ONEWAY said:
OK. Religion and Science, is it compatible? Well, first science would not be here if it were not for a creator, so the question may well be is there a creator? Absolutely!
Are you claiming because science, a human invention, needed humans to create it precludes to the universe needing creating by a "creator" who, i'm just going to go out on a limb here, is your god? If so, that's a non sequitur.
Now, before you sign out from reading on, let me ask you have you investigated each side of the question?
I certainly have. I have a site dedicated to it.
To evolutionists, which believe there is no creator,
There are theistic evolutionists. The majority of educated christians are evolutionists.
FIRST, Darwin said that if evolution were to stand, there would be abundant fossil evidence for the transition from one species to another, macroevolution; however, there has not been one.
Wrong, there are transitionals all over the place, a few examples of which:
Archaeopteryx; Basilosaurus and Ichthyostiga
Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present
Transitional from mammal to primate: Cantius, Palaechthon, Pelycodus, Purgatorius. Transitional from reptile to mammal: Biarmosuchia, Haptodus, Procynosuchus, Varanops. Transitional from reptile to bird: Coelophysis, Compsognathus, Deinonychus, Oviraptor. Transitional from amphibian to reptile: Hylonomus, Limnoscelis, Paleothyris, PrTransitional from fish to amphibian: Cheirolepis, Eusthenopteron, Osteolepis, Sterropterygionoterogyrinus.
Lucy, the nebraska man, and all other findings that were accumulated all have been found to be non-transitional fossils, hence they were completly ape,
Do you even know
what a transitional is? What you said is an outright lie. Most of them are. Transitional fossils are fossils that exhibit traits of more than one other species (and will probably diverge into those species). For instance, all ceratopsidae share traits with protoceratops, who came earlier, and from the looks of it, diverged into all the others. Archaeopteryx is a dinobird, of which there are several examples. Archy itself may not be the common ancestor for all birds (as some quotes may say) but it is definitely a transitional.
Humans are a great ape by the way, we're the only bipedal apes. Lucy was also a bipedal ape.
All species have stayed within there kind: a snake is still a snake;
Define
what a kind is. According to Genesis, a kind implies reproductive seperateness, a change of which
has been observed.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
a chicken (which according to fossil evidence says they should not exist)
What?
You seem to have a ridiculously simplistic view of the world. Lions are cats. Domestic household cats are also cats. Therefore they are both still cats and there is no reproductive seperateness. This is of course absurd, and it shows why your uninformed view is also absurd.
Not one transition in support of evolution to date,
Bzzt! Wrong!
investigate you will see.
Yes, you'll see that the fossil record is repleat with them, you just don't know what you're actualyl asking for do to your simplistic idea of "kinds".
SECOND, evolutionists try to fit all there findings with evolution
No, they present their findings and those findings happen to fit with evolution because evolution is a sound theory. Creation theory hasn't even been defined.
creationists all try to fit there findings with creation, however science (Neither evolution nor creation) looks at its findings objectively. Guess what? Science is finding evidence that is supporting creation. Seek and you will find. By the way faith is not blind, believing in something without thoroughly looking at the facts, is where one goes blind.
There is nothing supporting creation; there are arguments from incredulity and that's IT.
Hey Alaric, nice to talk with you. First, what you are talking about with traits of children in relation to their parents is microevolution (Limited genetic variations), not macroevolution (The evolved from ape thing)
Actually, since humans are apes, it also counts as microevolution. We are apes like we are eukaryotes, chordates, craniates, vertebrates, mammals, primates, apes, great apes, hominids.
by which the Bible has no problem with microevolution it only says people and animals can look differently. However, macroevolution is where the main problem comes into play, due to the fact that again no fossil evidence has been found showing or even slight evidence of a transition from one species to another.
Sure it does, take for example protoceratops splitting down into triceratops, styracosaurus, etc. Check out all the primates. Check out the human genome.
For example, in actual fossil evidence it has been found dinosaur with human footprints in the same fossilized rock, as well as cat and dinosaur footprints.
That was a creationist hoax, subsequently destroyed so they have no evidence, naturally :roll: .
I would encourage you to maybe check out the books "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe and Philip E. Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial."
Speaking of Darwin's black box, i have an article on IC: (note also that Behe accepts common ancestry, inclusing that of man from other animals, in other words, behe DOES accept macroevolution)
http://www.ahraii.com/brokenreligion/create/Irreduciblecomplexity.htm
The other i've not read, so i can't speak for that one.
I could not believe that because the world is being shown to be younger not older
Would you PLEASE stop lying?
(The magnetic field has been studied to show if in fact the earth was millions of years old it would have not been able to even exist)
The dynamo effect of the metal in the earth's core accomodates this. (Not that it makes that much sense anyway)
He didn't, for the Bible says He created everything in days not billions of years.
Yes, of course, put your book before reality yet again. All this shows is your appalling lack of knowledge of science and reasoning.
I was simply refering to the fact that the objective scientists of today, which by definition is what a scientist is (Looking at all obtained, objectively which is not from the evolutionist perspective or the creationist perspective), are finding evidence of design that is in fact supporting the Bible
No, you're lying again, there are more scientists named steve that don't find there to be this design and support natural evolution.
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
Science, by itself (Again, neither evolution nor creation), is finding evidence in support of the Bible
No, the Earth is not on pillars, there isn't a solid "firmament" holding water up in the sky, snakes and donkeys do not talk, etc.
It is not "Christian" science, but science itself that is supporting what God had already explained in the Bible.
NO IT ISN'T.
If by "examine both sides" you mean have an extreme ignorance of science and evolution, then yes, you have accomplished that magnificently. You've shown you know crap all about evolution in your posts.
Now, before you attempt a reply, make sure you address my points and back them up with evidence. For the rest of you, i suggest you all read my creation section, all of these argument are textbook lies and misinformation.
http://www.ahraii.com/brokenreligion/create/index.html
