......wouldn't be able to function? I guarantee that every creationist in the world relies on something that is or was much more theoretical than evolution is.
204395
Cherryred64gto- "Dr." Dino has no real degree- it's an honorific title, but has no real validity as a real doctor who went to post-grad school, graduated, and received a sheep skin to prove they ARE a doctor.\n\nAs far as arguments "dr." dino makes, they are usually strawman, ad hominem, circular logic, or just plain errors of logic and reality.\n\nAlso, the term theory shouldn't be used disparagingly, like it's "just a theory" as if it is just someone's opinion or belief system. A theory is second to scientific law only in that it hasn't been proven wrong yet.\n\nAnd a scientific law has been proven to be universally acceptable to the scientific community. The Law of Gravity has been proven correct over and over again, both here on Earth and millions of light-years away, in other parts of our universe.\n\nA theory is a set of observations and evidence that supports an idea construct such as evolution or subatomic theory. (Subatomic as you say "so-called theory" makes it possible to construct the microchips that make your computer do what it does).\n\nA theory such as subatomic theory has some areas that we don't understand, but the lion's share of it we do, so when we completely understand the field of subatomic particles, it won't be a theory any more, but a scientific law. Just because we don't understand something, that doesn't make it false or incorrect- we just don't know enough about it one way or the other.\n\nOne good proof that the theory of evolution is a valid theory is the fact of the rapid change, or evolution, of microorganisms into drug-resistant strains of influenza "flu", tuberculosis "TB", and more recently, the mumps virus.\n\nDr. Dino uses oversimplistic language and seemingly obvious flaws in the theory of evolution to try to prove his point, but mud slinging proves nothing, and he brings nothing to the table that is useful- all he manages to do is confuse the issues and present opinion and assumptions as fact.
500362
That's a great question, esp. since creationists have tried to co-opt evolution to an extent, by saying "Oh, God just took longer than the Bible says" and other claptrap.\n\nI'm not a creationist, but am more interested in the new info on Neanderthals (I majored in Anthropology). Can you add some details to the question and give links to articles? I'd really like to read them! I'm rather behind the times regarding new discoveries, and the Discover Channel's programs about it are SO questionable! I've got to read more!(I'm serious).\n\n***********\n\nThanks---for the links! Can you believe some of the whacko ideas people have? You'd think it hadn't been 150 yrs. since Neanderthal was first found!
517332
"Creation" and "Evolution" are two different processes, I think.\n\nThey are easier to understand for me if I put them into different "frameworks".\n\nIf there shall be some "beginning" of every item in the world, there shall be also "Creation". But, in opposite, if we are satisfied with the idea of constant continuation - without any beginning and any end - we do not have to think this idea anymore.\n\n"Evolution" is something which can be proved everyday. I work as a microbiologist and small modifications of living creatures is very obvious for me.\n\nThere are still many open questions which can be placed between "Creation" and Evolution". One of my "favourite problem" is the beginning of DNA-based living creatures: DNA needs enzymes to be constructed, and enzymes need DNA to be produced. Which is the probability of an event where both DNA and enzymes (and such forms of them which are interconnected!) can be formed exactly in the same time? 0,00000000000000000000....%?\n\nAs a conclusion: I thrust on "Evolution" but I see also "Creation", managed by "X" (you can replace "X" by "God", "Engineer" or whatever you like). They are not alternatives for ones thinking; they have a peaceful coexistence in our world.
573637
Well, I think so.  I'm a biologist who accepts the fact that evolution occurred, but I don't use that to try to prove that God doesn't exist.  I'm also a born-again Christian who doesn't doubt a single word in the Bible.  Evolution is nothing.  I frankly don't see what the big deal about it is.  The real enemy is Materialism- those pseudoscientists who think the physical universe is all that exists.  That's not the same thing as evolultion.  One can still believe in God and simply think evolution was a tool He used at times.  But you can't be a Materialist and still believe in God at all.  People should understand that they're disputing about a worldview, not about facts.
3077
I suggest you do a bit more research on your thermodynamics debate.  Please check out this website, which explains exactly what thermodynamics is, which you seem to be lacking in understanding of:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\n\nSecondly, there are many people that believe that evolution simply doesn't exist.  That all things were created, and that all things will continue to be created by a greater force.  However, as there is no proof, this too remains a theory, however much the creationists dislike it being called thus.\n\nThe problem that i see with the evolution vs creationist issue is that evolution has been proven to take place in the animal kingdom.  We have seen, for example, 2 exact same species grow up in completly different geographical areas and be 100% different from each other.  They evolved from one state into another to adapt to the surroundings of their enviornment.  Creationists attribute this to god giving them new traits, ect, that allow them to interact and adapt with their new surrounding.  Evolutionists, however, can see the 'paper trail', ie the evolutionary trail of these species, from the failed, to the development of traits and abilities over long periods of time.\n\nFossiles, which are one good source of information, are one of the good ways of proving evolution took place.  But, just as the positer said, evolution is indeed a theory at the moment; but we are ever increasingly stepping closer to proving it a reality. Whereas the creationists are still within the 'theory' state, and unfortunatly for them, their 'theory' isn't even a true 'theory'.  It is a simple form of religious-biased fact, instead of a documented possiblity.\n\nSo, are there people out there that don't use the bible to argue against evolution, sure, why not; but most of the time, these people have no clue about the dynamics of evolution and the debate in which it takes place.\n\nAnd, as is typical of any debate that must accept a defeat, creationists have taken a passive aggressive stance, in making pepole believe that god created evolution.  This is laugable at best, because it is one way for a person who believes in creationism, but who also understands that evolution is a possibly, to cop out of the debate and say that 'god' created the premise by which evolution took place.\n\nSounds kind of fishy to me :)
2892
Creation-DNA and the human body are far too complex to be be thrown together by chance.\nDNA is a very complex organic computer program that could never evolve. So either you believe in the ET seed theory, or in a Designer. Evolution requires billions of years to even get to the simple cell. Sorry, the sun would have been too hot only a million years ago to sustain life.\n\nNow, suppose a secular scientist were sent to investigate a meteor that impacted the earth. Upon scraping the crust away, the scientist is amazed to find a perfect, sphere of polished metal. Back at the lab, he sees that he can unscrew the hemispheres apart. Inside he finds a very elaborate system of gyros, propulsion and visual cameras. If damaged, the internal systems can repair itself. Would the scientist marvel at how long it took to have such a mechanism accidently evolve in space? Or would he choose to believe it was created by an advanced designer somewhere outside of terrestial domain? Because he is a secular scientist, he has no problem with thinking the latter. Yet if we say we believe in a Creator, we are branded as unscientific or mindless zealots. Science has its own beliefs and faiths. One of them in nucleonic glue holding like particles together in an atom, or evolution which is merely a theory accepted as fact. It is just an agenda to keep God out of the public arena.
595539
Can creationists be scientists?\nby Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., astrophysics, AiG–USA speaker and researcher\n\nFirst published in\nAnswers Update–USA\nApril 2005\n\nIt has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.”\n\nSeveral years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.” \n\nIn addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2\n\nBut is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?\n\nAlthough evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.\n\nIn fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3\n\nNor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed? \n\nTechnology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.\n\nSo it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics. \n\nConsider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.\n\nToday as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all. \n\nOn the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood). \n\nAdditionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has b
637891
No idea. Evolution and the bible fit perfectly with one another but people want to be their own god so they wont accept creation. Remember God was the first. Before him there were no "days" so a day could mean thousands of years and that would work with evolution.
402498
why not? Makes more sense than creationism..
660207
whoa,thats deep...can we prove that they actually existed? if so,then yes,the poor woman must have gone through alot of pain.if she did exist,i think she would have  died giving birth to her like 10 baby...and men think that they rule humanity...they wouldnt be there if it wasnt for us women ! but,personally,i believe in evolution.
130699
I completely see your point.  It seems like you have really put some thought into this, and you seem very intelligent.  If everyone in the world survives, no evolution will take place for sure.  So at the very least we will be at a standstill.  You sound like someone with good genes though, we should meet and maybe we could improve the gene pool together.
253566
ha ha i knew this would happen \n\nonce people gave up on evolution and had to accept that there is a Creator and Designer that they would start another endless argument
92144
If by some unrealistic chance it were to happen, it doesn't mean that life wouldn't continue.  I would imagine that lesbians and gays would find a way to procreate.  There would be a sort of barter system.  People would recognize the need for civilization to continue and would adapt.
351730
Evolution doesn't cease to exist simply because there is no need for it.  Genetic variation and mutation are always going to occur.  However, the 'natural selection' aspect of it may not be applicable.
13922
O.K. admiralbob! I'm glad your not in charge of everything. Everyone wants to prove how things work, but they can't answer the question as to who made it all happen.....Anyway I've got broadband but the download is taking a minute so based off of others speculation and the website that I observed, I would say SURE THING. God is intelligent so why wouldn't he use science he created it? But yeah! They should use it to teach if they have found that proof! It would really back up the bible too.
97677
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
184741
great point, WHAT if there were no religion at ALL!