AO_champion

Wow, touching, honestly. But I don't see how evolution is proved one whit! You give me one little bit of proof you have that evolution is true! It's a load of crap! Let me ask you this... where do you get your reasoning from? Hmm... the brain? yes... I believe that's it, the brain. Ok, according to you, the brain is a product of evolution, yea? So how can you be sure that yours evolved right? Evolution is a speculation, a theory, it isn't in any way a scientific fact. A scientific fact is something that can be repeated and observed... You can honestly say that evolution is a proven fact to you based on evidence you have seen repeated with your very own eyes? Bah! There are plenty of scientific facts that can support it when viewed in a certain light, yes. But it is all speculation when you come down to it. Where did life come from? Some random piece of chance, eh? Oh that makes a good deal of sense. You tell me how in the world you can look at the endless complexity of life and say that it's all just an accident... just a cosmic "oops," if you will. Billions of years ago, a big bang produced a large rock. As the rock cooled, sweet brown liquid formed on its surface. As time passed, aluminum formed itself into a can, a lid, and a tab. Millions of years later, red and white paint fell from the sky, and formed itself into the words "Coca Cola 12 fluid ounces." Of course, my theory is an insult to your intellect, because you know that if the Coca Cola can is made, there must be a maker. If it is designed, there must be a designer. The alternative, that it happened by chance or accident, is to move into an intellectual free zone. If you were to sit at your computer desk and hold a can of Coca Cola right now, would you tell me it was the product of chance only because I couldn't immediately point out the guy who designed it for you?

I suppose my post above doesn't really answer the main question that this whole thread presents.... that is what do we not know? Well... how about evolution? If we can only ‘speculate’ on the origin of life, why do so many people state that evolution is a ‘fact’? It would be nice to remind people that evolution is only a theory and cannot be proved by any means that I've seen expressed. But I guess if you repeat a rumour often enough and people will swallow it.

Hey, hate to get off the topic of German tanks and oil and whatnot.... But science can definitely prove the Bible.... Or at least it can't disprove the Bible in any way. I suppose lack of evidence isn't evidence for a lack. I personally think that something you would have posted on here eventually would have been "it can't prove the Bible," but that's not true. It can, and it does if you look at it right. Let's see... how about Noah's flood which nobody wants to admit was global? Hmm... here's something interesting. And article from a site I like... http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org "A few years ago, some geologists in Australia were objecting in print to the idea of interpreting geology in terms of the Bible and Noah’s Flood.1 They argued that it was impossible to explain the rocks of the world within a 6,000-year time-frame, even allowing for a year-long global flood. For some reason they had not appreciated that the evidences of large-scale, watery catastrophe in the geological record2 are just what we would expect from the global Flood of the Bible.3 Indeed, one vivid illustration was featured on the cover of the same issue of the magazine in which their objections were published.4 The cover (Figure, right) showed a bedded sandstone formation in a remote part of Arnhem Land Aboriginal Reserve, Northern Territory, Australia. The sedimentary bedding varies in thickness from thin to medium, and is sub-horizontal. Altogether the sandstone pictured, which is quite friable, is over 5 m thick. This particular outcrop is part of a 340-m-thick unit called the McKay Sandstone within the mildly-deformed McArthur Basin of northern Australia. The unit comprises medium- to coarse-grained sandstone together with minor fine-grained sandstone, granules, pebbles and basalt.5 It has been classified as Paleoproterozoic, based on interpretations of U-Pb dating of zircons from igneous units in the area.5,6 In the picture, a large, cylindrical structure cuts vertically across the bedding of the sedimentary rock. The diameter of the columnar structure is not constant, but varies from 1.3–1.7 m over its length. Like the surrounding sedimentary rock, the column is composed of sandstone, but in this case it is unbedded, except for vague vertical layering, concentric with its circumference. The base of the column sits on top of a fine-grained basalt sill 3–4 m thick. The top of the sill has a ropy surface and contacts baked and vuggy7 sandstone and mudstone, in places brecciated. The sill contains distinctly zoned amygdales8 that are larger in the middle of the sill. Numerous similar pipes occur within the sandstone, at irregular intervals along strike,9 at the same level immediately above the sill. They vary in diameter from 2–10 m and are up to 5 m high. The longest preserved length is over 4 m.4,5 These columns point to large-scale geological catastrophe. When the basalt lava intruded horizontally, the sand was still wet and unconsolidated. The heat from the molten rock boiled the water immediately above the sill. As a result the water welled up, forming a vertical column through the sandstone. The upward flowing water suspended the sand particles against gravity, causing the sediment to behave like a fluid. Naturally, the flow destroyed the layers of horizontal bedding. Because of this behaviour, the structure has been called a ‘fluidisation pipe’. Refute attacks on Noah’s Flood by both bibliosceptics and their ‘progressive creationist’ followers! Studies in Flood Geology John Woodmorappe A collection of technical articles, most of them originally published in the Creation Research Society Quarterly, written by a well-qualified geologist and biologist on many vital topics in Flood geology. Some highlights include explaining the huge amounts of coal on Earth, the Karroo formation, the radical incompleteness of the “Geologic Column”, and the distribution of animals after the Flood. 208 pages High School–Adult MORE INFO / PURCHASE ONLINE It is clear that fluidisation pipes point to large-scale rapid geological processes. First, the sedimentation rate must have been extremely rapid to produce an unconsolidated, water-filled layer of sand at least 5 m thick over a large geographic area. There are many other evidences in the McKay Sandstone that the sedimentation rate was very high, including the occurrence of planar lamination (even in thick-bedded units),10 metre-scale folding of beds, and large dewatering structures.11 Rather than millions of years, the sedimentation rate indicates very rapid deposition. The basalt sill also points to large-scale rapid, catastrophe. The complete thickness of the sill must have intruded quickly over the whole area before the water-logged sediments were able to quench and harden the magma. A thin sill would have been easily quenched, and a slow intrusion rate would have allowed time for the water to start circulating and cool the magma. The entire sill must have been emplaced very quickly before the overlying water had time to boil and establish the strong circulation that fluidised the sand. And finally, the fluidisation pipes mean that sedimentation and sill emplacement occurred together, indicating that there was virtually no time between the two processes. Thus, fluidisation pipes are one more example of large-scale, watery catastrophe in the geological record. With such clear evidence of pervasive, inter-woven catastrophe, it is surprising that geologists do not see the implications. Even though they carefully describe the structures and appreciate something of the speed and scale of the processes, they do not realise that the evidence destroys the concept of millions of years. This illustrates how a paradigm can constrain people from seeing the implications of what they observe. The bigger implication, of course, is that the evidence is just what we would expect from the global Flood of the Bible. Biblical geology is such a refreshing, stimulating, alternative. It breaks open the straight-jacketed thinking of long-age philosophy, and it makes sense of the evidence."

I like this topic, in all honesty. Why hasn't anybody posted on it? No, the American people should not have the influence that they do on scientific methods and practice... I suppose when it comes down to it, people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of scientific methods, but it's very key that if you're going to say that science is important, at least you should have consistant standards for what you accept as scientific... It shouldn't sway and change with popular opinion... it shouldn't adjust to who pays your check or what the friends you hang out with think about the world. But it is... and it does... How evidence of anything today is interpretted is completely revolving around the presuppositions that people approach that evidence with. It's all a matter of opinions and whatnot with quite a few issues. Evolution, for instance... There's overwhelming evidence that the whole theory of is flawed... and yet when people (scientists, for the most part) are presented with this evidence, they explain it away so that they can keep supporting the theory they want to believe in. I can give a great for instance.... Creation vs. Evolution: The majority of Americans and "scientists" want to believe that it took billions of years for everything to form... this makes it easy past mentioning to dismiss the Bible as just some book which they don't have to follow or even pay attention to. But... even though there are so very many flaws in the theory of evolution, we still teach it as scientific fact in all our public schools... teaching generation after generation that there is no Creator God which they have to obey. We cling to the idea that government funded schools are not the domain of religion, and yet we are blind to the fact that we teach a religion in every science textbook around... we teach an atheist, anti-God religion that is centered on man being the highest authority in the universe. Even if you don't want to believe in God... even if you don't want to think that there is an intelligent designer, you must at least accept that it is not only foolish, it's downright destructive what we do in our public schools.... basically attacking the very foundations of the country to which we teach them! There is no respect for any law past the respect that people have for the prison sentence or the hefty fine they might be subject to if they break it. They don't believe that there really is any right or wrong in this country... or the world, for that matter. They have no respect for anything you teach them... and you want to know why? Because you yourself have no authority. By taking away the foundation of common morality on which this country used to stand, you've totally thrown out that there is anything right or wrong past what you tell those kids. And why should they listen to you? You know just as much, if not less, than they do about morality. Sure, you could site me the works of lots of ethical philosophers, but they don't really have any authority either, now do they? And whenever somebody brings up the idea of teaching alternative sciences or creative design, they're immediately shut down. Why? Because it would look unprofessional and unscientific to entertain such "Puritanical" ideals and to offer them up to school children. The fear of looking uneducated or unprofessional has gripped ahold of so many people who might otherwise criticize evolutionary dogma. They are so afraid of truly questioning it that they resign themselves to being taught it.... they run around preaching the good news of "science." Why? Not because they actually can put any real faith in it (which is precisely what a good deal of those theories take, faith), they espouse seemingly great theories so that they can appear to be intelligent... Oh, if I could tell you the number of kids my age I've talked to about this stuff.... They don't have any faith in a God... they only hear the religion of science, which they don't have any faith in either, I might add. But they choose to go along with what they are told is science because it is what is popularly accepted as true. True science would encourage more criticism and scrutiny and would admit more openly the flaws in it's theories. True science would start with admitting that most of what is taught in high school textbooks is so out of date and unreliable. True science would start by letting it be known that some of the stuff that people are espousing as fact, is only theory, and loosely based theory, at that!

I'm a *gasp* Christian... *waits for people to stop gasping* And what I believe about anything, including conservation, has to have a root in the Bible, which I believe to be completely true inside and out. As such, when it says that it's God's word... I can't help but consider it something very important in how I live and what I believe. Anyways, here are excerpts from two articles I found online. They're having to do with ecology and conservationism and whatnot, and how this should tie into the Bible. Since this thread is about opinions and whatnot, I suppose nobody will mind if I post mine on the matter from a Biblical standpoint. "Who owns the world? 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' The fact that God created the world means He owns it. In light of this, surely we can hardly claim ownership of anything. Psalm 95:5 states, 'The sea is his, and he made it'. In Psalm 24:1, we read, 'The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof '. Everything we have has come from God, who created all things. Because we don't own the creation, this also means we have no right to exploit it--for example, use it to make a profit for pure greed, without considering the glory of God, the good of the creation, and the needs of our fellow man. Who has the right to rule over the earth? In Genesis 1:28, God told Adam and Eve to 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish [Hebrew: "fill"] the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth'. Genesis 2:15 states, 'And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the Garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it'. God created humans different from the animals, with a superior brain and the ability to communicate information from one generation to the next, that we might subdue the earth and have dominion over it, as commanded. We therefore have a special responsibility, and are expected to care for what has been entrusted to us by our Creator. How is God concerned for the creation? In Matthew 6:28, 29, God tells us that He clothes the lilies of the field so that 'even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these'. Not even a sparrow falls without God's knowledge and permission. If God is so concerned about living things, surely man, His steward, must be similarly concerned. We should then want to eliminate or minimize needless harm to the world and its occupants. Why are there 'Green' crises? When God made the world, everything at first was 'very good', or 'perfect' (Genesis 1:31; Deuteronomy 32:4). All living things were in perfect harmony, with a sinless man tending the perfect creation. However, that is not the situation now. Romans 8:22 tells us 'the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now'. Genesis 3 records the event that led to this sad state of affairs, with all living things and all world systems decaying and dying. Romans 5:12 explains that man's actions (disobedience to God's command not to eat of the forbidden fruit) led to sin, which resulted in God's cursing the world with death. Genesis 3:17-19 describes some of the ways this sin affected the creation. 'Cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee . . . In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread . . .'. The whole of creation is now running down and wearing out. 'The earth shall wax old like a garment' (Isaiah 51:6), and man's sinful nature has disrupted the relationship with the environment. The sin of Adam, which we all inherit, was one of rebellion against God's rules, and man, ever since, has made his own rules. This results in selfishness (and therefore exploitation), the refusal to practice love towards our fellow man and other creatures, as well as poor stewardship of God's creation, and man's desire to serve his own personal ends. Benefit from wise stewardship Deuteronomy 25:4 states: 'Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn'. In Isaiah 5 and John 15, God shows that even He expects fruit or 'profit' from His work. In other words, there is benefit to be gained from wise stewardship. But man is not a perfect steward any more. Even though the resources God created are there for our use, man often exploits these resources at the expense of his fellow man, and causes needless loss and destruction of other parts of God's creation. Surely this is wrong! Conversely, much of the emphasis of the modern conservation movement is evolutionary and pantheistic, worshipping the creature rather than the Creator (Romans 1). This ignores the biblical mandate to rule over the earth and subdue it. The development of energy sources (coal, natural gas, petroleum, atomic power, etc.), the mining of mineral resources, the cutting of timber for building, etc., is not wrong. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 states that there is a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time for war and a time for peace. It is the abuse of these resources--the exploitation, the waste, the greed and the haste--that is wrong. Proverbs 12:10 says, 'A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel'. Dominion means to rule, to administer, to work, and to take care of the creation--not to lord over it in a tyrannical manner, or to needlessly destroy it. " That's no. 1.... and this is no. 2.... "First, the fate of the planet is, ultimately, not in the hands of mankind. While humans are responsible for caring for the Earth (as per the ‘Dominion mandate’ in Genesis 1:26–28), we are not in control of the Earth. Rather it belongs to the Creator Himself (Psalm 24:1), who has made us His earthly stewards. Second, the fate of the living planet is not the most important issue facing mankind. Ultimately, this decaying system will be replaced with a New Heavens and Earth anyway (Romans 8:20–22, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1, Hebrews 1:10–12). Rather, the most important issue facing mankind is: will the individual choose to acknowledge his Creator and be reconciled to Him? Romans 1:20 makes it clear that knowledge of God is, at least at some level, evident to all, so those who refuse to acknowledge their Maker are without excuse."