strong evidence for the sudden appearance of life by creation, followed by rapid burial during a global flood.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/invertebrates/

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Creation]The Universe Has a Center

 

 

 

Our solar system appears to be near the center of the universe. Galaxies look the same, and are moving away from us in the same way, in all directions. The cosmic microwave background radiation comes to us very uniformly from all directions. These and other data strongly indicate we are located at a very special location by design.

 

 

 

Instead of accepting the obvious, recent models of physical cosmology assume the earth is not special and that everywhere in the universe the exact same observation of receding objects would be seen. Instead of a universe with an age measured in thousands of years, this assumption leads to billions of years.

 

 

 

In contrast, creation cosmologies explain the data better by starting from biblically-based axioms: the cosmos has a unique center and a boundary for its matter, beyond which there is at least some empty space; and on a cosmic scale of distances, the earth is near the center.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/universe-center/

 

 

 

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

 

Distance to nearest star: 1.3 pc

 

Distance to the Orion Nebula: 450 pc

 

Thickness of Milky Way's stellar disk: 1 kpc

 

Distance to center of our Galaxy: 8.5 kpc

 

Distance to Magellanic clouds (satellite galaxies): 55 kpc

 

Distance to Andromeda galaxy : 0.66 Mpc

 

Distance to Virgo cluster of galaxies : 19 Mpc

 

Distance to edge of observable universe : 3000 Mpc

 

http://sparky.rice.edu/~hartigan/nsci11 ... ssign.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Universe Was Created Recently

 

 

 

The universe is only several thousand years old.

 

 

 

Comets are an example of a natural clock within our solar system. With each orbit around the sun, comets lose considerable mass. They cannot be very old because they cannot survive many orbits.

 

 

 

 

 

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuiper_belt

 

"Comets entering the inner solar system for the first time may brighten rapidly before fading as they near the Sun, as a layer of highly volatile material evaporates. This was the case with Comet Kohoutek in 1973; it was initially touted as potentially spectacular, but only appeared moderately bright. Older comets show a more consistent brightening pattern. Thus, all indications pointed that Comet Hyakutake would be bright."

 

 

 

We can measure the approximate amount of time a comet has been in the solar system through this method, as well as predictive trigonometry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each year our knowledge of astronomy increases with new evidence concerning the origin of our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe. While it is possible to make assumptions beyond what can be observed and verified, the heavens continue to bear witness to recent creation.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/recent-universe/[/hide]

 

 

 

To get around this problem, many astronomers assume there is a vast cloud of comets out near the edge of the solar system, which releases new comets every so often. This imaginary cloud is called the "Oort Cloud," named after the astronomer who proposed it. The problem is that there is no observational evidence such a cloud exists at all. Huh? I always thought Atheists always had the evidence.

 

 

 

 

No, but we won't stop looking. All the evidence points to the existence of such a cloud, but that's not enough for us ;). I see ad hominem attacks are enjoyable to you too.

 

If you saw a dripping faucet, would you think it logical to estimate to the existence of a water source nearby?

 

 

 

[hide=Earth]Earth's Core Was Created to Protect Life

 

 

 

Our planet was created for life.

 

 

 

 

 

A smaller planet, like Mars, would be unable to hold our atmosphere, which protects us from meteoroids and keeps the temperature within the range needed for life.

 

 

 

A larger planet, like Neptune, would trap too much atmosphere. The pressure and temperature would greatly increase. A stronger gravity from the increased size would also trap harmful gases in the atmosphere.

 

 

 

Earth has a strong magnetic field. This protects us from harmful radiation from the sun.

 

 

 

http://www.icr.org/earths-core/

 

 

 

 

 

There's hundreds of other known planets known to be very similar to our distance in size and distance from the sun. Yes, our planet is okay for life. That's why there's life here. That's not an argument either way.

 

 

 

Earth's Water Cycle Protects and Provides

 

 

 

Clouds function as earth's curtains, balancing the temperature. When they form, they block the sun when the temperature on earth becomes too hot, and they let the sunlight in when it becomes too cold. When the earth is hot, more water evaporates from the oceans and turns into clouds. These clouds reflect more energy and the earth cools. When the earth is cold, the clouds cool and condense into rain and snow. With fewer clouds, less energy is reflected. The energy reaches the earth and warms it. The earth has the most diverse collection of reflective surfaces in our solar system.

 

 

 

Simple physics. An action causes an equal and opposite reaction. It's really just elementary weather. What about tornadoes, hurricans, typhoons, floods, storms, heat waves, blizzards, and such.

 

 

 

Water is the most abundant chemical compound on earth. Water covers three fourths of the earth's surface. Between half to three fourths of your body is water. Water is ideal for carbon-based chemistry.

 

 

 

And?

 

 

 

Water is transported from the ocean to the atmosphere, to the land, and then back to the ocean. The ocean is the primary storehouse of water on the earth. The sun evaporates water from the oceans, which rises into the atmosphere and eventually returns to the ocean.

 

 

 

Copypasta of irrelevant preschool wheather, yay!

 

 

 

The atmosphere also stores a small quantity of water. Wind blows water vapor from the hot ocean to the cool land. Cooling water vapor condenses into clouds. Water falls back to the land as rain and snow.

 

 

 

 

 

The land also stores water. Fresh water is held for months in ice and snow. Water infiltrates into the land and is stored underground. Surface water flows into streams and rivers. Lakes store water. Water flows from the land back into the ocean.

 

 

 

Water expands when it freezes, unlike most other substances. Ice and snow take up more volume than the same amount of liquid water. This makes water denser as a liquid than when frozen, so ice floats on the surface. If ice did not float on the surface of the water, the floors of oceans and lakes would be covered with glaciers of ice that never melt. Ice helps regulate the climate by reflecting energy.

 

 

 

As a liquid, water's temperature range is perfect for cycling water from the oceans to the land. Water takes a lot of energy to evaporate into a vapor, and it releases this energy when it condenses back into liquid. This absorbtion and release of energy balances temperatures in the earth's climate, as well as inside living cells. If less energy were required for evaporation, streams, rivers, and lakes would evaporate away quickly.

 

 

 

Beautiful clouds and sunsets inspire praise for the Creator who forms them. We are blessed by the water that flows though our biosphere.

 

 

 

HAHAHAHA. Sorry, I just found that hilarious. It's beautiful, therefore god. What about unbeautiful things? Did the devil make them? :P. The reason water is so heavily used by life is specifically because of these properties, not the other way around.

 

http://www.icr.org/water-cycle/[/hide]

 

 

 

 

 

I think there are some very good points in here.

 

 

 

Just a question, if the universe is only several thousand years old, how are we able to see light from stars that are hundreds of millions of light-years away?

 

 

 

A creationist argument here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html (also a refutation)

 

 

 

Sorry, but that load of BS made me very sad. It's taking conclusions and finding evidence to support them, rather than the other way around. A true bastardization of science.

 

 

 

Sure ok, and Atheists have never ever done that.

 

And fyi, you just answered the Creationist's argument with your reply to my Oort Cloud. We see evidencem and we look for more, surely if we see some water come out, we'll look for more, rather than no water at all.

 

 

 

Argumentum ad hominem. I will no longer respond to these without some sort of support. Atheists are not a collective. There is no doctrine or dogma. There is only one requirement; unbelief in a fairy in the sky. Please, find a scientifically viable alternative to evolution or the Oort Cloud. You'll win a Nobel Prize.

 

I don't see any evidence. You have a manuscript, and are looking for evidence to support it. You have taken a conclusion, and looked to support it by fabricating evidence.

 

The scientific approach is to first look for evidence, then, using that evidence, formulate a theory. You started with the theory and worked backwards. I'd point you to the discovery of cosmic background radiation as an example.

[Rebdragon]

Damnit, stop trying to teach the turtle calculus.

[Shinjula]

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

 

Ok thanks for putting up the link. It all seems bit dubious to me, a quick bit of research shows IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. makes up half the graph and has severe problems with it, ignoring the fact that the author has been linked to Nazism which is a bit of a strawman the sample sizes are very critisiable, less than a few hundred per country. The other half of the data comes from the Pew Global Attitudes Project which has similarly low sample sizes, around 800 max for a country and in some cases much less, put the two together and you get a recipe for disaster.

 

 

 

I did wonder when I saw the graph, cos IQ should be completely independant from country. Now I could undesrtand if it was level of education which would differ but I think with such low sample sizes it would be very difficult to discount error and bias.

 

 

 

To the guy who said that Atheists consider themselves superior, I have to say that in my experience that's not the case. Its far more about simply not believing or lack of relevance in their lives. I've not met many Atheists who consider atheism a sign of intelligence and those that I have I personally do not consider very intelligent, just arrogant.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and can we lose the enormous quotations please? We can look back in the thread to see what others has said if we need to.

[Shinjula]

As for the creationist stuff its all been debunked many times before, its just part of the way science works. There are always going to be gaps in the knowledge but thats no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

 

 

Firstly the scientific method remains, whatever the data. We hypothesise, we experiment and then confirm or reject the hypothesis based on that data. This is why young earth creationism is rejected because its hypothesis doesnt match up with the data, and there is a lot of it.

 

 

 

Secondly there is tweaking of theories to consider. If you have 4000 pieces of data confirming your hypothesis and 1 piece which differs (assuming they have all been checked and confirmed to be error free), the chances are that your theory is wrong, but probably only slightly wrong, maybe there is a small factor which hasnt been taken into account. At that point you dont throw away the theory and embrace creationism. Take for example your "Minerals have too much Helium", how many different variables are there contained in the hypothesis about the age of the earth, there are so many that its impossible to disprove something with so much backing it without an enormous wealth of data and that data simply isnt there, so we take occams razor and say its far more likely that we dont know quite enough about the helium content of rock than it is that our estimation for the age of the earth is wrong. Part of the problem here is simply humans and numbers, its difficult to get humans to correctly estimate the size of data we have for this sort of thing, imagine a tiny tiny droplet of blue ink dropped into a 10 gallon barrel of water, anyone lookign at it will conclude that the water is still clear afterwards, and this is how much difference one piece of data makes to the age of the earth estimate. Yes we must still work out why the helium in rocks is of higher levels that we'd expect, but we dont know everything, thats not a problem. What it doesnt show is that all the other pieces of data are wrong.

 

As far as most people are concerned, what you need to consider is are you willing to trust the scientific process, the peer review system and publishing systems which allow us to build a scientific consensus of the world around us. There is too much knowledge for any one man to know it all (the last person considered able to do that was Pasteur and he died in 1895), either you trust the system or you dont, or you look into the areas that you consider particularly troublesome and get enough qualifcations in the area to be able to legitimately comment on it. At the level we are talking about you cant come in with high school (or even graduate level knowledge) and pass comment, that level of knowledge is simply not informed enough to have an opinion, I wont do it and I wont pay any attention to anyone else who does it.

 

 

 

And lastly and heres a very important part. It has also been shown that a lot of the information passed on by creationist is either just plain wrong or lies, (no transitional forms for example) there have been a few cases where its even been seen to be malicious lies fostered for political reasons deliberately by people who knew precisely what they were doing. Things like the documentation for the wedge strategy being leaked online, where the ultimate goal of these people is seen to be the complete removal of western rationalism from education by starting with evolution and the big bang theory, using the courts to push creationsim into the science class room, using the rationalism against people by forcing the idea of "Teaching the Controversy" (another lie, no such controversy existed at the time, however look around you now, the 'controversy' is here, at least it appears to be) in order to bring even the most ardent disbelievers at least inrto the arena where they are supposed to defend their beliefs against...what? a single idea with no testable hypothesis...

 

 

 

 

 

....I DONT THINK SO!!!!

[BlueLancer]

http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm

 

Ok thanks for putting up the link. It all seems bit dubious to me, a quick bit of research shows IQ and the Wealth of Nations by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen. makes up half the graph and has severe problems with it, ignoring the fact that the author has been linked to Nazism which is a bit of a strawman the sample sizes are very critisiable, less than a few hundred per country. The other half of the data comes from the Pew Global Attitudes Project which has similarly low sample sizes, around 800 max for a country and in some cases much less, put the two together and you get a recipe for disaster.

 

 

 

I did wonder when I saw the graph, cos IQ should be completely independant from country. Now I could undesrtand if it was level of education which would differ but I think with such low sample sizes it would be very difficult to discount error and bias.

 

 

 

To the guy who said that Atheists consider themselves superior, I have to say that in my experience that's not the case. Its far more about simply not believing or lack of relevance in their lives. I've not met many Atheists who consider atheism a sign of intelligence and those that I have I personally do not consider very intelligent, just arrogant.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh and can we lose the enormous quotations please? We can look back in the thread to see what others has said if we need to.

 

 

 

Pretty thorough research has been done on the subject though; You can view more sources here:

 

http://answers.google.com/answers/threa ... 11920.html

 

 

 

The site at ( http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelli ... ligion.htm

 

)

 

is a good review of several studies of IQ and religiosity, paraphrased

 

and summarized from Burnham Beckwith's article, "The Effect of

 

Intelligence on Religious Faith," Free Inquiry, Spring 1986:

 

 

 

It summarises as follows:

 

"The consensus here is clear: more intelligent people tend not to

 

believe in religion. And this observation is given added force when

 

you consider that the above studies span a broad range of time,

 

subjects and methodologies, and yet arrive at the same conclusion.

 

 

 

"This is the result even when the researchers are Christian

 

conservatives themselves.

 

 

 

It's not biased, insulting or racist. It just happens to be that statistically, a non-religious person on average is more intelligent in terms of IQ than a religious person.

 

 

 

There are also brilliant scientists and professors who are religious, the statistics just portray what the average person is, if you were to take a sample of a few people from the general population. There's plenty of intelligent theists around on tip.it too (and some not so wise ones who haven't even studied what they believe in). If you were to take 10 people, 5 non-religious/atheists and 5 religious people, more often than not the non-religious group would outperform the religious one in any IQ-measuring or intelligence testing.

[Shinjula]

Well cheers for that, thats quite a bit of intersting information and I'll certainly look into it more.

 

Note that the original graph which annoyed me is still quite suspect (for the original reasons I mentioned).

 

However I'm not really surprised that the results are as they are, some of those studies do look quite good, reasonable questions, however I can't help but notice that a lot of them seem appallingly biased, and I'm also concerned about the nature of the questions being answered.

 

Obviously we may be talking at cross purposes, so let me just state my opinion about what we are/might be talking about here - that religion connotes low IQ, I say this because this isn't quite what those surveys are addressing, or showing.

 

 

 

It seems to me that they are showing that people in the mainstream of society haven't been educated to critically examine ideas.

 

 

 

This I would completely agree with. Now obviously this doesn't apply to all the surveys done in the list, but if you remove from the list all those it does apply to we have a lot less to look at. I also see there's an odd definition of 'more religious' which counts a Unitarian as someone who believes less strongly than a Baptist, dunno what's going on there. There's a fair few reports that count liberal religion as being somehow less religious than conservative religion, which I'm a bit confused about.

 

 

 

Theres just a whole bunch of doubt in my head about so many of those.

 

 

 

Having said that there are some intersting ones which do give me pause for thought.

 

 

 

I'd also like to posit that part of it is the nature of the religions looked at, I do think Christianity and conservative Christianity in particular are likely to be unrepresented in the sciences because of their attitude to science and I would really like to see the results of similar survey for the eastern religions such as Buddhism, Taoism and also Shamanism, because I would suspect those do have markedly different results.

[Furah]

Ok, if God is not real can someone explain this for me.

 

 

 

I have a friend who broke his foot last weekend, an went to the hosptial. After getting x-rays he found out that he had broken it (before then he was unsure) the doctor decide to take a few more x-rays, and my friend's foot was completely healed and he could walk normally. Earlier that day I saw him and he had to wait in a lounge for an hour for a frien to come with some crotches so he could walk. He is a devoted christian.

 

 

 

Another friend once broke his collarbone and the x-rays showed up as a brake, the next day his collarbone looked fine in the x-rays. He is also a evoted christian.

[Shinjula]

Ok, if God is not real can someone explain this for me.

 

 

 

I have a friend who broke his foot last weekend, an went to the hosptial. After getting x-rays he found out that he had broken it (before then he was unsure) the doctor decide to take a few more x-rays, and my friend's foot was completely healed and he could walk normally. Earlier that day I saw him and he had to wait in a lounge for an hour for a frien to come with some crotches so he could walk. He is a devoted christian.

 

 

 

Another friend once broke his collarbone and the x-rays showed up as a brake, the next day his collarbone looked fine in the x-rays. He is also a evoted christian.

 

No of course we cant explain we aren't doctors, havent seen the x rays, and obviously couldnt hazard a guess...

 

 

 

however....

 

 

 

can you explain similarly, if this happened to your friend because hes a devoted christian why god doesnt do that for all christians? why do devout christians get hurt all the time and miraculously NOT get healed?

 

 

 

(Incidentally, id hazard a guess that his foot xray got mixed up with someone elses foot x ray and his foot was never broken in the first place - boring I know but plausible - or possibly a fairy fixed it for him? - or maybe he just has a magic foot?)