On the other side of things, I’ve never seen evolutionists even bother to address any of these issues, or present evidence like this for their side. Evolutionists kept getting whooped by Creationists in debates, so they stopped doing debates. Instead, they just make claims and engage in a cleansing campaign against anyone that disagrees with them, acting like they are flat-earthers who allow theology to trump science, and they treat even previously well-respected scientists as heretics and refuse to allow them to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and then turn around and say those scientists are loony because they don’t have any recent peer-reviewed work.

Especially for all those here who recognize this phenomenon in the global warming debate, how can you be so blind to the same thing happening in the evolution/Creation debate?!

Gelsomina on December 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Why is it obvious that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days? That certainly isn’t true for anyone who believes in a powerful God who would be capable of creating the earth any way He wished.

For the portions of science where there is observable evidence for or against one of the two theories, it is absolutely legitimate, in a SCIENCE CLASS to discuss whether the theory, whether Creation or evolution, adequately explains the scientific evidence.

And of course there is stringent disagreement between Creation scientists and evolution-believing scientists on the interpretation of the evidence. A Creationist may scientifically observe layers of earth and what bones are found where and conclude that Noah’s flood would be a perfect explanation for how what we find today came to be. An evolution-believing scientist will look at the same evidence and will ignore data that doesn’t fit the evolutionary model of geologic layers of earth, even though the layers are not even in the same order as shown in the current public school textbooks. It is entirely legitimate for anyone, Creationist or not, to be able to hear in a SCIENCE classroom the SCIENTIFIC evidence that a Creation scientist has pointed out.

Creationists are not asking to teach theology in a science class. They are just asking to be allowed to make SCIENTIFIC arguments in support of their theory in a science class. How is that not legitimate?

Why should evolution be a holy grail that can not be challenged with scientific evidence, no matter the motivation of the person doing the challenging.

As far as I know, science gives no explanation for origins of everything.

Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM

The Big Bang.

filetandrelease on December 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM

There is no scientific explanation for the Big Bang.

Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Okay, but the Bible told us about Jericho long before its ruins were discovered. The same with Pontius Pilate. The first proof of his existence was found in the 1960s. It wasn’t just a fairy tale.

It’s obvious that the world wasn’t built in 6 days, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t truth in the Genesis. The problem for us is that it’s told in a metaphorical language that we don’t understand any more, because we have become too materialistic.

Don’t make the same mistake as the guy who said, “The Italians are stupid. I don’t understand a word they say.”

Here’s an are where I’ll disagree with you. In order for an organic organism to have a sort of pre-made resistance stored away to a inorganic or constructed substance would require knowledge of the future and what it will come into contact with upon it’s creation.

Why is that?

I could never have ever been around the cold or flu viruses my entire life. When I came into contact with it most likely I’m definitely gonna get sick. But after that I go and work at an elementary school as a teacher and am around it constantly. I will build resistance even though my body had previously never been exposed to it and was easily succeptable at first.

How is it that you could claim to never been exposed it the cold or flu? You would have to lived in a sterile bubble.
That said, whether cold virus of bacterial infection, your immune system is fighting it off as best it can being aided by the evolution of the laboratory and evolving knowledge of the scientists gaining new information, and not the virus or bacteria.

I disagree with you, that resistances expressed were already contained in organisms genes in the first place. That would require the prescience of an omnipotent being out to make sure the flu never goes away. Never!!!

“I’ll show those humans and their prideful medicines!”

Last bits a joke.

Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Funny stuff.:)

I’m not so sure.
Bacteria don’t “develop resistance”. The ineffectiveness to a particular antibiotic is already there. Either the application of the antibiotic would have killed the entire population of bacteria..in which case there would be none left to ‘develop’ anything, or some bacteria already existing in the colony had a preexisting resistance to the antibiotic.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Here’s an are where I’ll disagree with you. In order for an organic organism to have a sort of pre-made resistance stored away to a inorganic or constructed substance would require knowledge of the future and what it will come into contact with upon it’s creation. Sure, easy place to say, “well that’s god.” But in reality, it seems to be that coming into contact with substances and surviving it can alter or change succeeding generations of genomes.

I could never have ever been around the cold or flu viruses my entire life. When I came into contact with it most likely I’m definitely gonna get sick. But after that I go and work at an elementary school as a teacher and am around it constantly. I will build resistance even though my body had previously never been exposed to it and was easily succeptable at first.

I disagree with you, that resistances expressed were already contained in organisms genes in the first place. That would require the prescience of an omnipotent being out to make sure the flu never goes away. Never!!!

“I’ll show those humans and their prideful medicines!”

Last bits a joke.

Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 5:11 PM

You are correct. No new information (DNA) is generated.

Replace virus with bacteria and the premise is sound.

filetandrelease on December 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I’m not so sure.
Bacteria don’t “develop resistance”. The ineffectiveness to a particular antibiotic is already there. Either the application of the antibiotic would have killed the entire population of bacteria..in which case there would be none left to ‘develop’ anything, or some bacteria already existing in the colony had a preexisting resistance to the antibiotic.

I can live with that, but the difference in concept should be clearly explained to students. It is not, and more often used to discredit anything to do with religion in general.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 5:06 PM

See, look at that! Solutions!