Creationists- please try and make something clear........?
342382
Adam and Eve lived hundreds of years. By the time Cain and Abel took wives there were sisters, cousins and second cousins all over the place. Remember, there was no TV yet.
955765
I have studied earth science. \nFirst of all, their scientific name is a (best estimate) i.e. in their opinion. so the wee table is just their own version of what refers to modern day equivalent in science. \nThe only evidence they use to suggest the bible is talking about a dinosaur (rather than elephant or hippo) is a tail like a Cedar.  this could apply to crocodile but they don't mention that - apart from to say "oh -BTW it can't be a croc eh?" without actually giving any decent reason as to why.\nI don't know why I can't read Job 41 18-21without realising it breathes fire.  Such obviousness escapes me.  As also does the beetle chat. err...because one thing (and I haven't bothered to look up if it can) breathes fire, another surely can? What - how does that work? Because a flea can jump 50 times it's own heigth, can I? Also, all earth scientist would love to have a fire breathing lizard, but no studies have proved it's existance.   \nThen later (I'm skimming this now, there's loads of made up stuff), they say "Nobody has ever proven that the Bible contains any inaccurately recorded information" - well I'd kind of like to see the other way round.  Proving a negative is, well, impossible.  If I said there is a planet made of jelly a milllion light years away, does that make me correct until proven wrong? \nthen they do that wonderful thing of "hmm yes we have evidence of dinosaurs being created one day before man etc etc...but in order to see it you have to read through pages and pages of more subjective chat", personally I gave up cos if they are that confident they would put there evidence right in their on their page, or at least give a description of how.  \nThis page is someone's belief and doen't make me think anything other than what I have studied through rational science.
430814
I have a question for you. Have you EVER seriously looked at the evidence for either side? I doubt it, because there is evidence to support creationism. Plenty of it, you just have to look for it because it's not in the mainstream sciences. And there is quite a bit of evidence against evolution as well. Two good websites to look at are www.talkorigins.com and www.trueorigin.org. I think that's the website at least.
862281
You must have a lot of time to spare if you invite creationists to "debate" with you. You cannot convince them of the truth because they don't want the truth. They have no understanding of scientific method or principles. The scientific world accepts evolution and continues accumulating molecular evidence that shows beyond any doubt evolution has occurred. There is a Mount Everest of evidence out there, yet every creationist/IDer ignores it. Why? They are not interested in truth.\n\nThe world has moved on - IDers are wallowing in the dark ages. Do yourself a favour, do something where you will achieve an outcome. Talking with creationists won't get you there.\n\n(As a rule of thumb - the more rabid the creationist, the worse the spelling and grammar. There IS a correlation, I swear!)
366809
Another question is: How many creationists have NEVER read anything about evolution except negative propaganda? \n\nThis creationist VS evolutionist debate reminds me of gallelio and medievals when men were prosecuted for heresy for saying such things as how the world wasn't the center of the universe and earth orbited the sun!  I tend to belive most creationists don`t know about that too !!\n\nP.S. isn't it funny that one of the things both christian and muslim fantaics totaly agree with each other about, and use the exactly the same arguments to prove is the falasy of the concept of evolution and the obvious correctness of creationism? :)
387462
Kinda prejudiced in the way you asked, dontcha think?  :-)\n\nThe story of Adam and Eve is a parable.  I don't expect it was meant literally even by the people who wrote it.  I feel very sorry for the small-minded people who have to have the story be "true" in order to see any value to it.\n\nEvery human on the planet has a gene that, if it worked, would make us as furry as chimpanzees are.  It doesn't work, it has a transposon (a type of genetic parasite) stuck in it.  Without that transposon, we'd all have to pay a lot more for shampoo every month!\n\nSo, the question before the creationists is, wherefore doth we have it?  Did God create us with a broken gene, complete with parasite, that we don't even want?  Or were Adam and Eve furry?  So far, I've only found one creationist willing to accept that Adam and Eve were hirsute people.\n\nThere are a thousand arguments like this.  To date, creationists flee in terror from all of them, while presenting the same old, tired, long refuted nonsense in support for their cause.  They cannot explain the pattern of genetic similarity.  They cannot explain how the Great Flood hasn't left the entire surface of the earth salt-infused and sterile.  They cannot explain how any species more complicated than a protozoa survived the flood.  They've got nothing.\n\nResponding to some of the nothing they have:\n\nPopulation Growth:\n\nAssuming a constant rate of population growth is simply naive and silly.  We *know* the population growth hasn't been constant.  Remember the black death?  60% of Europe *died*.  That's not growth!\n\nIf we apply the same argument to fruit flies, we find that the entire earth is covered in fruit flies in a matter of days.  Funny how that hasn't happened.  It's almost as if populations do not experience continuous growth because limits are set by the environment!\n\nAnother fun fact about the constant population growth argument:  If it's true, the Bible LIES!  After all, at the time of Exodus, it says more people left Egypt than existed on earth at the time!\n\nSo, dump the rather silly population growth argument.\n\nDinosaurs:\n\nThere are NO human fossils found with dinosaur fossils.  Not a single one.  You're welcome to point out a specific exception.  There are three sites showing "human" and dinosaur footprints, but Paluxy is a product of wishful thinking and some faking by townsfolk hoping to get more tourist dollars (they admitted this) and the other two (Tuba City and some site in Russia I don't remember) are just really bad fakes.\n\nDinosaurs are not lizards.  Let a lizard grow forever and it will not turn into anything resembling a dinosaur.  This is one of Carl Baugh's silly claims and it causes nothing but ridicule for creationists.  Lizards belong to the suborder Laertes.  They have sprawling legs.  A large lizard has large sprawling legs.  Dinosaurs have legs better mounted. Small dinosaurs have smaller legs.  Small dinosaurs cannot be mistaken for lizards.  (Well, if you're utterly ignorant about biology, I suppose they could.)\n\n(At least Baugh stopped claiming that breathing pure ozone would help you live for hundreds of years, despite the fact that ozone is explosive and poisonous!  But since when has a creationist needed to understand a subject before making declarations about it.) \n\nSea monsters as evidence?  Gee, now that's desperate.  I'm sure you'll present the physical evidence that dinosaurs were fire-breathing next, right?  Sheesh!\n\nOh, and carbon dating has not been "proven wrong".  Not that it matters.  There are thousands of different dating systems.  Carbon dating, by the way, only works on organic materials:  NOT FOSSILS.  Dinosaur fossils are NEVER dated by carbon dating.  So, you're wrong.  Again.\n\nLaw of Angular Momentum:\n\nUm... because other collisions happen?  I know, stunning!\n\nReally dumb argument.\n\nHistoric
1018036
I understand what you're saying -- I believe in the theory of evolution.  But you do realize that people are just going to say God put it there in the beginning?  As fossils -- not as ancient creatures imprinted or encased in stone.
523015
In my experience with creationists in my personal life and profession as a biologist, is that they know enough about evolution to know it is complicated.  Then, they stop and say it is too complicated, rather than try to understand.
859775
The line drawn in the sand has been made worse by the propaganda on evolution by those who DON'T believe that God made the world or even exists. ....and by some Chrisians who want to make the creation account in Genesis a doctrine of salvation.\n\nThese evolutionists who don't even want "intelligent design" mentioned as part of the world coming into being seem to have an anti-God agenda.  And they are using the law to try to have evolution taught as a "fact" and not a theory.    Trouble is, they don't agree with each other and have no proof of what they preach.  They believe in their form of evolution on the basis of their "faith" in their theory.   They are as soundly religious as the preachers who don't want  evolution mentioned .\n\nGod did create the world.  As I have been looking up passages, I am suprised at how many, many times in both the New and Old Testament the Bible  declares that God created the heavens and the earth. He seems to want all to know that it was HE who created all things.\nBut He does not explain how He created it.\n\nThat is my agreement with you.
669415
>>>>Is Creationism really science?\n\nNo. Science requires that a theory be potentially able to be proved wrong by readily collected data. Nobody can provide a list of observations that would falsify creationism. Therefore creationism fails the basic test for being science.\n\n>>>> Is it totally based upon relegious beliefs from the >>>> Bible....\n\nNo, it is mostly based on tradition and superstition. The majority of people who base their religious beliefs on the Bible are not Young Earth Creationists.\n\n>>>>>what is the basis of Evolution?\n\nObservational evidence and repeatable experiments. Over a hundred years of observational evidence and repeatable experiments.\n\n\n>>>Does it have a basis beyond observation?\n\nNot really, unless you want to consider the observation of experimental results "Beyond observation". All science is based on observation of evidence.\n\n>>>> By definition can science, or scientific investigation,\n>>>> include observations beyond the five senses?\n\nOf course it can. Science routinely investigates things like  ultraviolet light or the population dynamics of bacteria or the interactions of subatomic particles. None of those things can be observed with any of the five senses.\n\nScience has no problem with accepting observations beyond the five senses.\n\nThe only requirement is that either the observations be replicable or the conclusions be falsifiable. If disinterested observes can repeat your observations you can use the observations of a Native American spirit guide and still be engaged in top level science.
732459
As science demonstrates the evolutionary process in greater and greater detail, Creationists have to keep refining the rhetoric they use to disregard obvious facts.  They demand demontration of a new species arising, then when you show it to them, they demand a genus.  Show them a genus, they will demand a family.  I've actually seen demands for kingdom shifts.  They demand evolution be reproduced on a laboratory benchtop, but show them the results and they disregard them as artificial.  They claim there are no beneficial mutations, but show them one, and they disregard it for one reason or other.  Show them another that overcomes their objection, and they come up with a new objection.\n\nNothing has been demonstrated to adapt more rapidly than anti-evolution rhetoric.
1035417
Interesting answers so far.  I will add my arguments for fun.  Those who believe in literal Creationism have a few problems answering this simple test.  We can clearly prove that light from distant galaxies have arrived at our location.  That process in the current state of the universe takes billions of years.  So there are two options:  1) God has created the whole ball of wax, and made it look like it was very old,  or 2) God (who is not limited by time anyhow...) created the universe over millions and billions of years.  Why would God deceive us?\n\nAfter you use your brain (created by God to think critically) you hopefully will come to the conclusion as to the age of the world.  Once that is established, many of the questions regarding evolution can be placed in similar context.  Would God evolve hundreds of thousands of species, yet pull man out of a hat a few thousand years ago?  There is no conflict in this view with scripture if you read it to get the message intended.  Scripture is the guidelines for experiencing God, communication with God, not a systematic description of the Universe.\n\nA case in point, in Genesis, before Eve, God gave Adam the job of naming all the plants and animals.  Is that not science?  Of course Adam became bored with that and wanted a woman...  Science, though a holy endeavor, is no substitute for the love of a good woman.\n\nFaith hinges on the unknown.  Once something is known, some portions of what you believe may change.  But, that is peripheral to the core of Christian belief.  For the Christian, faith should be exercised to promote life, not argue about science.  And for science, it is validated only to that which is observable.  Those who try to use science to disprove the existence of God, do not understand science.  At least this is my opinion, for what its worth.
231135
People have trouble accepting evolution for the same reason they had trouble accepting that the Earth was not flat and was not the center of the universe. The funniest thing is when people claim that creationism has been proven or is fact. It's a fact just like it is a fact that the world is flat. It looks that way so it must be true. Since we can't see evolution it must not exist. I also find it amusing that people think that it makes more sense that women were created from a man's rib than that we are the result of evolution.\n\nI've noticed that many people don't understand the theory of evolution, and essentially use that as a basis to attack it. For example, many people will point out that evolution does not explain the origin of the first cells or where matter came from. No duh it doesn't. It's not supposed to. Evolution explains the origin of the diversity of species, not the origin of life. There are other theories that address that issue, and I don't think any of those are accepted as fact. I do, however, think it's a fair bet that life does in fact exist, so it's perfectly valid to construct a theory that presupposes that life exists.\n\nPeople also misunderstand the concept of a scientific theory. What they fail to realize is that most of science is made up of theories, and while many of these theories have been effectively proven true, they're still called theories. Unlike the common English use of theory, in science a theory is an explanation of facts, which is subjected to rigorous scientific testing. Evolution is called a theory not so much because we're not sure if the basic concepts are accurate, but because we are not confident that every single little detail is perfectly accurate. There may be complexities and details that are not yet fully understood, but the basic idea that species evolve and that the process of evolution has resulted in the diversity of life we see today is basically an established fact.\n\nAnother problem that may be partly to blame for the confusion regarding evolution is the presentation of "scientific evidence" by creationists that the claim contradicts the theory of evolution. I often see misleading and incorrect use of scientific data to "disprove" evolution. For example, on prominent creationist website cites a study John A. Eddy and Aram A. Boomazian which they claim says that the sun has been contracting for 400 years when, in fact, the study examined evidence from under 100 years and extrapolated the rest from a single report of the appearance of a solar eclipse in the 1500s. Furthermore, the study was conducted about 50 years ago, and dozens of studies since then have found that the data was based on flawed methodology and the sun is actually not contracting.\nHere's that site:  http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/418/\nAnd some background on the study they cited:  http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html\n\nThe problem is that people read that and believe that evolution has been disprove. I saw someone quote that particular website here on Answers as scientific proof that the theory of evolution was false. The people who wrote the creationist article probably did their research and latched on to the one study that supported their theory, but the people who read it don't know that it is an outdated study, that the conclusion is overinflated (the 400 year thing), or that it contradicts the findings of dozens of more recent and more accurate studies.\n\nApparently the phenomenon of distorting scientific data to further a creationist agenda is fairly widespread. One of my bio profs talked about a particularly egregious example of someone (I don't remember his name) who actually obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology for the expressed purpose of disproving the theory of evolution, and now goes around writing articles that pretty transparent to scientists but are just believable enough to c
1089608
What makes you think that a creationist would concede the validity of the process used to determine the distances?\n\nIt's the same thing with carbon dating fossils.  They don't believe the science.  They can't because any flaw in the word of God as written in the Bible would make all other words in the Bible just as suspect.  Black or white only.  No Grey allowed.
782002
Evolutionists slam creationists for not having facts.\nWhat gets me is they dig up a bone and the bone is a fact. But then they proceed to claim its age as a fact. Sorry, it is not a fact. Determining the age of a bone makes an assumption that cannot be proven because the dating process assumes all things happen at the same rate now as they did long ago. And you can't prove that as a fact.
851956
First, kudos to you for being so open minded.\n\nI haven't read the Nat'l Geo article yet ... but I have it, and am anxious to read it.  Say what you will, the photos are breathtaking (but that's nothing new with Nat'l Geo).  And I have read several Dawkins books, but not that one. \n\nBut without hearing your specific counter-arguments, I don't know how to address them, or why you find the evidence to be "not of such high quality."  The evidence is actually *exceedingly* strong ... and most scientists accept it.\n\nI highly recommend two books in the "Beginners" series.  Specifically, "DNA for Beginners" and "Darwin for Beginners".   Don't be fooled by the cartoon format of these books ... they are excellent introductions to the science.\n\nBut if I can try and guess your point ... if the evidence of genetic linkage with *prehistoric* species is not of "high quality", it's because the DNA molecule (the source of all genetic material for all life on this planet) breaks down rather quickly.  Even a few hundred years is enough to start breaking down the DNA in the remains of animals.  And fossils rarely contain any genetic material.  However, this is not always true.  Occasionally, bone tissue can remain in fossils, and some DNA can be extracted (as we have done with Neanderthal, for example).  But overall, recovering genetic material from prehistoric animals is difficult.\n\nHowever, the genetic links can be reconstructed quite well by examining genetic similarities between living descendants of that prehistoric species.  If living species A, B, and C all have specific genes in common (code for the same protein, same location in the chromosomes, almost identical amino-acid structure), then this tells us that their common ancestor X had these genes.  If there is a fouth species D that has some, but not all the genes shared by A, B, and C ... then this indicates that there is a common ancestor Y that is further back that is the ancestor of all four living species.\n\nFuthermore, there is the concept of the 'molecular clock'.  This is the known rate at which transcription errors (basically 'typos') occur in DNA as it gets passed from generation to generation.  So the number of minor 'typos' found in the DNA of A, B, and C gives us a strong indication of how long ago their common ancestor X lived.  (For more info. see source.)\n\nI hope that helps.  It's hard to be more specific without knowing what your specific objections are.
33692
Beatz, Beatz, Beatz.  What were you thinking?  You should have known that there would be nothing but appeals to ignorance poffered as evidence as answers to your question.  What's worse is that, even though people like Behe make those continual suggestions that a lack of evidence for evolution is evidence for creation, so much of what creationists claim has not been explained has been.  From immune systems to eyeballs, it's all been done in the journals.\n\nI'm not sure which is more pathetic... the fact that the creationist position is based off of a logical fallacy, or that they aren't even right when they keep chanting their "Science hasn't explained this" mantra.  I used to be a Christian, and from that I can say, absolutely, that the kind of lazyness and willful dishonesty displayed by people of this sort is NOT a good way of emulating Christ.\n\nAnyway, I've seen some of your posts, and I like them a lot.  Keep up the good work.\n\n[EDIT]: Jesus Christ Rob... before you open your mouth to talk about thermodynamics again, you might want to, you know, actually learn something about thermodynamics.  You have completely botched both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.  You cannot draw conclusions from flimsy, qualitative, and innacurate paraphrasings of precise quantitative laws.  I'm getting tired of putting this old chesnut back down every time one of Hovind's lackeys digs it up again, so I'm going to send you here:\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html\nand here:\nhttp://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=an6JrBwCTk&isbn=0226075745&itm=1\nand I'll mention these:\n"Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease (and hence going back from higher probability to lower probability) is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun." (See Rob? That's what happens when you ignore that whole "closed system" part of the Second Law).\nand:\n"Evolution no more breaks the Second Law of Thermodynamics than one breaks the law of gravity by jumping up." -Michael Shermer\n\nAnd one other thing: that "mutations are always fatal and not beneficial" stuff is utter bunk.  Everyone reading this now is carring multiple mutant genes.  Can you taste litmus paper?  Or see the 3-D images in the magic eye pictures?  Congratulations: you're a mutant.  There are many very harmful mutations, yes.  But by admitting that, you are also admitting that natural selection does indeed happen.  As for beneficial mutations, those happen also, and have been exhaustively documented:\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html\nhttp://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html\nAnd I'd also like you to ask yourself what makes a mutation beneficial.  And then think about your answer.  And then realize that that is ALSO exactly what is meant by natural selection.