Pope: Creationism, Evolution Not at Odds

[artsylady]

The pope has fallen for the lies. They are everywhere. Almost every day when I open my Internet to any news site, the word 'evolution' is there somewhere among the science pages. They are constantly bombarding the media with 'new discoveries'. Yes, the discoveries are 'new' and what happens is that these new discoveries fall in the face of contemporary evolutionary thought, so the theories that come with the change are also new theories. It's almost as though a brand new 'missing link' has been discovered daily, although this isn't what has happened.

The theories have to change almost daily in light of new discoveries that change the existing thought that yesterday was truth and set in stone. Proponents of evolution somehow are brainwashed enough to beleive that because the theories are in constant change, this is somehow a strength of the theory of evolution. It's mass media brainwashing and astouding to witness.

The pope is fallable. He's human and he's fallen for it.

[thesorgo]

The pope has fallen for the lies. They are everywhere. Almost every day when I open my Internet to any news site, the word 'evolution' is there somewhere among the science pages. They are constantly bombarding the media with 'new discoveries'. Yes, the discoveries are 'new' and what happens is that these new discoveries fall in the face of contemporary evolutionary thought, so the theories that come with the change are also new theories. It's almost as though a brand new 'missing link' has been discovered daily, although this isn't what has happened.

The theories have to change almost daily in light of new discoveries that change the existing thought that yesterday was truth and set in stone. Proponents of evolution somehow are brainwashed enough to beleive that because the theories are in constant change, this is somehow a strength of the theory of evolution. It's mass media brainwashing and astouding to witness.

The pope is fallable. He's human and he's fallen for it.

No scientific theory has ever been set in stone. I assume that you're a IDist or a new world creationist. Tsk Tsk, brainwashed by the church.

[artsylady]

But evolutionists would have you believe that their theories HAVE been set in stone. Agree?

I'm not brainwashed by any means. I don't see headlines of creationism anywhere at any time. I choose to think the way I want to think. Brainwashed by the church? The church that I"ve been attending for 7 years hasn't said a word about creation nor evolution, so no, I am definitely not that.

I like to get a balanced view. I take a look around me and figure out which one makes more sense.

[artsylady]

"That's right, artsylady, all those evil scientists are out to get you. It's all a huge plot to discredit the Bible. (sigh) "

The scientists are merely pawns. They, for the most part, also beleive the lies.

QUOTE

Almost every day when I open my Internet to any news site, the word 'evolution' is there somewhere among the science pages.

"That's probably because every day, evolutionary thought is reinforced by new discoveries. "

Yes, new discoveries that change previous ones!

QUOTE

Yes, the discoveries are 'new' and what happens is that these new discoveries fall in the face of contemporary evolutionary thought, so the theories that come with the change are also new theories.

"You must be reading different news sources to me. All the ones I read talk of slight modifications, or better understanding of the theory, not re-writing. The essentials of evolutionary theory haven't changed for 150 years. Understanding of the mechanisms has. It's only certain Protestant Christian churches, the muslims and the hindus who have reverted to mediaeval thinking."

You will have to admit that there is probably NO single evolutionary theory, dinos to birds, or whales to cows, that ALL evolutionists agree upon. That's because the evidence points in different directions depending on your beliefs.

QUOTE

Proponents of evolution somehow are brainwashed enough to beleive that because the theories are in constant change, this is somehow a strength of the theory of evolution. It's mass media brainwashing and astouding to witness.

The pope is fallable. He's human and he's fallen for it.

"He certainly is fallible. However, despite his upbringing, he's bright enough to recognise reality when he sees it. You see, he has a problem. The only evidence for creationism is Genesis, written by Israelite priests, who borrowed it from the Phoenicians, who took it from the Babylonians, who took it from the Sumerians, who quite likely took it from somewhere in India. This particular piece of evidence can be entirely dismissed after 5 minutes looking at a rock face.

When it comes to evidence for evolution, we er, well, er, we actually have some. "

You have the same problem creation scientists have. They use the same evidence you do. Neither theory is observable, testable, etc, according to the scientific method. Do you understand this?

[artsylady]

There seems to be this misconception out there that creation scientists aren't real scientists. Is this really the case?

[artsylady]

My understanding is that based on evidence, they beleive that flooding did occur all over the globe. But not all at the same time. True?

[artsylady]

"Evolution is observable - we can see the fossils in the rocks, neatly lined up in order."

Even if it was true, this is not the kind of observable evidence that the scientific method requires, as I beleive you know.

If it is, then fossil graveyards are 'observable' evidence to prove the great flood.

[artsylady]

"Pray tell, Artsylady, in whose hands are the the poor deluded scientists just pawns? I need to know who these evil people are. "

Satan, but then again his greatest trick was convincing people he doesn't even exist.

Not the little red guy with horns that sits on your shoulder tempting you to eat that donut. God's adversary who will do anything to keep people from knowing the truth.

As well, it could be on a more human level than this.

What if suddenly they decided that the evidence for evolution was still severely lacking and they weren't going to go looking for or studying to find evidence anymore. What about all of those grants, taxpayers dollars? What would all of those scientists DO?

"QUOTE

Yes, the discoveries are 'new' and what happens is that these new discoveries fall in the face of contemporary evolutionary thought, so the theories that come with the change are also new theories.

What? "fall in the face of evolutionary thought"? You are joking, aren't you?"

Not at all. All of the evidence used in the scopes trial has since been thrown out. As today's information comes in, yesterday's theories are reworked. There aren't any evolutionary theories that all evolutonists can agree upon. Except that evolution happened of course.

Think about this. If half the evolutionists beleive their theory is correct and the evidence is substanstial for it and the other half of evolutionists beleive their theory is correct and the evidence is substantial for it, and these two evolutionary theories contradict each other.... what does THAT tell you?

"QUOTE

You will have to admit that there is probably NO single evolutionary theory, dinos to birds, or whales to cows, that ALL evolutionists agree upon. That's because the evidence points in different directions depending on your beliefs.

I don't have to admit any such thing. To be sure there is a little controversy as to whether a particular dinosaur leads to birds or a sllghtly different reptile, but to announce with certainty that this is 'different directions' is nonsensical. All your ideas about evolution seem to have come from creationist web sites. And it's not whales to cows, it's an ancestor of cows to whales, by the way. How many books on evolution have you read? My guess is 'none'."

Make no mistake about it, there is a big difference between whether dinosaurs evolved into birds or reptiles!!!

How many creationists books have you read?

Actually most of my ideas come from my own critical thinking. I tend to think more philisophically about the whole controversy as you may have noticed.

"QUOTE

You have the same problem creation scientists have. They use the same evidence you do. Neither theory is observable, testable, etc, according to the scientific method. Do you understand this?

No, not at all. Your idea of science seems confused. Evolution is observable - we can see the fossils in the rocks, neatly lined up in order. "

Not always.

And besides, if there had been a flood, some animals would have died, first, followed by others.

"We can repeatedly observe them in rocks of the same age, and not in rocks of different ages. We can also observe evolution in the microbiology lab in real time. "

A species change is observed?

"How observable do you want? A video tape of dinosaurs changing to birds? Testable? That's how they found the intermediates. That's how they created a chicken with teeth. Then there's DNA. Game, Set and Match to evolution.

To overthrow this paradigm, creationists need to come up with a second piece of evidence to weigh against the several million for evolution. Is there any on the horizon?"

Polystrate fossils are quite an obvious problem for the whole geologic column.

Millions of fossils don't make a million peices of evidence for evolution.

These animals were fossilized during flooding.

What do you think? They just died and hung around long enough to be fossilized, without decaying or being eaten by scavengers? They were obviously buried by sediment.

[artsylady]

"Yeah, he sure convinced me. Is God not capable of smiting him down? After al, he did most of the universe in a day. Seems reasonable that he could swat Satan before his afternoon nap."

That is one of the questions that I have no answer to, other than man chose sin and allowed him free entry unfortunately.

"Ahhhhh, donuts.... No, stop me, I'm becoming Homer Simpson!"

Back to the subject at hand, the devil exists, donuts exist, Homer Simpson doesn't. He's not really real. But look at how much impact he's had on our society!

"QUOTE

What if suddenly they decided that the evidence for evolution was still severely lacking and they weren't going to go looking for or studying to find evidence anymore. What about all of those grants, taxpayers dollars? What would all of those scientists DO?

The drug companies always need good biologists. The pay's much better too."

I don't think they'll need that many.

"QUOTE

Not at all. All of the evidence used in the scopes trial has since been thrown out.

Scopes Trial? that was back in 1925!!! That's more than half way back to Darwin's original book. Artsylady, you really need to read something more recent."

What I'm trying to say is this. Evolution was soooo convincing back in 1925 because of all of what they then thought was 'evidence'. In fact, the then evidence looked soooo convincing at the time, that it was actually used to change the laws to allow the teaching of evolution. And since that time, all of that 'evidence' has been thrown out. If you were zapped back into 1925 knowing what you know now, would YOU still change the laws to allow the teaching? (It's a loaded question to be sure)

"QUOTE

Think about this. If half the evolutionists beleive their theory is correct and the evidence is substanstial for it and the other half of evolutionists beleive their theory is correct and the evidence is substantial for it, and these two evolutionary theories contradict each other.... what does THAT tell you?

It tells me that one party is wrong, and more evidence may be required. Or, one party is simply wrong, and the correct view will prevail eventually."

More evidence is required to be sure. Enough evidence to support one theory over another is obviously lacking.

I think it's funny that you beleive that although both parties passionately beleive the other to be wrong, you cannot imagine that they are both wrong.

I can quite easily.

"QUOTE

Make no mistake about it, there is a big difference between whether dinosaurs evolved into birds or reptiles!!!

Indeed. You mis-understood my sentence. I meant that the difference is between dinosaurs becoming birds, or another reptile becoming birds."

Oh, sorry. I had never heard they evolved into reptiles, but I think that's a theory that should be embraced! I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find overwhelming evidence to support that.

"QUOTE

How many creationists books have you read?

None. I haven't read any fairy tales since I was six or seven ."

Hmmmm. What does this statement say about YOU? You liken the beleif to a fairy tale, then spend your life fighting against the fairy tale.... Could it be MORE than a fairy tale? Could it be that comparing it to a fairy tale puts your conscience at ease? Eases any guilt? As you can laugh about something you don't have to take it seriously. From my standpoint, satan himself has done a good number on you bud.

"QUOTE

And besides, if there had been a flood, some animals would have died, first, followed by others.

I'd suggest that once the Earth was flooded to 20 feet or more, all the animals would die more or less at the same time. Then we'd see their fossils hydrologically sorted, ie biggest on top. We'd see every fossil species throughout the sediments."

Every species?

"We wouldn't see simpler creatures at the bottom, then more complex evolved creatures above them, like we do."

I thought they figured out that the trilobite wasn't so simple after all?

And what about the coelocanth? There are many 'living fossils' that create anomalies to your theories.

We wouldn't see layers of echinoids in chalk, for example, separated neatly from the next layer, with subtly changed body shapes, followed by further layers of the same. "

We WOULD see a few polystrate fossils and fossils that aren't in the 'correct' order if there was a flood.

"QUOTE

A species change is observed?

Yes. In many, many experiments."

A species changed to another species you mean?

"QUOTE

Polystrate fossils are quite an obvious problem for the whole geologic column.

Not really. They are laid in very rapid deposits, eg the trees in Mount St Helens is the usual quoted instance. Sometimes 50 feet of rock face represents millions of years of sediment (eg chalk, limestone), other times it represents an afternoon's events (eg volcanic tuff)."

Thank God Mt St. Helens happened during our lifetime and we could observe this happening. That was a big point for the creation scientists.

I'll get into more detail about the polystrate later tonight or tomorrow.

QUOTE

"A few were buried by flooding, but the vast majority weren't. Buried by sediment, yes. Most marine fossils fall to the bottom of the ocean (or lived there anyway), and got buried by the soft sediment that you typically see at the bottom of the sea. The actual creatures often do get scavenged, or rot away. It's their hard parts that get fossilised, not their bodies. Others get their dead bodies swept up by rivers, and are buried in the sediment of the river deltas. Others fall into lakes. Some get buried by exceptional high tides. Others die in deserts, and dry out, then get buried by sand. Sometimes, the hard parts disappear entirely, and minerals leach from the surrounding rock, and create a metal replacement. You can tell from the sediment, in which sort of environment fossilisation occurred.

There are also 'trace fossils'. for example, spider tracks have been found in desert sandstone formations. Unless they were equipped with scuba gear , I'd suggest that these were created in a dry environment, not a flood. I could show you a local beach where footprints of Iguanadons are very common. They trod by an ancient lakeshore, then their footprints were filled in by further sediment. If all this was near the end of a global flood, there is no way that these could be preserved, it needs gentle conditions."

Footprints and spider tracks need gentle conditions I agree. Whole animals do not.

[Guest]

davem Yeah, he sure convinced me. Is God not capable of smiting him down? After all, he did most of the universe in a day. Seems reasonable that he could swat Satan before his afternoon nap.

Dave