Just one simple question. I thought god hardly showed himself to us, you know, always ruling with an iron fist, from the shadows, or something, unless that person was considered a ‘prophet’. So if he showed up for ya, then when can I expect you to start building an Arc or Parting the Red Sea… Or building some kind of atomic doomsday shelter… And those people in the bible that he showed to, do you really think, with the important tasks given to them, he’d show up for you just to give you the answers to a test… really? I think you need a mental evaluation… a CT scan or something to that extent. And one another note, I want to add that I really HATE it when people think that the bible is true. Doesn’t anyone do their history research? The bible was written by a pagan, first of all, and second, how can it ‘still’ be the truth, given that it ever was, when it’s been revised and rewritten so many times, by human hand? Don’t you think if god created man in his image, there wouldn’t be any rapists, or murderers, or thieves, basically any criminals, I thought god was suppose to be perfect, if we’re in his image, then where did we fly off the perfect track at, perfect usually means that you are perfect. Perfect pertaining to the fact that we would never have deviated from the path of being all goody two-shoes. But we did… which leads me to believe that humans couldn’t have come from god, mind you this is just my own, logical theory.

“In the first day.. god created…”

Mistake two – Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis

Mistake three – monkeys are not our ancestors

Mistake four – No-one sane thinks the Earth is millions of years old, it’s about 4 and a half BILLION

Mistake five – The age of the Earth is a separate branch of science from evolution, so are you now taking issue with science as a whole? Well, we know the answer to that is yes, but you’re not interested in science anyway.

Mistake six – Thinking argument from incredulity is a valid argument

Mistake seven – Thinking that scientific processes are accidental

Mistake eight – Thinking that the Bible is LITERALLY true. Just because the Bible says so. and because you don’t understand science.

And there’s probably more mistakes in there that I didn’t spot. However, this is all off-topic. Since Creationists (like yourself) are not even interested in science in the first place, do you think it’s okay for a Creationist organisation to offer out science degrees for subjects that have nothing to do with science? If so, why?

If not, don’t bother preaching, I’m not interested.

You should have little doubt — just look at their name, for Heaven’s sake — that the evolutionists are not doing science. It’s doing dogma. Nothing will ever convince them lightning didn’t zap a pool of mud and make life millions of years ago, our ancestors aren’t fish and monkeys (even though fish and monkeys are still here), the Earth isn’t millions of years old, and that the Bible *IS* the literal truth because it makes a whole lot more sense than saying we’re just here by accident.

I would say the “telos” of evolution is Life.

I see.

But that is only the product of a causal process, ordered in time. (Not by aiming at a specific target, you gave that up.) Ultimately how a clock, an oscillator, repeats itself.

The only difference between societies of animals and ours is a rational intellect. Even tribal societies are very complex. But then again, so are anthills.

I disagree with this.

Societies of animals are all relatively simple – anthills may give the appearance of complexity, but they are formed from very simple principles.

Societies of other mammals (e.g. dolphin pods, chimpanzee troupes, or herds of widebeest) all have far simpler sets of behaviours than us.

No animal society uses a medium of exchange (money), although chimps have been shown to get the concept of barter. However, just because they are able to get the concept does not mean they use it in the wild. After all, they have no need to. No animal society has such deep and complex mores and rules about sexual behaviour. No animal society alters its environment to the extent that we do, although isolated examples can be found of animals that do one or a few of the kind of things that we do (the beaver’s lodge and dam, for instance, or the way in which leafcutter ants farm their food). No animal society makes such complicated tools as we do.

And no animal society has the capacity to wonder and explore how and why the world is the way it is.

OK, I concede that one.

As you can probably guess, I only get limited online time, so my posting is sporadic.

If I were typing that much all day every day, then either I’d develop fingers of steel, or they would be very sore.

I’ll wager that Nigel uses “Talk It Type It 2 Ultra” software!

That bumblebees “can’t” fly was only ever meant as a joke.

Thanks for the clue. At least I didn’t take the propaganda at face value!

BTW, I first heard that old tale on a radio broadcast by the infamously idiotic Paul Harvey back in the early 70s. Of course it was reported as…NEWS! (The type joke only works if you’re familiar with Harvey’s delivery.)

And who is this “Chambers” of whom you speak? Not what I consider to be an authoritative source. Next thing, you’ll start quoting that upstart colonial, Webster.

I can do better than that…

The Oxford English Dictionary
Queen’s English noun The English language as correctly written and spoken in Britain.

Click on my name for the link. I suggest that you direct your remonstrations to the “Ask The Experts” link on the right of their web-site page. So there!

I like your post. I agree that it seems hypocritical for atheist materialism to accuse creationists of being out of their field (which they are), when it seems to have no qualms about opining on religion.

And what you will find if you look into this in a bit more detail is that scientists, for the most part, do not comment on religion in any public fora.

What they do comment on from time to time is the way in which religious fundies are trying to undermine science education in the USA and elsewhere, and on the way in which scientific knowledge or discoveries are egregiously misrepreented or heinously under-represented in the mass media, whereas religion and superstitious nonsense (such as astrology) are frequently taken all too seriously by people or organisations with a responsibility to know better.

Recent catastrophes of the sort discussed in the bible (such as the flood a few thousand years ago) would leave obvious, unmistakable signs worldwide. It would affect pretty much everything we see.

Yes, most especially if there had ever been a global flood. If there has ever been a global flood, there would still be a global flood.

Well, Nigel, you were saying…?

The Queen’s English society is wrong, of course. Just because some people have no idea where the term comes from doesn’t mean we should all accept the way they misuse it as correct. What next? You’ll be telling me that languages “evolve”!

And who is this “Chambers” of whom you speak? Not what I consider to be an authoritative source. Next thing, you’ll start quoting that upstart colonial, Webster.

So there.

And then we can start asking that they Teach the Controversy – for example, should we embrace Arianism or Sabellianism? What about Monophysitism or Nestorianism? Much more important than the supposed controversies in evolution!