If man were silicon based instead of carbon based, would that be evidence for Creationism?
830564
YES.\n\nSilicon does not polymerize very well.  Every human being on the planet would be a walking miracle.\n\nThat's NOT, however, to say that silicon based life is impossible, just that it would be markedly different from any we know.
689836
Anything organic contains Carbon, that's why humans are organic beings. Inorganic substances do not contain carbon.
458573
While similar to carbon, silicon does not form double bonds in the way that carbon does. Nor does it form extensive ring compounds. This is ultimately due to the fact that carbon is smaller and more electronegative than silicon. The only way that silicon form complex structures is in conjunction with oxygen and even then, it is more limited than carbon. So it is unlikely that the complexities required for life would be possible for silicon based chemistry. Too bad....
715462
Mars could, since there is carbon there and it's got its own protective layer the only thing left is water.... there is some evidence that mars has got water in it so we could take that risk\n\nanyway if the time comes then we'll probarbly have some way of sombining the hydrogen to the oxygen- making water!
396923
Creationism is based in religion, but there is scientific backing..  The scientific evidence for it is called Intelligent Design and offers a great deal of evidence for a creator.  "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe give a great scientific refutation of macro-evolution (species into species evolution).  If science is the search for truth then all avenues must be explored.  I'm a creationist and a scientist, the best science I've seen supports a creator.  Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution have major flaws and gaps, how did the information in living beings come about.  When we see an ordered room, machine, book, etc. we know an intelligent agent was at work.  Same in nature.  If evolution didn't create things, then there was a creator.  As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, must be true."
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.
589476
The theories could very well be true, unless proven otherwise. If you are looking at it from the theological point of view, then consider this:\n\nThe original ingredients for the single cellular organism from which all life on earth originated must have been placed there by some greater power. Maybe from time to time that power guided evolution to humanity, and maybe later that power will guide evolution to some beings better than us?
75199
well, you are right.  the validity of radiocarbon dating depends on the assumption that the half-life of carbon-14 isotopes does not change with time.\n\nbut, one of the principles of most use in scientific investigations is occam's razor, which says that when presented with a choice, usually the simplest answer is the most correct.  so, it is -assumed- that the half-life was not different a thousand years ago.  however, it is possible.  \n\nbut radiocarbon dates have been validated by other methods (such as counting rings on big trees, for instance) and there is no evidence for any change in the half-life of carbon in the time that the method has been in use.  also, a time-invariant half-life fits in with the current understanding of nuclear decays, so it seems pretty unlikely that it would change over time.\n\nas for the moon, it is not a candidate for carbon dating, which only works on samples that were alive at some point - bones, trees, antlers etc.  the basic idea is that the living organism exchanges carbon with the environment while it's alive, and stops doing so when it dies.  since the proportion of radioactive carbon in the environment is fixed, then when the organism dies, it's decaying carbon-14 content stops being replenished by eating, breathing etc.  so since the moon is mostly rock, and no biological processes exist (that we know of) on the moon, carbon dating doesn't work there.\n\nso anyway, in general i agree that everyone should be a skeptic.  nobody should blindly accept something just because they are told "it is so" but should try to understand the whys and hows and come to understand it themselves!  these days science is treated with almost as much reverence as religion once was.  \n\nlong ago, if the pope said something was so, it was so - and now, if a scientist says something is so, people accept it as so!  unfortunately this is just one of the fundamental problems of human nature - we often accept what we are told because it's told to us by an authority.   so it makes me happy when someone asks questions that challenge the assumptions!
820895
The theory of intelligent design is the same as when the ancient celts said "mushroom circles form because of fairies". Infact their is no evidence of intelligent design at all. Creationist Science is completely non empirical and a total insult to real science. Its either the earth is a giant labratory of differrent combinations of rna that is billions of years old and the universe started with the culmination of a big bang that was created by what quantum physics calls "the quantum bounce effect" or a black hole creating a baby universe. Or... some giant mythological being created a man and a woman from clay in a magic garden 4000 years ago. Thousands of years ago people did not have science and the world was a big and scary place, they were at the mercy of the elements so they used Gods and Goddesses to humanize the world around them. Sooner or later that developed into monothiesm. Then the early christians stole their creator diety from the Hebrew people. Talk about copywriting. However even though their is tons of real evidence backing up the anthropic principle. Millions of people are very primitive and need a diety otherwise their world view is incomplete.
815739
This is a brilliant thought. Please read the book "The Case for Mars" by Dr Robert Zubrin, PhD. for a nuts and bolts down to earth scientific discussion of what it would take to put men on Mars, and ultimately to turn Mars into an Earthlike planet. It is available on amazon.com and in many local bookstores. I highly recommend it.
1034393
The answer *appears* to be yes.  That is the current scientific theory of our origins.  There is no other *scientific* theory that explains what we see.  (I.e. 'something just created/designed everything' is a nice theory, but not a *scientific* theory as it is not testable, makes no predictions, and does not *explain* anything).\n\nAll the evidence points to the fact that every organism on the planet is a product of evolution from ancestral organisms.  This is not just fossil evidence, but genetic evidence linking humans to other apes (like chimps and gorillas), apes to other primates (like monkeys), primates to other mammals (like tigers and tree shrews), mammals to other vertebrates (like birds and salamanders), etc. etc. all the way back to single-celled organisms.  Every step has genetic links ... for example jellyfish are genetically linked to sponges, which have genetic links to amoebazoans, which have genetic links to early bacteria, etc.\n\nAnd the *amount* of genetic linkage can be computed based on the chemistry of a single molecule found in every organism on the planet ... a molecule called DNA.\n\nAnd the order of these genetic links all match up perfectly with order in which the ancestors for each organism appear in the fossil record (i.e. earlier genetic links appear in lower layers of rocks).\n\nAnd the *amount* of the molecular/genetic linkage all matches up with *when* each ancestor appears in the fossil record (i.e. the amount of molecular DNA difference expected based on known mutation rates, matches up perfectly with the ages of the rocks in which the fossils are found). \n\nThat is the evidence.  Those are *facts*.  Those facts are not in dispute, only the explanation for them.  If you can come up with a better *scientific* explanation for this all this evidence ... these observed *facts* ... then you would get the Nobel Prize.
154749
The creationist view is that God spoke, and things came into being.  This is surprizingly interesting, considering some unpublished stuff I've seen concerning possible connections between the quantum foam and actual particles: on the Orion Press website--a TREK fanfiction site, best found by a google search--there is a short story by someone that has obviously ALSO read this stuff: THE HITCHHIKER.\n\nConversly, the evolutionist view is that somehow, there was a major creative event that produced an unimaginably vast amount of matter/energy in what we call our universe.  This stuff cooled and expanded, allowing the four forces we know to condense out, then allowing matter to condense out, then over unimaginably huge stretches of time, the matter condensed into stars, galaxies and whatnot.  Heavier elements (beyond the lithium/boron level) were forged in the hearts of these early stars, and then spewed into space when these stars went nova; a second, and third, etc. generation of stars were born, lived and died, enriching the universe in stuff like carbon and iron and titanium and whatever, to the point that a world like ours could condense out of the mess...\n\nBoth views have their detractors and proponents.  The evolution group call the creationists mindless barbarians; the creationists call the evolutionist group  mechanistic determinists, and folks that extrapolate 'way out of the range that their observations will support...
632
I happen to agree that evolution may not be the way god chose to create the world. There must be an intelligent designer - the more I learn science the more I see that must be true. I've watched dr dinos vids and as a scientist I see a lot of cool stuff, but also a bunch of flaws - I loved his work on dinosaurs though.\nThe only scientific evidence for evolution that really leaves me hanging is radioisotope degradation (I can see around C14, but what about the others)\nAnyone want to explain a way around that...I'd be interested!
729212
NO NO NO!!!\n\nThis is about science and the lack of divine intervention.  The reason the planet seems so perfectly balanced is because it had 4.6 Billion years to get here.  A lot can happen in the trial-and-error game in that amount of time.  The earth evolves, life evolves, the only thing that remains stagnent and vestigial is theism.\n\nWhat you proposed is non-science, it is not a testable hypothesis.  Evolution is a tried and true, uber-tested and passed law of life.\n\nEvery fossil, every observation in biology points to evolution. There is nothing that goes against it or points to a different way to scientifically explain modern diversity. There is not one fossil or one piece of DNA that does NOT point to evolution. It would be hard NOT to see the concrete evidence, and only those blinded by faith can do this.\n\nEvolution is 100% world-wide accepted fact, including the evolution of man.\n\nThere is ZERO evidence for a higher being causing anything. This is why people who are religious need faith, you can't see or study the actions of a deity, by definition. Evolution has ZERO faith and ALL evidence.\n\nScientists (real ones) have been studying and supporting evolution for over 150 years, and still nothing has pointed to creationism. There is clear links and transitional forms between everything in the fossil record to the Class-Family level, if not Genus-Species level. And this includes humans, which there are several 'missing links' which are well described and studied, people just choose to ignore this. Sure, there are still things we don't know, but that's why science is not stagnent and dead. We learn more every day, that's what happens when you keep an open mind and follow the scientific method.\n\nThere are some areas of evolution in which all of the pieces have not been found in the fossil record, but there is no counter theory that has even ONE piece of evidence that can not easily be explained by evolution.\n\nLet me turn the question around, if Creationism was correct and science could definitively prove Creationism (and thus the existence of God), why would they not? That would be the greatest scientific discovery in the history of the world. No one would pass that up to maintain the 'status quo'. There is no conspiracy to hide creation evidence. Anyone who knows real scientists knows they are glory-mongers first. They love to prove others wrong to enhance their own standing. And if any scientist could prove Creation/God, it would've been done a long time ago.\n\nGo to a museum, take a class in biology, go to reputable sites on the Internet (like AAAS: http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution or http://www.talkorigins.org ) and find out for yourself.
213866
Ok. I will take a stab at this one, but a few more details might be helpful if you have specific scientific evidence you wish to be included in with my answer.\n\nFrancis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry. \n\nToday's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility. \n\nTruth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation. \n\nThe reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way: \n\nThe bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum. \nThe God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27) \nWould this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us? \nBelief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealing with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.\n\nThere is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientifi
1122825
nope you cant prove it either way.\n\ni was watching a show on evolution yesterday though and i had an interesting thought.\n\nyou remember hearing that if earths history was an encylopedia that the history of man would only be on like that last half of the last paragraph of the last book?\n\nwell then why didnt intelligent life evolve during that whole time? \n\njust a thought.
504888
There is some weak evidence, but its all incomplete.  Some people who claim that creation is supported by evidence will offer examples like, "A chart of minerals on the sea floor shows no minerals older than a few thousand years"...when in reality this is only a PORTION of a chart that shows minerals millions of years old.\n\nOther theories include "there's not enough mud on the sea floor"...if sediment washes into the ocean as fast as it does, and the only way to dispose of it is through techtonic plates pushing it underground...then there's not enough to support a planet billions of years old.  However, first in order for this arguement to be valid you'd have to support the theory of techtonic plates...which matches continental drift taking millions of years.  Not to mention millions of tons of water and mud can turn the floor into rock.\n\nBottom line, about 1 tenth of 1% of geologists, anthropologists, and life scientists even believe that creation is possible.  These ARE the scientists that do these studies...so clearly scientific theories of creation are not valid.