Creationism - lets get the facts straight.?
926725
There is considerable evidence -- archaeological, biological, geological, astronomical, cosmological, paleontological -- that shows the biblical account of creation is wrong.\n\nThere is *no* evidence in any scientific discipline that shows the biblical account of creation is correct.\n\nYour point above is just one of many that show how biblical myths came from other cultures -- there are also mythical stories of a garden of "eden", a great flood and a man who built a boat to ride it out, and many others that existed in other cultures (and were written down) in Mesopotamia that pre-date the hebrew stories by centuries or even millenia.  Thinking people, even religious scholars, understand and accept that the biblical stories are just myths and don't ascribe any absolute truth to them, or even attribute them to the hebrews.  Non-thinking people, well, don't think, research, understand -- they just spout dogma.
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.
260278
There is physical evidence supporting evolution.  There is no physical evidence supporting creationism.
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? :)
941143
And I've read many books that prove that the bible is a pile of crap.\n\nSo why do you still believe in the bible, and the discredited theory of creationism?
1133128
I read the answer to the question "How did marsupials get to Australia?" and the article "The Grand Canyon, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid". Is it the same people that say evolutionists have no evidence and that their explanations are ridiculous? Whoa!\n\nGood to know that several christian churchs/organizations accept evolution as a valid theory and that it doesn't contradict their belief. And I wonder too, is it ok for christians to lie in such shameless ways?
842484
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.
1087456
Evolution has scientific evidence. Creationism has none. Progressive creation is a poor compromise that favors religion and there is no evidence for it. Evolution has never been falsified in 150 years.
1097273
Evolution is only a theory.  If it is being taught as "fact" then they are doing you a disservice.
20811
Creationism and evolution are unrelated theories, describing entirely two different things. Creationism says that god created the universe and life on earth.\n\nEvolution says that once life started on earth, however that may have happened, certain natural processes started taking place in which new species evolved. This is undisputable and supported completely by the fossil record. HOW the new species came about has not been completely shown and is a matter of much contention among scientists. It is possible that some supernatural force is behind it, but we will likely never know.
797870
Any creationist who believes things do not evolve are intellectually dishonest.  However, it is reasonable to expect that creationists would have a more limited definition of what 'evolving' encompasses.
37439
Reporting from Argentina :-)\nThere is no such debate here. I work as a teacher and I've been both in public and private colleges, and also in a religious (catholic) one. \nEvolution is accepted and taught everywhere that I'm aware of. \nAlso, the only creationists I know belong to christian evangelist minorities. Two of my best friends are creationists and we've never argued over the matter.\nCatholics here are not intransigent or bigoted; I'm sure there are some who believe in a litteral interpretation of the Bible, but they keep to themselves. \nI'm aware of the debate in the USA, mostly because  in the Evolution course I took we used US textbooks and they had whole chapters about it. We skipped those ;)\nI think it's very sad.
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!)
766101
Creationism is not science and can never be science. A fundamental point of anything scientific is that it is constantly being revised every time a new fact appears. That is the way evolution works. Millions of new facts have appeared since the 1800s and all of them have been able to easily fit into a theory that is flexible and predictive. \n\nOne of the characteristics of science is that it has falsifiability - that is, you have to explain what proof you would accept that your theory is wrong. Evolution would be wrong if there was any meaningful evidence that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. Evolution would be wrong if there was no evidence that animals are related to each other. But despite desperate searching, the anti-evolutionists have not come up with any evidence for either of these points. \n\nOn the other hand, the creationist guys refuse to explain what evidence they would accept that creationism is wrong. That alone means that they cannot be regarded as scientific and that alone makes their viewpoint a religious one which ought to be excluded from science classrooms. That is the legal position in the USA, confirmed over and over by many courts - most recently last summer when a very conservative judge appointed by President Bush threw out a case where some Pennsylvania religious fanatics were trying to get creationism taught in school. The judge gave them a tongue lashing and told them to stop wasting the court's time!
1103745
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AskXuePpa94gGx4SZ6MNFDfsy6IX?qid=20060614234609AACFh0S\n\nCheck out fs, pastorJ and ddead_alive's comments. One of them actually included the infamous "banana argument," which, unbeknownst to creationists, is the laughing stock of intelligent people everywhere.\n\nAnd also: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkEkeuFumUCm_Sh38t1sUXzsy6IX?qid=20060611215843AAGeScT\n\nI provided scientific evidence refuting jayslug's idiotic claims, and he admitted that he completely ignored them, so I reiterated my scientific stance in the "Add a comment" part.\n\nAnd personally, I'm going to vomit if I have to read the word "evolutionist" one more time. The word is "scientist." Also, I'll hurl if I hear one more person say that there is no evidence for evolution, there is no science behind evolution, it is just a theory (which means it is accepted as a fact by the scientific community), and will never be proven (no theory in the history of science has been "proven").\n\nEdit (To Jackson): The "cop-out" theory that the universe has always existed is the most scientific and logical theory, and is accepted by most scientists. Due to the law of conservation of mass and energy, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and therefore, the matter that comprises the universe has always existed.\n\nAs far as the "life from lifelessness" goes, I'm guessing that you are unfamiliar with the famous Miller-Urey experiments, in which it was found that amino acids, the building blocks of life, can be produced from non-living elements. I would suggest you educate yourself before asking stupid questions. Start here:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey\n\nEdit (To g2gtech): I'm not totally sure (or at all sure) that this guy understands what the fossil record is, how minuscule of a time 500 years is in a geological sense, and, well, this person's last point is completely irrelevant to any evidence that I've ever heard regarding the theory of evolution.\n\nEdit (To birddawg): I would be highly interested in seeing your sources for the Albert Einstein quote, because I happen to have a few works of his, and he was an atheist.\nFrom The Princeton University Press:\n\n"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and have never denied this but expressed it quite clearly. If something is in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."\n\nAnd from The New York Times:\n\n"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own--a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."\n\nAnd from The New York Times Magazine, in an article entitled "Religion and Science":\n\n"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere...Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."\n\nAnd as far as other famous scientists go, Steven Hawking, Carl Sagan, Thomas Alva Edison, Sigmund Freud, Francis Crick, James Watson, Richard Feynman, Albert Schweitzer, Ernst Mayr, Charles Proteus Steinmetz and Thomas Szasz are all either atheists, or highly skeptical of the idea of god and
222212
OK, I will put this nice and simply.  There is absolutely no scientifically credible evidence that supports creationism, or the idea that we originated from two individuals.  Faith is a wonderful thing but is not a substitute for evidence.
510900
If the Bible is true then it belongs to another Universe. All the laws of Science and not just evolution will be false in such a scenario.\n\nThe Bible says the world began 5000 years ago.\n\nScience says its been around for 4.5 billion years.\n\nAnd Science is not false.\n\nYou accept Einstein's theory but not that of the evolutionists. \n\nThis only enforces the fact that RELIGION IS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE.\n\nYou are only trying to play off one theory against the other without understanding that they are all part of the grand framework\n\nDo you have any evidence that Eden existed ?\n\nListen, this forum is for meaningful constructive discussion. Please move all your banterings on "GOD" and "religion" elsewhere.